View Poll Results: How is the Fire Grant Process as a whole?
- 21. You may not vote on this poll
Great (Writing Congressman for more funding next year)
Good - Positive step towards a greater goal (Applying next year if the Fire Act is funded)
Okay (Applying next year If they fix the bugs in the system)
Disappointing - To much hassle, nerve racking, and stressful; Benefits do not match the irritation
Stinks - I cannot believe our government and those people at FEMA can not come up with a better way to give away
09-24-2002, 10:20 AM #1
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
How you feel about the Fire Act Grant & What improvements can be made
Just thinking instead of complaining we can identify the problems and offer solutions. How do you feel FEMA is doing with the grant process? Anyone called the help line? Do they actually "help?"Firefighters are Crazy!! But God bless each one of you all!!
10-01-2002, 09:59 AM #2
I have posted the same ideas before, but I think this topic may be one of the most important the FIRE act will face. Overall I think the program is a success, but there should be some modifiers used in scorring. First I think that when evaluating need, the applicants budget should be compared to several of the closest departments to evaluate need in a local context. If an entire area is in need then the comparison will show that. The term proffesional Grant Writer is can be misleading. What if you have a proffessional Grant Writer who is also a member of your Dept? Clearly I can not see FEMA telling you not to utilize local expertese. However many municipalities have full time grants staff, so they have an advantage in that they get the proffesional staff at no extra cost. I'm not sure it matters who writes the request at all. The source material obviously comes from the fire department.
Much has been said about departments that get grants in successive years. While I think this needs to be watched very carefully I think that in many cases a department in need will stay in need for some time. But I think perhaps that a department that is applying after a success should again be subject to some form of modifier that will lean towards New departments getting grants, while still allowing the truely needy to stay in the running.
I have also heard that some allocated money is never given out. This is the case with fire prevention and public education grants. But I think that is because we are limited to the areas we can request. With the limit to a single request this year, I think most departments that had to choose between apparatus/equipment or a fire prevention program chose the more important option of safety over prevention. This doesn't mean that they don't care about prevention it just means they can not afford an unwise choice.
Another controversial idea would be to find out if the department is applying for any other grants to fund the same or similar projects. I have seen this type of question on scholarship applications to ensure that an individual does not receive multiple funding requests.
I don't know how the peer review works exactly, but I think that perhaps a method of scorring that could take into account these and other factors, might be beneficial to everyone involved.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)