Grants ineffective?

[LVFD301]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2499.cfm

[LVFD301]

Do DHS Fire Grants Reduce Fire Casualties?
by David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D.
WebMemo #2499
This Heritage Foundation WebMemo summarizes the findings of a forthcoming Center for Data Analysis (CDA) report that evaluates the effectiveness of the Assistance for Firefighter Grant (AFG) Program, Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) grants, and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants. Collectively, these grants are commonly referred to as "fire grants."

In the near future, Congress will consider the fiscal year (FY) 2010 appropriation bills for the Department of Homeland Security (H.R. 2892 and S. 1298). Both appropriation bills call for $800 million for the fire grant program--$380 million for the AFG program and $420 million for the SAFER program. Before committing additional funding to the fire grants, Congress should first consider whether the programs are an effective use of taxpayer dollars.

Overall, the CDA report finds that fire grants, including grants that subsidize the salaries of firefighters, had no impact on fire casualties. Specifically the report finds that:

AFGs used to purchase firefighting equipment, vehicles, and fitness equipment failed to reduce firefighter deaths, firefighter injuries, civilian deaths, and civilian injuries;
FP&S grants that funded fire prevention and safety projects failed to reduce firefighter deaths, firefighter injuries, civilian deaths, and civilian injuries; and
SAFER grants that subsidized firefighter salaries failed to reduce firefighter deaths, firefighter injuries, civilian deaths, and civilian injuries.
Fire Grants

In 2000, the FY 2001 National Defense Authorization Act established the AFG Program to subsidize the routine activities of local fire departments and emergency medical service (EMS) organizations.[1] Administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's U.S. Fire Administration within the Department of Homeland Security, fire grants consist of several types:

AFGs provide funding for the purchase of firefighting equipment, vehicles, and fitness equipment;
FP&S grants target high-risk populations and are intended to improve the safety of firefighters and the public from fire and related hazards;
SAFER grants, created in 2003, are intended to increase staffing levels by funding the salaries of career firefighters and paying for recruitment activities for volunteer fire departments; and
Fire Station Construction (FSC) grants, created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, fund the renovation and building of fire stations.[2]
From FY 2001 to FY 2009, Congress appropriated over $5.7 billion in funding for fire grants.[3]

Are Fire Grants Effective?

The forthcoming CDA report concentrates on finding evidence of whether fire grants affect fire casualties. Fire casualties are defined as firefighter deaths, firefighter injuries, civilian deaths, and civilian injuries.

Do fire grants reduce or prevent injuries and deaths to firefighters and civilians? This is a reasonable research question to ask, because the fire grant program has concentrated mainly on developing the capabilities of fire departments to react to fire emergencies.[4] By subsidizing routine operations, fire grants are thought to assist fire departments in becoming more proficient at fighting fires and providing emergency services. Thus, the improved operational proficiency of grant-funded fire departments should reduce fire casualties.

Using panel data from 1999 to 2006 for 10,033 fire departments, the CDA report used panel regression analysis to estimate the impact of fire grants on fire casualties. Of these fire departments, 5,859 (58.4 percent) received fire grant awards while 4,174 (41.6 percent) did not. The panel regression analysis used in the report controls for the level of risk fire departments face each year; the percentage of fire department responses to fires, hazardous conditions, service calls, and good intent calls; and county-level socioeconomic factors, such as age and race demographics, income per capita, and unemployment rates.

