Fire Service Information - Fire Service Department Types - Fire Service Personnel

powered by Responserack National Fire Incident Reporting System. Reporting by Responserack Fire Department NFIRS RMS.
 

Texas 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 Texas 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 Texas

Percentages are intentionally rounded for simplicity not precision, so please use them as insights only.

County Career Mostly Career Mostly Volunteer Volunteer Total
Anderson 8% - - 92% 13
Andrews - - - 100% 1
Angelina 20% - - 80% 10
Aransas - - - 100% 4
Archer - - - 100% 6
Armstrong - - - 100% 3
Atascosa - - 25% 75% 4
Austin - 20% - 80% 5
Bailey - - - 100% 1
Bandera - - - 100% 7
Bastrop - - 22% 78% 9
Baylor - - - 100% 1
Bee - - - 100% 6
Bell 33% - 13% 53% 15
Bexar 28% 22% 12% 38% 32
Blanco - - 50% 50% 2
Borden - - - 100% 1
Bosque - - - 100% 10
Bowie 15% - 23% 62% 13
Brazoria 4% 4% 8% 83% 24
Brazos 33% - - 67% 6
Brewster - - - 100% 3
Briscoe - - - 100% 2
Brown 10% - - 90% 10
Burleson - - - 100% 6
Burnet 14% - 14% 71% 14
Caldwell - 9% 9% 82% 11
Calhoun - 17% - 83% 6
Callahan - - - 100% 5
Cameron 44% - 22% 33% 9
Camp - - 50% 50% 2
Carson - - - 100% 3
Cass - - 18% 82% 11
Castro - - - 100% 2
Chambers - - - 100% 7
Cherokee - 11% 11% 78% 9
Childress - - 100% - 1
Clay - - - 100% 10
Cochran - - - 100% 2
Coke - - - 100% 2
Coleman - - 50% 50% 2
Collin 33% 11% 28% 28% 18
Collingsworth - - - 100% 1
Colorado - - - 100% 8
Comal 33% 33% 33% - 6
Comanche - - 17% 83% 6
Concho - - - 100% 3
Cooke - 11% 11% 78% 9
Coryell - 11% - 89% 9
Cottle - - - 100% 1
Crane - - - 100% 1
Crockett - - - 100% 1
Crosby - - - 100% 3
Dallam - - 50% 50% 2
Dallas 74% 15% 4% 7% 27
Dawson - - 100% - 1
De Witt - - 25% 75% 4
Deaf Smith - - 100% - 1
Delta - - - 100% 3
Denton 33% 28% 17% 22% 18
Dickens - - - 100% 2
Dimmit - - - 100% 3
Donley - - - 100% 3
Duval - - - 100% 2
Eastland - - 38% 62% 8
Ector 50% - - 50% 2
Edwards - - - 100% 1
El Paso 22% - 11% 67% 9
Ellis 6% 31% - 62% 16
Erath - 11% 11% 78% 9
Falls 20% - - 80% 5
Fannin - 12% - 88% 8
Fayette - - - 100% 7
Fisher - - - 100% 2
Floyd - - - 100% 2
Foard - - - 100% 1
Fort Bend 12% 35% 12% 41% 17
Franklin - - - 100% 3
Freestone - - - 100% 7
Frio - - - 100% 2
Gaines - - - 100% 2
Galveston 13% 7% 13% 67% 15
Garza - - - 100% 1
Gillespie - - 17% 83% 6
Glasscock - - - 100% 1
Goliad - - - 100% 3
Gonzales - - 20% 80% 5
Gray 33% - - 67% 3
Grayson 12% 6% 18% 65% 17
Gregg 22% 22% 22% 33% 9
Grimes - 17% - 83% 6
Guadalupe 23% 8% - 69% 13
Hale 25% - - 75% 4
Hall - - 50% 50% 2
Hamilton - - - 100% 4
Hansford - - - 100% 2
Hardin - 14% - 86% 7
Harris 22% 11% 39% 28% 46
Harrison 11% - 11% 78% 9
Haskell - - - 100% 4
Hays 20% 10% 30% 40% 10
Hemphill - - - 100% 2
Henderson 5% - 5% 89% 19
Hidalgo 6% 41% 6% 47% 17
Hill 7% - 13% 80% 15
Hockley - - 25% 75% 4
Hood - - - 100% 9
Hopkins 10% 10% 10% 70% 10
Houston - - 12% 88% 8
Howard 50% - - 50% 2
Hudspeth - - - 100% 2
Hunt 10% - 10% 80% 10
Hutchinson 25% - 25% 50% 4
Jack - - 25% 75% 4
Jackson - - 25% 75% 4
Jasper - - - 100% 9
Jeff Davis - - - 100% 2
Jefferson 30% 10% 20% 40% 10
Jim Hogg - - 100% - 1
