Summary and Conclusions

When making choices about drowning prevention interventions in their areas, decision makers must balance a sincere desire to protect the public with "real-world" issues of budgets and legal liability. In this report, we have attempted to provide useful information and relevant questions that can be applied when making these decisions. One effective drowning prevention intervention is to provide trained, professional lifeguards to conduct patron surveillance and supervision at aquatic facilities and beach areas.

USLA data during 1988-1997 indicate that more than three-quarters of drownings at USLA sites occurred at times when beaches were unguarded and that the chances of drowning at a beach protected by lifeguards trained under USLA standards is less than one in 18 million. The four case studies provided in this report also describe the positive impact of lifeguards at beaches where multiple drownings had occurred when unguarded. When lifeguards are employed, it is vital that they be trained effectively in detecting persons in distress, and when assigned to water surveillance not be given duties other than public safety. The presence of lifeguards may deter behaviors that could put swimmers at risk for drowning, such as horseplay or venturing into rough or deep water, much like increased police presence can deter crime. Also, the experiences of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers suggests that environmental design changes (at inland lakes) and safety information campaigns can also play a role in reducing drowning deaths. Owners and managers of natural water recreation venues should consider these design characteristics, regardless of the presence or absence of lifeguards.

Regardless of the evidence, or lack thereof, of lifeguard effectiveness, some communities insist on lifeguard services, based on local circumstances. Policy makers need to make use of the available local evidence and consider public attitudes and the legal environment when making decisions about lifeguard services and other means for increasing public safety in aquatic settings. Providing a safe aquatic environment and instituting programs to prevent water-related injury or death offer significant economic savings. Table 2 in the Appendix can serve as a useful tool for estimating the human and economic impact of not providing lifeguards.

Finally, if a community develops water recreational facilities to attract patrons who spend money in the local area, then it can be argued that the community has an obligation to protect these patrons. When weighing the costs and legal implications of interventions to prevent drowning, decision makers should never lose sight of the enormous importance of protecting people from harm and preventing tragedy at beaches and pools, places where people go for pleasure, for health, and for solace.