The Findings

Overall, the CDA report finds that fire grants, including grants that subsidize the salaries of firefighters, had no impact on fire casualties. Indeed:

AFG grants used to purchase firefighting equipment, vehicles, and fitness equipment failed to reduce firefighter deaths, firefighter injuries, civilian deaths, and civilian injuries;
FP&S grants that funded fire prevention and safety projects failed to reduce firefighter deaths, firefighter injuries, civilian deaths, and civilian injuries; and
SAFER grants that subsidized firefighter salaries failed to reduce firefighter deaths, firefighter injuries, civilian deaths, and civilian injuries.
The findings of this evaluation were foreshadowed when a 2007 report by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) concluded that the "program's strategy of improving firefighting response capabilities, however effective it is at doing this, may not represent the most cost-effective way to reduce either public or firefighter deaths and injuries."[5] In addition, the NAPA report noted, "One argument that has been made forcefully by experts on the fire problem over the last four decades is that dollars used to reduce the number of fire incidents are likely to have greater impact on fire safety relative to their cost than dollars used to improve response to fires when they break out."[6]

Nor do fire grants appear to fulfill a homeland security function. The NAPA report acknowledges, "Basic fire incidents are usually well-handled in the U.S. and have been for some time, whereas large-scale, complex incidents are less well addressed and usually require cooperation of organizations and across jurisdictions."[7] However, the fire grant program "mainly funds local entities and isolated projects not tied to improving regional capabilities."[8]

An Ineffective Program

The strength of the CDA report's methodology resides in its use of panel data that compares fire departments that received grants to fire departments that did not receive grants. In addition, the evaluation compares the impact of the grants before and after grant-funded fire departments received federal assistance. After analyzing over 10,000 fire departments from across the nation from 1999 to 2006, the CDA report reaches a clear conclusion: Fire grants are an ineffective way of reducing fire casualties. Consequently, Congress should eliminate funding for the fire grant program.

David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.


[1]FY 2001 National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 108-398.

[2]The CDA report does not evaluate the impact of the FCS grants, which have only recently been created.

[3]Lennard G. Kruger, "Assistance to Firefighters Program: Distribution of Fire Grant Funding," CRS Report for Congress, RL32341, Congressional Research Service, March 31, 2009, Tables 2 and 4, pp. 3 and 6.

[4]James Kunde et al., Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program: Assessing Performance (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Public Administrators, 2007), p. 62.

[5]Ibid., p. 70.

[6]Ibid.

[7]Ibid., p. 92.

[8]Ibid.

[SLY4420]

What a bunch of bull*****.

Fire grants didn't completely reduce firefighter fatalities? You don't say. Considering 43.8% of firefighters died last year due to cardiac related issues, I don't know what we can do to solve that. Sure, physical fitness is a major factor in that, but people still die.

While the basis of the Fire Grant programs are to improve firefighter SAFETY, the community (i.e. taxpayers who pay for this program) need to be a consideration as well. In fact, the first sentence in the guidance states: "Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) provide financial assistance directly to fire departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations to enhance their capabilities with respect to fire and fire-related hazards." Nowhere have I read that this program is supposed to completely prevent fatalities. Don't like to be the bearer of bad news, but firefighting is dangerous.

Having new PPE will help keep me and my fellow firefighters safer. There is no argument there. Having an enclosed cab Pumper with airbags and lap/shoulder belts is going to be much safer than my old open cab Pumper replaced by AFG. Just because we haven't crashed them doesn't mean we didn't prevent fatalities.

What about my 2009 Exhaust Extraction system which will undoubtedly reduce my risk of cancer? Just because I haven't died yet, doesn't mean the Federal investment isn't something worthwhile to prevent firefighter injuries and potential fatalities.

There is no mention of effectiveness, efficiency of operations, property saved, disaster preparation, and several other factors which could continue to drive our economy right down the crapper.

The greatest part of the AFG program is that it is developed, and executed by our own. It's very hard to find a program like this. Having firefighting peers select the awards works because they understand the fire service. A person who gets paid to "review" and "audit" this, does NOT.

This is a great example of a complete misunderstanding of this program, the Fire Service in general, and will unfortunately cause a setback in our needs for this program to be continued after 2010.

Thanks, Doc.

[SLY4420]

Oh, and while the program certainly had it's faults, Dr. Dick's analysis of the COPS grant and led now Vice-President Joe Biden to call for it's termination.

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

"Thus, the improved operational proficiency of grant-funded fire departments should reduce fire casualties."

This is where they steered wrong. We're a reactionary service 99.9% of the time. If we don't get called until the fire is through the roof of course there's no save.

Just comparing the number of civilian fatalities before and after isn't an relevant analysis, it's apples and oranges. After all, how many of those fires were arson-murder jobs? Can any grant prevent those? Can we prevent people from smoking in bed? Can we prevent people from leaving pots on the stove and candles burning when they go to the store?

A comparison can't very well be made since as we add people on this earth and more property, more of it catches fire and more people die in them. How about the report on the amount of fire damage that hasn't happened because someone got a grant for new equipment and vehicles?

And then there's the part considering the source, seems to me like someone wants to eliminate this grant program to free up funding for another one....

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

Dr Carter's view on this subject: http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online/Leadership-and-Command/The-Missionary-Position/5$64295

Each one of us needs to take steps forward on this one. As my attendees know, success comes from being motivated AND taking action. Only you can motivate you, only you can take action for yourself and your department.

I say let's stop sending money overseas for grant programs helping irrigation projects in countries that don't like us. Search Grants.gov if you ever want to see our money moving in the wrong directions. I like helping people but let's start here and when the US is all fine and happy on top of the economic ladder in world standing again, then we do the right thing and extend a helping hand to others. As individuals we can't improve others unless we improve ourselves, same goes for organizations and countries.

[silverad0]

100% dead ON BC! We need to take of our own 1st, then help else where as funds are available!

[jam24u]

I'm always sceptical of any stated bottom line when I think there's possibility that announced results, such as these, could be used as a doorway for an entirely different agenda. The Heritage Foundation? The Heritage Foundation that I know is more of a conservative think tank organization. Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong one. Fire departments are not usually a demographic of their concern. Unless it has to do with unions. Whatever, BC'r is right. This one we do need to address.

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

Unions tend to support each other and IAFF is big into the AFG grants since a lot of their members wouldn't have decent equipment if it weren't for AFG. SAFER is gear towards hiring, and the more FFs hired the greater chance they have of increasing membership. Just see their recent move to allow SAFER funds to rehire laid off FFs.

AFG is one of the few examples of widespread bi-partisan support so I can't figure out the motivation behind it. I realize that things have to be analyzed but GAO and others have gone over AFG with a finetoothed comb and found little to complain about. It's efficient and effective. Hell, maybe that's the problem they have with it... :rolleyes:

[jam24u]

Yep, The original article IS from the Heritage Foundation. I just typed 'fire' in their search box and up popped the above article. Word for Word. Like BC'r I'm a little stumped at why the Hertiage Foundation is using this data (and position) to further their policies. With the majority of the fire departments memberships in the country belonging to demographics that would favor the conservative right, why would The Heritage Foundation take this position? How could they be so wrong? I'm a donor and even today received additional material from Ed Fuelner and intend to find out. More to follow,,,,

[lemontfire]

It isn't popular but if this was Japan ( a safer place to live than here) most or all of the grant money would be in Fire Prevention. One of our biggest problems is and will continue to be - Firefighters as Hero's make good stories at the barber shop and tavern. Fire Prevention people make for good humorous stories in the day room and at the kitchen table. We need to focus on finding answers that matter before the emergencies happen. As a third generation firefighter I will support my brothers and sisters to the end of time. 95% of the people I know in the fire service joined it for all the right reasons – To make a hands-on positive impact on their generation. To the governing bodies who control our funding please give us the money to provide the services to succeed in the ever expanding roles you put us in and make this a safer world to live in.

[jam24u]

It occured to me, that if and when a mass casualty event happens again, how those who wrote this analysis are going to spin their results. We'll get another government resolution that funds the nations fire departments to increase their ability to respond to the new threat. Departments just don't have to respond to house fires, but are expected to respond to everything including an asteroid hitting the planet. I wonder what data they should have included with those results and how the grants wouldn't help even for that. I'm begining to want my money back.

