Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Grant scoring

  1. #21
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Full disclosure - even if it slows down the process somewhat - is better than leaving depts in the dark after they spent endless hours putting the application together.

    I'll take a stab at the scoring procedure for the narratives:

    Applicant demonstrates knowledge of demographics in area served:
    0-25

    Applicant clearly identifies and supports need:
    0-25

    Applicant request reasonably and commensurately satisfies stated need:
    0-25

    Applicant requests are consistent with final rule and program priorities:
    0-25

    Applicant clearly articulates and supports financial need for request:
    0-25

    Applicant demonstates high level of benefits (FF safety, # of depts/people affceted) from request:
    0-25

    Applicant demonstrates a coherent plan for use of items granted in overall operation of dept:
    0-25

    Applicant demonstrates request satisfies relevant NFPA standards for requested items:
    0-25

    As for the computer's cut, I cannot even fathom the ratios and models that are used to cut roughly 1/3 of the applications from further review.

    I've been on the "granting" side of a few programs and have even designed a couple. The fact they don't divulge scoring is not entirely relevant for two reasons: 1. This is taxpayers money, and transparency should be part of the process, and; 2. This program directly affects FF/EMS and public safety, and; 3. Departments would be substantially helped with this information.

    FEMA should maintain its appeal procedures, and say the scoring info is for information purposes only, and to assist departments in subsequent years. They should put it on the net where your password would access only your score.

    Finally, FEMA should demonstrate a little backbone and give some feedback even it makes their lives slightly more uncomfortable.


  2. #22
    Member ffemt1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    76

    Thumbs up

    Bravo Snewman. In my opinion, a very well thought out proposal. Information is NEVER the enemy. Open forums with an exchange of ideas really works.
    Non Volunteering Volunteer (Retired)

  3. #23
    Junior Member Phil4601's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Location
    New Florence, PA USA
    Posts
    9

    Angry It all smells like yeserday's diapers

    We got our "Dear John" e-mail the second day that they were being sent out. I have been on a low boil ever since. I have tried to stay proactive. I re-read the final rule in an effort to see where we may have gone wrong. I'm sure the final rule for the next fire grant process will change so I think I have wasted my time.

    Web-team, so your telling us that we need to invite our congressional representitive to our next company banquet or picnic? Or place a large black and white glossy of him in the fire hall windows in the weeks before election day? Isn't that the way the "Good Old Boys " used to get things from government. Maybe we should just pen off a note to President Bush and have him put in a word for us too.

    You guys make me laugh! I have seen some of the largest cities in the country get grants for almost one million dollars. Small volunteer organizations can't seem to get a grant for $53,000.00. Which just happens to be the amount we applied for.

    As for the secret scoring system, well from what the web-team seems to tell us the grading folks must take a lot of time to find out if a letter from a congress rep. has your name on it, but it would take too much time to send your score back to you by e-mail. I may have been born in the morning, but it wasn't yesterday morning.

    Face it folks, its probably random. They pick one and throw 20 or 30 in the reject box, and so on, and so on.......

    So to all of us that got a rejection. Put your congress reps on your mailing lists for company events. Send them honorary membership cards. But in my town if they want a their picture in the paper it wont be kissing a baby, if you all get my drift.

    If I sound POed, you're right!

    Phil
    Phil
    Stay Alert & Stay Safe

  4. #24
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    6

    Question Failure Of Large Departments to Obtain Grants

    I have viewed the lists of departments who received grants so far this year and in 2001 also. I do not see any large departments receiving grants. Why is that? Large departments have the same needs of small departments just on a larger scale.

  5. #25
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,480

    Default

    I do not see any large departments receiving grants.
    This is not a correct statement. Multiple large departments have received and will receive substantial grants.

    -WebTeam

  6. #26
    Permanently Removed
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mayfield NY
    Posts
    378

    Default

    I guess my question comes down too this. Does department size and call volume mean anyting? Does the size of the membership mean anything in volunteer departments? How much weight is given to the age of the equipment? Some things I can't change, Number of calls, number of people in the district, size of the district, etc. Do these things matter and by how much?

  7. #27
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    6

    Default OOPS, I misspelled a word

    I left an M off of any. It was supposed to say many. I know that large departments were not excluded, but it does appear, according to the grant lists, that large departments are at a disadvantage. Just be cause a department is large doesn't mean that we are immune to the problems of smaller departments. Our problems are just larger than theirs are. We still have the same staffing issues that they have, the same equipment issues that they have. It just cost us a lot more money to solve that issue. For instance, we just had to replace our Breathing apparatus 3 years ago. We received around 400 Apparatus with an extra 200 bottles. We spent several million just to replace those bottles. Our vehicle fleet was aging very quick, to replace our fleet will cost us over 15 million. We are at least 150 personell below where we should be at. Were talking now in the range of $60k per person just to hire them.

    These problems are rampant across the whole United States and Canada. The problem is that for too many years from the President all the way down to the Local Governments have had the mentality that to fix public safety the answer was to fund police with more and more money. Now the time has come that Fire Departments cannot continue to operate at the same level of funding that we did 10 years ago and still provide adequate protection to the public first and foremost, nor can we provide equal protection for our own brothers.

    The problem isn't Large Department specific,it is globally for all departments. I just returned from the IAFF conference in Las Vegas, I talked to people from all over the US and Canada. Our problems are very similiar, the only differences is how we arrived at the current state of crisis. It's time for the local governtments to stop asking fire departments to do more with less. We can't do more with less. We can't keep adding task to fire fighters without giving them the proper training and equipment to do more with. That all costs more money.

    I can't speak for everyone, but my department has almost exactly the same amount budgeted for it this year as it did 10 years ago when I hired on. That includes the raises that I've gotten since then, the rise in the cost of benefits and the rise in the cost of equipment. We cannot continue in this trend without paying for it dearly sometime in the future. We are running apparatus short on a daily basis. It was common 10 years ago to have a 5 person engine and a 4 or 5 person Ladder. Now days it's 3 and 3 sometimes, most times actually. Double houses with 6 people.

    Enough of me on my soap box; I guess I just needed a moment to vent. Hopefully the amount of money provided for the fire service will increase over the next few years.

    Just for the record, I don't fault Bush for vetoing the bill that was giving extra money for the Fire Grant. The pork surrounding that bill was ludicrous. I wish all of you well and hope that each of you who did get grants spend that money wisely, because you neve know when politicians may cut off that funding.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts