Comments on: Government Grants Backlash Coming?

By: FIREhat

FIREhat — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:26:17 +0000

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.

By: firegeezer

firegeezer — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:27:24 +0000

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.”

By: MNFireChief

MNFireChief — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:06:10 +0000

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

By: Capt. Tom

Capt. Tom — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:31:35 +0000

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

By: Paddy

Paddy — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:34:40 +0000

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!