[mcfdrichey25]

I've got a study I would like to conduct: STEP 1- Let's move all of Dr. Carter's possessions into a home in my jurisdiction. STEP 2- Lets light that home on fire. STEP 3- We'll give Dr. Carter the option of responding the 1975 engine we use to have along with all of the old PPE and lack of equipment we were faced with in the past, or responding our brand new engine which is equipped with a TIC, new nozzles, etc. STEP 4- Evaluate his response and apply it to his "so called study"! I think we all know what the results will be!! LONG LIVE AFG!!

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

You mean Dr Muhlhausen? Dr Harry Carter was one of the original people that helped to develop AFG and get it into place, and is certainly in favor of keeping it. Think you might have read something wrong in his article. He's saying the study is wrong too.

[jam24u]

Well whoever, Muhlausen, Carter or anyone involved on both sides need to get together and end this rhectoric about grants for the fire service. This is not the type of attention that is going to be to our benefit. The sooner this article dies out and is forgotten, the better.

[mcfdrichey25]

Sorry bout the mess up, I've got to quit the part time gig on the box....it's got me started on the road to insanity!! Thanks for the correction BC79er, I promise to do better!! ; )

[jam24u]

Sorry bout the mess up, I've got to quit the part time gig on the box....it's got me started on the road to insanity!! Thanks for the correction BC79er, I promise to do better!! ; )
The names didn't matter, but your previous post did.

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

I thought insanity was a prerequisite for riding the box? I wasn't allowed on it until I was certified...

Right on about the idea though, show these people a before and after for departments and the pictures will tell the story. Tim who works for me is a great example, those of you that had him in our workshops saw his department. 10 years to go from 3 vehicles (2 brush and 1 utility in 1 station) to a fleet of 10 trucks and now 2 stations, all grants in one form or another from AFG to TX state grants. Can't tell me just because they've had some injuries or fatalities that AFG isn't effective in improving operations and safety factors.

[lemontfire]

Just feel the need to post a Thank You to Dr. Carter. He is one of the true pioneers in the fire service. He has been sharing his wisdom at Firehouse for years but most people don't ever get to see all the many good things he does to help the service behind the scenes. I have had that opportunity and he jumped up and lent a hand for us once and it made a big difference in our funding. I realize earlier it was a simple mistake but I wanted to again shout - Dr. Harry Carter this is one of the good guys.

[transplant]

In general, I'd agree more money generally equates to better fire protection. But, I have never figured out why anyone outside my district should have to pay for our equipment, people or services. Federal funds sound good and buy great stuff but when we become accustomed to getting them every year, we prevent our community policy makers from seeing the actual cost of good fire protection for the district. To paraphrase a quote: "all firefighting is local".

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

Technically it's your money paid in income tax coming back. Better they exist than not, after all I don't see the DC crew lowering income tax so your residents can pay more in local.

Plus better than having them run another grant to send more money overseas to a country that doesn't like us. Trust me I agree local should pick up the tab but that's more of a pipe dream in most communities considering the cost to fully equip and train an all-volunteer department let alone one with 1 or more paid FFs.

[MIDWESTCHIEF]

I thought insanity was a prerequisite for riding the box? I wasn't allowed on it until I was certified...

Right on about the idea though, show these people a before and after for departments and the pictures will tell the story. Tim who works for me is a great example, those of you that had him in our workshops saw his department. 10 years to go from 3 vehicles (2 brush and 1 utility in 1 station) to a fleet of 10 trucks and now 2 stations, all grants in one form or another from AFG to TX state grants. Can't tell me just because they've had some injuries or fatalities that AFG isn't effective in improving operations and safety factors.

Brian, I attended a seminar that Tim put on is SD and saw the pictures. I agree that these programs have done wonders for rural departments that have seemed to struggle at times. Ours went from having the old rubber coats, which we haven't worn since 1980 something, and 1 brush truck to new PPE (structure & wildland), SCBA's, and 2 trucks in only a handful of years. May not be much to some departments, but it is huge to our department, volunteers, and community that we serve. Tell me that this program hasn't saved firefighters' lives.

