Government Grants Backlash Coming?

THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, A GOVERNMENT-WATCHDOG THINK TANK IN Washington, has just released a summary of a study they made on the effectiveness of fire department grants programs.

The summary says in part,

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.

The forthcoming report on the study is based on an analysis of over 10,000 fire departments from 1999 to 2006 in which they compared the effectiveness and results of fire departments that recieved cash grants and those that did not receive any grants. They conclude that: Fire grants are an ineffective way of reducing fire casualties.

While the complete report hasn’t yet been published, the conclusions are stated in this preview summary of the report. You can read the rest of this summary HERE.

Firegeezer adds: These are the kinds of conclusions you will see as long as we have some FD’s applying Homeland Security grants to fund local projects, such as a new brush truck, instead of spending it on the intended purpose. There are also many instances of localities using grant money simply to make up budgetary deficiencies.

Share and Post on Facebook, Twitter and More:

Featured from across Fire/EMS

FIREhat

This is not surprising, given either the slant of the Heritage Foundation or the fire service's utter failure to articulate its needs and priorities. This is what happens when departments allow people to think that replacing that 10-year-old pumper is more important than putting a fourth man on it or buying new airpacks is more important than sending a few guys to the NFA or FDIC. New vehicles and air packs are certainly important, but they don't necessarily reduce casualties and probably don't have as profound an impact as other measures might.

firegeezer

Yes, they have. While preparing this posting I did some research into the Heritage website and found that they've done a similar study of police grants. It was seen that there was a slight improvement in crime reduction in places that expanded their workforce. Emphasis on the word "slight."

MNFireChief

I wonder if they've done a similar comparison with the billions of dollars that the federal government spends annually on law enforcement.

Capt. Tom

I am not certain that the intent of the grants is to reduce death and injury. It could well be argued that the grant programs provide assistance to Departments facing overwhelming increases in the standards and requirements placed on those Departments. The added burden of complying with all of the changes instituted since 9/11 amount to non-funded mandates. Mandates which in many (most?) cases fall on Departments that are already pressed to serve their communities with either a minimally staffed career department, or volunteers who have precious little time available for the required training, let alone fund raising to keep pace with neighboring communities. Add to this Boards of Fire Commissioners who in many cases saw their last action back in the seventies or none at all, and have no idea what faces today's first responders, refuse to stay up on the laws and requirements, service their own personal agendas and you have a perfect formula for what we see today: inefficiencies, failure to consolidate and maximize mutual aid pre-plans, failure to cross-train and share information, and territorial disputes at the expense of the taxpayer.
Less emphasis (read 'money') spent on ICS training and more emphasis spent on senior Officer training, incident rehab, personnel rotations, physicals, and creating a culture of pulling people out who can no longer perform will be the thing that makes the difference.
We need to evaluate those NIOSH reports and make a plan based on the criteria they indicate SPECIFICALLY. Half our LODD's could have been prevented IF somebody had recognized the signs and taken aggressive action.
That's my 2 cents,
Capt. Tom

Paddy

The Heritage Foundation report is a follow-up to an earlier study performed by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) in 2007, and merely echoes their conclusions.

Here is my take on the question of whether the federal grants have improved fire safety. Who knows? The measures we use are not reliable, and that is why I have urged fire chiefs to measure results instead of performance.
BTW I love your blog!