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.
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% | 6 |
| 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 | 15% | – | 15% | 69% | 13 |
| 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 | – | – | 33% | 67% | 3 |
| 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 | – | – | 12% | 88% | 16 |
| 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 more NFIRS help?
Here are some useful ressources to learn more about NFIRS.
NFIRS Codes Cheat Sheet – NFIRS Coding – NFIRS Examples – FDIDs – POCs – NFIRS Transactions – NFIRS Modules – NFIRS Elements – NFIRS Rules – NFIRS Reference – NFIRS Compliant ?
You can also read this NFIRS 5.0 Complete Reference Guide, and NFIRS 5.0 Design documentation in order to have a deeper understanding of NFIRS 5.0. Here are also NFIRS 5.0 Forms ready for you to download and use.
We are here to help, Feel free to contact us if you need any additionnal informations.
Last Updated on June 27, 2023