We all need to again thank Brian, Kurt, and any others for the time and effort they spend giving FREE advice on these forums. Without all their help and the use of this forum to rapidly spread the word on many important topics of this nature, many departments would not even know what is going on in the world outside of their own.

Thanks Brian, Kurt, and all others. Keep up the good work.

[thoskin]

Yes, the statistics may say that deaths have not "decreased". But it is a safe bet that there are NO satistics for who would have died in my dept if we were still using the eight sets of 12 year old nomex gear for twenty FFs to ride to a call in a 30+ year old ALF pumper that was our first and only equipment before AFG. Oh! I almost forgot about the dear ol' Scott IIs demand with steel bottles, that we were so proud of when they were surplussed to us! Talk about a heartattack waiting to happen. Statistics are crap when twisted to a given agenda.

[Catch22]

It seems that there's several aspects of the AFG and other programs that aren't discussed in this "study". Whether or not there's been an impact in the loss of life is a somewhat hazy determination.

Some questions that I think should be asked...

How much damage has been saved due to these grants? TIC's in particular result in a decrease in damage we cause during overhaul. Getting tankers to transport water to fires where the FD would have otherwise ran out saves further damage. Things like that. While it wasn't an AFG grant we recieved our TIC from, it was a grant and we estimated at one time we had saved tens of thousands of dollars in damage we would have otherwise caused because of it's use.

How many firefighters are living healthier because of the wellness and fitness portion of these grants? Because of a grant, my career department has workout equipment and does annual physicals. Numerous firefighters have lost considerable weight. Because of the physicals, the doctors caught lung cancer in one of our guys early on. This is a guy that said he never goes to the doctor unless he feels bad, and wasn't feeling bad at all when they found it. Life saved.

How many firefighter deaths/injuries have been saved due to training? Particularly with the push for Firefighter I training and the requirement of a comprehensive driver training program. Trained firefighters = safer firefighters.

A guy could go on and on. This is one major reason why we need to be touting our success and the results of our success with our politicians. Nearly every spring, Congressman Roy Blunt makes a trip through our county to see the new equipment and do his politican thing for the media. He sees the impact first hand by the stories we tell and the equipment he sees. Now, if we could get the two senators to do the same...

[transplant]

Technically it's your money paid in income tax coming back. Better they exist than not, after all I don't see the DC crew lowering income tax so your residents can pay more in local.

Plus better than having them run another grant to send more money overseas to a country that doesn't like us. Trust me I agree local should pick up the tab but that's more of a pipe dream in most communities considering the cost to fully equip and train an all-volunteer department let alone one with 1 or more paid FFs.

Technically, it is my income tax minus the cost of collecting and redistributing that money + money from a lot of others aound the country who will never see the benefit of that equipment. We could not design a more inefficient system if we tried.

It would be far more efficient to allow every resident and business to deduct a $1.10 from taxes owed (not a deduction of taxable income) for every $1.00 they donate to emergency services, whether volunteer or municipal. A hundred percent of that dollar would land in the account of the service that needs it and the .10 difference would provide just enough incentive to the resident or business to donate directly.

We could handle health care the same way. Give corporations a $1.10 TAX CREDIT for every $1.00 they pay directly to medical costs of poor and uninsured people. In the stroke of a pen, we could eliminate a good bit of the inefficiency of the current system.

As it stands, for every dollar you send to DC in taxes, you will get a fraction of a penny back in grants for your local fire department, assuming your department applies for and gets selected this year. Of course, they have to make their case to DC, not the local resident.

We could better. It's up to us.

Transplant

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

Everyone's applying because they can't make the case to their local residents. If we went truly efficient it would be a 'you live in a rural area you get no protection' system since that's all most can afford. Some rural departments are very well supported, but I have some where the elected mayor and some other public officials aren't paid at all because the community has no money and they work the job 20-30 hours a week.

