EMMITSBURG, Md.-- They came from all across the country. Some were volunteers from tiny companies; others card carrying union firefighters from large metropolitan departments, public educators and retired arson investigators.
But, they set aside those individual credentials this week when they took on the job as reviewers of Fire Prevention and Safety grant applications.
Security is tight in the building where the 100 volunteers are critiquing the documents to see which programs warrant receiving federal money. This review round started Feb. 5, and by the end of next week, all 2,912 applications will have been judged.
The peer review process, unique in the federal government, works because those chosen to participate understand the importance of being fair and objective, said Cathie Patterson, fire prevention/safety grants coordinator.
Reviewers -- some of whom are nominated by various fire service organizations -- sign confidentiality and conflict of interest waivers. Patterson said the names of panelists are not revealed. "They are making some very serious decisions in here. They are deciding which programs pass muster and which ones don't..."
Patterson said the dedication always impresses her. "There people are working very hard. They take their job very seriously, and it's not easy either."
The group arrived on campus Sunday night, and training was underway by 8:30 a.m. Monday. They are given a number, and each day their room assignment changes.
The typical day for the reviewers runs from 8-8:30 until 5 p.m. However, some groups stay later to finish their work. "It's very hard. That's why we only keep them here for one week," said Glenn A. Gaines, DHS program consultant. Before handing out the documents, the lead panelist reads where the applications are from. "If anyone at the table is from that state or is familiar with a department, the whole packet is returned to the monitor. And, they start over with a fresh batch," Patterson explained. "It's essential that we have these safeguards."
Each application receives three reviews. After reading the proposal, each member includes comments and scores it. They examine the program to see if meets the criteria established to be funded. If the opinions differ widely, a discussion will be generated. The moderator will make note of the various opinions on a separate sheet.
It will be up to DHS grant officials to contact the applicants to discuss the proposal.
Folders are not allowed to leave the room, and reviewers don't take their discussions into the hall. Signs on doors leading to the classrooms prevent visitors from entering the area.
Once the applications have been processed by three people, they are sent across the hall where the data is entered into computers. If a pattern starts to emerge from one of the reviewers, a control specialist is notified.
"It has happened that we've had to excuse people for bias. We have to maintain the integrity of the program," Gaines said. "We have to make sure they keep their passions in check so there's a level playing field."
Before heading home Friday afternoon, the participants will be encouraged to offer suggestions during a debriefing. Patterson said officials appreciate the feedback. "It's always an opportunity to learn."
On Sunday, another group of reviewers will be arriving. While they are not paid for their work, the government picks up the tab for travel. They stay on the NFA campus and get meals in the dining hall.
Judging FIRE Act grants takes three weeks, while SAFER documents are scrutinized in one.
While everyone waits for Friday morning announcements to see the latest award winners, Gaines makes it his job to see who's not getting the money.
He's developed programs to assist firefighters or organizations as they promote their programs or needs. "Be concise, tell your story, your problem and possible solutions. Everyone in there knows how many firefighters were killed last year. Personalize the information, and how the money will help your department meet standards or prevent injuries..."
An education and marketing program has been established, and four states have agreed to participate in the pilot curriculum. They include New York, Kansas, California and Georgia.
It's essential, he said, that grants officials reach out to those departments that are continually being denied to find out why.
