Energizer Bunny Thread....Part 2

[FireDiver111]

I went to a Grant Writing Seminar last week that was put on by FEMA. They discussed a problem with one grant writer so I thought I would share that discussion with you. Not sure if the story relates to the email FEMA sent out concerning ISOSLAYER.....but here goes......

When the discussion turned to grant writers, the speaker warned us of fraudulant writers out there. He stated that during the peer review, a "reviewer" thought that the grant application he was reading sounded familier. He asked for, and received permission to recheck an application that he had looked at earlier in the session. To make a long story short, the narratives matched word for word. Here is the odd part, the grant narrative referenced the Govorner of Ohio and other Ohio topics. The second application that was being reviewed was from Florida.......yep, you guessed it, the Florida narrative also referenced Ohio. (like I said, the narratives matched word for word)

The speaker went on to state that a total of 75 applications had the same narrative.....the Ohio narrative. He went on to mention that the grant writer faces fraud charges.


On another note, the speaker mentioned that the number one reason grant applications were rejected was because the grant writer didn't follow directions. The speaker said that 5000 applications were rejected "right out of the gate" because they were not completed properly.

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

Ohio, Florida, they're close together.

This is part of the reason that I tell everyone (including those hiring me for 2004), don't let your grant writer be the contact person. About the only thing a grant writer can write that the department may not have a grip on, should be the narrative. The rest is all numbers. If you want someone else to write it, have them do it in Word, WordPerfect, whatever, and then copy and paste it into your application. I wouldn't leave the keys to the safe with anyone. That way you can check every single thing that they say in the narrative and this type of BS is avoided. There went 5,000 applications that could have been competitive.

Welcome to America. Where else is there a crop of people ready to rip off a Fire Department? I say publish this wing-nut's name and let the IACOJ get after him. Nothing like a clogged inbox to slow you down.

[jboczek]

that lousy MUTT!

[Bones42]

Hey, Miami University of Ohio, Miami University of Florida. I see the connection.

[shesinsane]

For the record - those 75 or so applications which were pulled out of peer review did get reviewed. On the last day of week 3, a table of panelists were briefed on the situation (don't be surprised that your South Carolina fire department has an Ohio address), and they read and scored all the applications. No grant application was tossed out due to an unscrupulous grant writer.

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

skritch, skritch.

I'm not quite sure how that's possible. The narrative is the basis for the justification of the project. How can a department in Florida or SC, have a narrative written for a department in Ohio, and still have a valid argument? I've seen departments that were similar, but not that closely.

I wouldn't tell the grant writer that they were read and scored individually. Because that could help him get off of the fraud charges. If they were treated as if there was no fraud, then there was no fraud. Simplistic argument, but when you're only trying to convince 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.... Dicey situation all around.

[shesinsane]

Originally posted by BC79er

If they were treated as if there was no fraud, then there was no fraud.

No one thought it was right that all those departments lose their chance at a grant because of lazy grant writer. While some aspects of the applications were mass cut and pasted, data for the individual departments was included. All of the suspected grants have documentation in them regarding their situation, while the grant writer obviously didn't pay attention to many details, it wasn't the exact same thing submitted 75 times.

The moral of the story is if you hire a grant writer, PLEASE make sure you read over what they are submitting in your name. No matter what credentials a grant writer may have to their name, the peer reviewers are firefighters, not English professors (my apologies to any peer reviewer who is also an English teacher, but that reviewer is recruited for his/her firefighter knowledge)