Plus when you only have a town of 500-1000 people that can't spare another $1 and may not even pay income taxes in the first place they don't see the incentive. Tax credits are not a motivating factor in probably 90% of the public's decision making process. That's why no one has jumped on hybrid cars and their tax credit. I aim for as many as I can get personally but the average American is a short-term thinker so all they see in a tax credit situation is that they have to spend money to get a fraction back. Doesn't add up when they don't have money to spend in the first place.

Plus don't forget, the average American doesn't need the fire department in their own mind. Their neighbor might get in a wreck or have a fire but they never will, so why should they pay for something they'll never need? It's wasted money for them to pay anything by force, they'd rather donate for how good it makes them look for helping someone out. Dynamics are much more than just simple money, it's always a mind game.

[transplant]

Everyone's applying because they can't make the case to their local residents. If we went truly efficient it would be a 'you live in a rural area you get no protection' system since that's all most can afford. Some rural departments are very well supported, but I have some where the elected mayor and some other public officials aren't paid at all because the community has no money and they work the job 20-30 hours a week.

Plus when you only have a town of 500-1000 people that can't spare another $1 and may not even pay income taxes in the first place they don't see the incentive. Tax credits are not a motivating factor in probably 90% of the public's decision making process. That's why no one has jumped on hybrid cars and their tax credit. I aim for as many as I can get personally but the average American is a short-term thinker so all they see in a tax credit situation is that they have to spend money to get a fraction back. Doesn't add up when they don't have money to spend in the first place.



I think you misread at least a portion of my post but I will address some of your points.
Quite simply, the reason fire departments are applying for grant money is because it is available. Any organization (not just fire departments) seeks to serve it's own interests and if you show them a viable source of income they will use it. EVERY fire department "makes their case" to their local govt. After that, they seek grant money to improve their situation further. If the federal govt was not offering grants, departments would simply go back to doing what they did before - appeal to their local govt entities. Sometimes that produces results, sometimes not. Same with the grant process. There is no doubt that some good, justifiably needed grant requests get turned down. The main difference is that with federal grants, the decision making process is moved farther away from the fire department and the people they serve AND more money is required to administrate the dollars. Now, people who have never seen or will directly benefit from your fire service will decide what you do and don't need based on a few pieces of paper.
Higher overhead, lower responsiveness to the needs of the local people.

It's true that some rural areas have bad fire protection. But that will remain true WITH or WITHOUT the grant process. In fact, the quality of fire service in various areas will not change til the locals demand it. I would argue that while PPE, new trucks, and thermal cameras can help us, they do not make us good firemen. In short, good protection comes from good departments (remember: good departments= good people+good gear+good policy and tactics). We can buy pieces of good equipment for folks but we cannot give them a quality organization. Those are homegrown. When we train residents that the Fed Govt will make up for their lack of interest in maintaining a good org, we handicap them from making good future plans for their own departments: "Don't worry about buying them a new truck. Let them apply for a grant."

Tell me that phrase hasn't been uttered in a 1000 town hall meetings across the country since the grant culture got kicked off.


You didn't read my tax formula closely. I propose an actual $1.10 deduction in taxes owed for every $1 donated to local emergency services. It is a net gain in dollars for the tax payer, not a fractional reduction. If I told any rational tax payer they could reduce their bottom line tax bill by 10% simply by donating money to the fire department, they would do it. It's the grant process itself that is a fractional return!

BTW, the reason no one is utilizing tax credits for hybrid cars has a lot more to with consumer behavior (folks don't want them), the price of gas (it's down), and the current economy(not a lot of any type of car being sold right now) than simply not wanting the tax credit.



