Some fire departments have submitted applications annually to the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program without success, while other departments have received numerous grants. This is creating frustration.
I realize the FIRE Grants are a touchy subject, especially because the funds are fought for every year. Still, early this year I wrote to one of the leaders at the U.S. Fire Administration and asked if it might be beneficial to limit how frequently a fire department could receive a FIRE Grant — for example, if a department receives a FIRE Grant one year, then it would have to wait one year before it could apply again. This would help spread the money a little further.
The reply was that it would be difficult to monitor who received grants and when they received them. Perhaps this was their way of saying don’t question the FIRE Grant money or it might disappear.
Recently I visited the DHS’s FIRE Grant Web site, in particular to look at the Fire Prevention & Safety Grant program, which is the smallest portion of the FIRE Grant program.
On the Web site, the 2004 Fire Prevention & Safety Grants weren’t broken out separately, but of the 534 grants awarded that year, only 15 of the grants were for more than $600,000. In 2005, the FP&S Grants were listed separately and of the more than 300 grants, 18 were awarded for more than $650,000. In 2006, of the 230 grants, 22 awarded for more than $750,000.
In 2004, no Fire Prevention & Safety Grant exceeded $750,000. In 2005, four were for $1 million and in 2006 six were for $1 million.
The state of Indiana was awarded $5.8 million in FP&S grants between 2004 and 2006. These grants were awarded to three organizations: Indiana University for Fire Prevention (each of the three years, totaling $2.7 million), the Trustees of Indiana University for Research ($1 million), and the People’s Burn Foundation of Indiana Inc. ($2.1 million).
The International Association of Fire Fighters and the IAFF Burn Foundation received three consecutive annual awards each, totaling nearly $5 million. The National Fire Protection Association has received awards totaling $4.7 million. The International Association of Fire Chiefs ($2.7 million), the National Volunteer Fire Council ($2.6 million) and the Home Safety Council ($2.6 million) also rank high among organizations receiving top dollars.
And scattered among these high dollar figures were $8,100 for the Scott (La.) Volunteer Fire Department, $7,978 for the Lincoln (Mass.) Fire Department, and a meager $639 for North Bay Firefighters and Community Education program in Niceville, Fla.
Fire prevention and safety education traditionally have been the last fire department functions to receive funding. The FIRE Grants have helped change that, and the focus on fire prevention in communities, safety for firefighters and emergency workers, and much-needed research the grants have allowed should have an impact. The frequency of some of the grant awards must mean that progress is being made.
Still, this year’s firefighter fatalities are estimated to exceed last year’s numbers, and there are more multiple-fatality fires this year than last.
What more can we do? Or is money the only answer?
October 19th, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
I couldn’t agree more about limiting how often you can receive these grants. I know in Pennsylvania for the Department of Forestry grants you can only apply every 7 years. This allows all companies to have a chance at getting money.
October 19th, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
“The reply was that it would be difficult to monitor who received grants and when they received them.”
WHAT??????
Do they really mean to tell us that they cannot keep track of their own monies and how they are administered? Are they in such turmoil that they need to use such an excuse?
I’m always amazed that government entities can use such flimsy excuses when they are so very watchful of everyone else. A simple computer program, hell…..a kid with a notebook could handle such a task. We may be just dumb firefighters but we can tell when we are getting the usual runaround.
Fire Departments, paid and volunteer, must keep track of all monies and information constantly. We are required to answer to the IRS. Any and all grant writing organization or grant receiving organization is required by law to keep records.
To our government leaders: We won’t be snowed under by dumb excuses any longer. We have the technology, we have the information, we have the intelligence to use it. You better wake up or you will have a revolution on your hands.
Big fire organizations that receive grant after grant year after year for millions of dollars, should be limited to how we the tax paying public fund them.
START MONITORING THEM AND STOP EXCESS FUNDING!!!!
October 19th, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
I, too, sharply question why it would be difficult to show the “Who, What, and When” (and $) provided thru the Grant Program. IF there is an Accountability Problem, then it needs to be Fixed. Now. IF there are grants that someone doesn’t want seen in the light of Public Attention, Then we have an even bigger problem. I am making no guesses, accusing no one, or otherwise trying to cause a problem, BUT Accountability, in the form of information readily available to the American Taxpayer, as well as those of us in the Fire Service, is long overdue.
October 21st, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
WE HAVE APPLIED AND BEEN REFUSED EVERY YEAR TO THIS POINT. THE PAST TWO YEARS HAVE BEEN FOR PPE AND COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT. HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY SAY NO TO THIS TYPE REQUEST. WE HAVE EVEN GONE THROUGH A GRANT-WRITER ONCE.
October 22nd, 2007 @ 11:34 am
To paraphrase a number of the posters on the firehouse.com grant discussion forum, let’s keep in mind that the AFG program is a competitive grant and not a hand out. Even though the program may have some flaws, I truly believe that it should be the model for how federal and state grant programs should be run. Let the program developers and administrators set the program priorities. Let the applicants develop a proposal that addresses those priorities. Do an initial, unbiased, computer generated evaluation of how well the proposal addresses the priorities. Take the proposals that best address the program priorities and have them evaluated by a group of the applicant’s peers. Award grants to the highest scores. It’s a brilliant idea!
It is up to the applicant to keep things in perspective, read the program guidance, and develop a program that addresses their needs that most greatly meet the program priorities. Is the system perfect? No. Do needy departments fail to get funding? Yes. Do less deserving departments get funding before more deserving departments? Yes. Is it a better system than the pork barrel politics involved in the distribution of homeland security grants and other federal grants? Absolutely!
Help is out there for those departments that need it. It is up to the department to fully understand how the program works and what is needed to be done to achieve success. Read the program guidance, use the information available on the grant forums and other Internet resources, hire a reputable consultant if nees be, work with other departments that have been successful, and read the program guidance again.
I do find it hard to believe that “it would be difficult to monitor who received grants and when they received them” but, I don’t think that limiting awards to previous awardees is a viable solution. Many departments have multiple needs and have been successful taking a multi-year approach to solving their problems. Just because a department is successful one year replacing 20 year old worn out turnouts shouldn’t prevent them from trying to replace 20 year old SCBA the next year.
More federal money is not necessarily the solution to all of our problems. However, I do think that the biggest problem with the AFG program is that it never has been funded at the full one billion dollar level that was authorized when the program was established. If it had, many of those needy departments would have already been taken care of.
October 22nd, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
I don’t agree! If a fire department is taking their time to write gants very year then all the power to them. I myself wrote four grants for the fire service ,and didn’t receive one very year. If a department has financial difficulty and it is for the safety of there firefighters, then go for it, as many times it takes.
October 25th, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
The one component of this that Ms. Wilmoth touches on, and that no one seems bothered by, is the amount of funding going to not for profits and private industry entities. Originally, the FA Grants were for fire departments (FD’s) only.
What happened is that, at the time, not enough FD folks were applying for Prevention grants so they opened it up to the not for profits and private industry entities. So, some of this may be our own fault to a degree as one could argue the grants should be strictly for FD’s as originally intended.
True, some of the awards to these groups have been for a good cause. I am actually a member of many of them. However, I am not sure that all are or that every single one benefits the fire service.
I also believe that the USFA can account and track who is getting what and why. However, if you are demonstrating a clear need and hit all of the right buttons then you should be able to go back for more. Perhaps, some of the issue is that more departments are now asking and the funding is not what it was supposed to be.
My question would be: should the guidelines go back to the point where only FD’s are allowed to apply?
October 25th, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
I have mixed feelings on FDs competing against the large organizations. The same could be said for small Vol. Depts with limited funds competing against large well funded municiple Depts. As far as the organizations are concerned however, in most cases they are for programs that assist the Fire Service in general and often generating information or material available to anyone. Perhaps the answer would be some sort of tiered system with each Catagory competing against others in their own class.
October 27th, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
No program will ever be 100% perfect, and the AFG program is no different. But, what program has there been in the past that has made such an impact for so many departments. Our department was still using the old “wader” boots and long coats and using 2 old 50’s model convertalbe trucks. We received a grant to replace our old equipment and was able to focus our efforts on raising money for a newer truck. We never could have done both. I know there are more departments out there in need, several in our area. This program is very competative. Education is definately the key to this game. I don’t mean how many degrees you have. We were turned down numerous times until we were educated on following the program guidance. The biggest problem I see is that the Max Amount per department is too high. More departments could be funded if others were not receiveing 750 thousand to 1 million plus dollars. They may have this need, but look at the amount they have to match. Their matching portion is higher than most awards given. Could there be improvement to the system? yes. I agree that the funding level should be placed back to 1 billion where it was intended to be and for them to quit taking money away every year from the fire service.