Jim Wells 33% - - 67% 3
Johnson 17% 8% 25% 50% 12
Jones - - - 100% 5
Karnes - - - 100% 2
Kaufman 7% 7% 13% 73% 15
Kendall - - 25% 75% 4
Kenedy - - 100% - 1
Kerr 17% - - 83% 6
King - - - 100% 1
Kleberg - 33% - 67% 3
Knox - - - 100% 3
La Salle - - 100% - 1
Lamar 6% - 6% 88% 17
Lamb - - 17% 83% 6
Lampasas - 25% - 75% 4
Lavaca - - 20% 80% 5
Lee - - - 100% 6
Leon - - - 100% 9
Liberty - - 23% 77% 13
Limestone - 11% - 89% 9
Lipscomb - - - 100% 3
Live Oak - - - 100% 3
Llano 20% - - 80% 5
Lubbock 9% - 18% 73% 11
Lynn - - - 100% 3
Madison - - - 100% 2
Marion 20% - - 80% 5
Martin - - - 100% 2
Mason - - - 100% 2
Matagorda - - - 100% 7
Maverick - 100% - - 1
McCulloch - 17% - 83% 6
McLennan 17% 6% 17% 61% 18
Medina - - - 100% 8
Menard - - - 100% 2
Midland 33% - 33% 33% 3
Milam - - 20% 80% 5
Mills - - - 100% 3
Mitchell - - 33% 67% 3
Montague - - 12% 88% 8
Montgomery 18% 29% 29% 24% 17
Moore - - 50% 50% 2
Morris - - - 100% 5
Motley - - - 100% 1
Nacogdoches 9% - - 91% 11
Navarro 7% - 7% 87% 15
Newton - - - 100% 4
Nolan 20% - - 80% 5
Nueces 38% 25% 12% 25% 8
Ochiltree - - 100% - 1
Oldham - - - 100% 3
Orange 14% - 29% 57% 7
Palo Pinto - 10% - 90% 10
Panola - - 50% 50% 4
Parker - 7% 20% 73% 15
Parmer - - - 100% 4
Pecos - - - 100% 3
Polk - - - 100% 9
Potter 67% - 33% - 3
Presidio - - - 100% 2
Rains - - - 100% 2
Randall - - 40% 60% 5
Reagan - - 100% - 2
Real - - - 100% 2
Red River - - 11% 89% 9
Reeves - - - 100% 1
Refugio - - - 100% 4
Roberts - - - 100% 1
Robertson - - - 100% 2
Rockwall 20% 40% 40% - 5
Runnels - - 50% 50% 2
Rusk - - 9% 91% 11
Sabine - - - 100% 7
San Augustine - - - 100% 4
San Jacinto - - - 100% 9
San Patricio 12% 12% - 75% 8
San Saba - - - 100% 2
Schleicher - - - 100% 1
Scurry - - 100% - 1
Shackelford - - - 100% 2
Shelby - - 20% 80% 5
Smith 8% 8% 38% 46% 13
Somervell - - 100% - 1
Starr 17% - 83% - 6
Stephens - 50% - 50% 2
Stonewall - - - 100% 1
Sutton - - - 100% 1
Swisher - - - 100% 4
Tarrant 61% 6% 14% 19% 36
Taylor 11% - - 89% 9
Terrell - - - 100% 1
Terry - - 100% - 1
Throckmorton - - - 100% 1
Titus - - 20% 80% 5
Tom Green 27% - - 73% 11
Travis 54% 46% - - 13
Trinity - - - 100% 3
Tyler - - - 100% 9
Upshur - - 9% 91% 11
Uvalde - - 20% 80% 5
Val Verde 67% - - 33% 3
Van Zandt - 10% - 90% 10
Victoria 11% - - 89% 9
Walker - 17% 17% 67% 6
Waller - - - 100% 7
Ward - - - 100% 4
Washington - - 14% 86% 7
Webb 25% - 25% 50% 4
Wharton - - - 100% 5
Wheeler - - - 100% 3
Wichita 29% - - 71% 7
Wilbarger - 100% - - 1
Willacy - - - 100% 3
Williamson 22% 22% 17% 39% 18
Wilson - 17% 17% 67% 6
Winkler - - - 100% 2
Wise - - 18% 82% 17
Wood - - 9% 91% 11
Yoakum - - - 100% 1
Young - 33% - 67% 3
Zapata - 100% - - 1
Zavala - - - 100% 1

Firefighter / Personnel Numbers of Texas

Here the personnel numbers by county for volunteer and career agencies within Texas.

Looking for NFIRS FDIDs?

Here are the fire department identifiers (FDIDs) for agencies within Texas. 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.
 
 
Was this helpful? Please share...

Need more NFIRS help?

Need more help with NFIRS, or not yet found what you are looking for? Please see if these help …