Plus don't forget, the average American doesn't need the fire department in their own mind. Their neighbor might get in a wreck or have a fire but they never will, so why should they pay for something they'll never need? It's wasted money for them to pay anything by force, they'd rather donate for how good it makes them look for helping someone out. Dynamics are much more than just simple money, it's always a mind game.

Honestly, I think we are having a good discussion here but this paragraph makes no sense to me. Lots of "average Americans" know they need a fire department. Give us some credit. In fact, millions of us "average Americans" ARE firemen. Your second and third sentences, well, I don't know what to make of it. No resident in my area has ever asked for or received recognition for donations. And while civic funding of the emergency services is an imperfect science, redistributing wealth in the most inefficient model possible is not a good way to win the "mind game". It just wastes money.

Again, we can do better.

transplant

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

Lots of "average Americans" know they need a fire department. Give us some credit.

I do give the average American credit for most things. And maybe they do think that a "fire department" is needed, but how prepared of one? Many think 1 fire truck is enough. They have no idea how many people are needed to fight a fire, and don't actually care because their home is immune from a fire, just like they'll never get in a car accident and pay for cheap insurance, or they'll never get caught for a DUI. How many calls has anyone here made where the first words out of someone's mouth were 'I never thought it could happen to me'. Most people get through life just fine with their blinders on and others get them torn off by that little thing called reality.

You either have had some very fire-centric communities you have dealt with or never did a fire prevention class where a room full of adults gave you the deer in the headlights look about changing smoke detector batteries every 6 months. Or having an escape plan, or even a fire extinguisher and knowing how to use it. I've met a lot of new members of the public that are now friends that still don't understand what a 'volunteer firefighter' does. They know what firefighters do, they know what volunteer means, and brain cramp on the combined term. Or how many don't even know where their nearest fire station is, what the different types of trucks are for. And guess what? None of them care one bit about how prepared anyone is until it happens and the fingerpointing starts. I've already been in that fun where the finger is pointed at the department and the same people that vote down tax increases and are documented as speaking out in town meetings about the increases in funding still scream that a bad outcome to an incident was our fault for not being prepared and not having the money to be prepared. Which would be the same money they wouldn't give us.

A lot of this we can correct through marketing but only to open-minded individuals. Tell me you know a lot of those and I'd be willing to bet you don't know many people since people scream for change and then don't want any, or only want change to happen to other people because they don't need to change. Society as a whole has turned into a 'everyone else needs to adapt to me' position, and call me cynical if you want but that's the reality I see all over the place. Dealing with over 2,000 community organizations in the last 3 years alone has given me a unique perspective on different groups of the same US populace. And the overriding theme is, they don't think the fire department needs to improve. Of course some of that comes from the anti-progress people in some of these departments also.

To take a different perspective, how many people thought other branches of the government area waste like the armed services, FBI, CIA, Treasury, FEMA. Want to see waste see how much money some of those folks and other agencies pee away in a day, and it's a lot more than this grant program will ever have in 10 years of funding. This program is the model of efficiency. You have subject matter experts (or at least people familiar with the subject) judging the needs as stated by the departments themselves. No Wizard sitting up high thinking about who needs what, who should get the funding like other programs. Less than 2% to admin costs? Unheard of in federal programs.

Again, your tax formula is asking people to make the donation before they see any benefit which they won't do, history proves it. A donation in January 2009 means nothing until April 15th 2010 when the tax return is prepared and submitted. Inflation will dang near suck that dime "saved" away from them in that period of time. Tax credits do little to motivate behavior.

Off subject I'm for consumption taxes (sales, real estate). If I commit to buying something then I'd better be prepared to pay the taxes for it. Can't afford the taxes, buy less. But at least I get it first to make the choice about where the money goes. Hence the reason I like TX over PA where I paid just about everyone a share of income tax. State here is running quite fine with no income tax at any level and only one to not get dinged by the housing bubble. But neither here no there in this thread.

[chiefmeyer301]

I agree with bc 100% and will give a good example. two years ago i had 4 ff going thu ffII and one of there homework projects where to preplan a large business of factory. well in sibley the only thing at that time we had was a ductworks mfg facility. managed by a farmer for the co owner. they aproched this co for permition to do the preplan and the answer they received was why do you need to preplan it will get to our ins co and they will raise our rates, also coment was made that this is just sibley not chicago you guys down at the fire house think you need all this stuff just to make you look like a big city dept our little town dont need the fancy equip. what you have is good enough. two of the three young ff quit 3wks later and took the another mo. to get the best of the last one and she quit also. at that time we had 10 ppe for 19 ff and 6 scba that where 1970-75 vintage and this was 1991. my first year as chief. for 10 yrs i tryed to get the tax rate raised but the good ol boys at the coffee shop (including the man from the factory) made sure every one in or district new we just wanted to look like the "big boys from chicago". then at 1:00am this same person called in a fire at his farm and because of equip nat working from old age and not enough ppe we could not sve his place and then we where the town clowns because we did not know what we were doing. in 2005 we received a new pumper to suplement our 1977 unit and 5 mo later guess who called again. this time with some better equip and good mutual aid we put down a fire we should have lost. we are prob still thought of in his mind the same as we got no thanks but everyone else in town saw the differance and told me and others. still cant get any more tax rev from here but afg is making one hell of a differance for us and dept around us so three cheers for afg and a biGGG thanks to bc, kurt, and lots of others who helped change our department for the better and future..

just my 2 cents worth

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

NVFC is going on the Hill this week to bat for AFG and also has this response to the article:

Do DHS fire grants reduce fire casualties? Of course they do. The statistics prove it and the success stories prove it. However, a recent article by Dr. David Muhlhausen regarding the release of an upcoming report suggests otherwise.

Unfortunately, the article precedes the release of a report which does not allow for further examination of how Dr. Muhlhausen derives his statistics. Point in fact that the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) was not appropriated until 2005 with the first grants reaching departments in 2006. How does Dr. Muhlhausen come to the conclusion the program is ineffective based on results from 1999 – 2006 when there is only one year of the SAFER program to measure? There are further discrepancies in the article but the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) looks forward to reading the document in its entirety before commenting further.

The NVFC and other national fire service organizations are poised to provide testimony later this week regarding the reauthorization of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program. This pivotal program was created to provide a baseline level of readiness for fire departments nationwide. Success stories have been posted on a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website (www.firegrantsupport.com) and a site managed by national fire service organizations at www.firegrantdata.com. Statistical information supporting the success and need of the program can be found in the two Congressionally-authorized needs assessment studies. The program itself received a 95 percent effective rating as part of the 2007 DHS Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).

Read the NVFC testimony (which will be posted on www.nvfc.org later this week). Read the success stories. Review the statistics. The AFG program reduces fire casualties among our nation’s citizens and first responders.

Figured there had to be a fly in their thinking jelly on the analysis. Nothing like staking claims on incomplete data. I also found out from CFSI that the Heritage Foundation has been taking aim at AFG since the legislation first passed. Things that make you go hmmm....:cool:

[MarionMedic]

Overall, the CDA report finds that fire grants, including grants that subsidize the salaries of firefighters, had no impact on fire casualties.

Well DUH.

You can't fix stupid.

As long as we have folks out there who smoke in bed, store gas cans beside the water heater, remove the batteries from the smoke detectors to power toys, and other genius actions.....

Not to mention the increase in population, which means the percentage of morons who self terminate went up as well.

I thought it was to increase our RESPONSE CAPABILITIES under Homeland inSecurity?

Maybe getting the right numbers would help.
How much PROPERTY did we save with the new equipment?
How many lives were saved by the equipment and personnel this program paid for? (not just fire related)

Why do they assume that "Fire Department" = flames and base all data on fire related results?
I think we do a LOT more than put out flames nowadays.

Another bunch of hacks who think they know more about what we do (and have done) than we do.
This is why it should be legal to slap the stupid out of some folks.