EMSGrantHelp.com

By Jamie Thompson
FireRescue1 Editor

WASHINGTON — A new report is calling for AFG and SAFER funding to be eliminated.

The study by the Center for Data Analysis claims the grants have failed to better protect firefighters and civilians, and urges Congress to scrap the programs.

The findings, released in a memo by the Heritage Foundation, have been criticized by fire service figures.

Blogging on The Kitchen Table, FireRescue1 columnist Mike McEvoy said any firefighter or fire chief knows full well that fire grants improve the fire service.

"How we measure that is now under attack," he said. "It's time for quick response from fire service experts. Otherwise, data analysts and statisticians are very likely to kill one of the most valuable resources the American fire service has ever had."

'No impact'
The Heritage Foundation said that the forthcoming CDA study finds that fire grants, including grants that subsidize the salaries of firefighters, had no impact on fire casualties.

It released the memo the day before the Homeland Security Appropriations bill (HR 2892) for fiscal 2010 was passed by the House of Representatives on Wednesday, setting AFG funding at $380 million and SAFER at $420. 

Billy Goldfeder, writing in FirefighterCloseCalls' The SecretList, said it is clear that AFG and SAFER program funding has lead to safer firefighting and citizens being better served.

"We don't need any funding or months of WTF research to prove it," he said. "Simply put, if SAFER funding can provide additional firefighters on a first alarm assignment, we are absolutely able to get water on the fire and save the stuff or the people inside that much quicker.

"It is a fact and can be proven and is proven daily."

The CDA describes itself as "specializing in estimating the economic effects of policy changes through an integrated set of econometric models."

'Come together'
FireRescue1 Getting Grants columnist Jerry Brant said for years he has been preaching that the fire service needs to come together and take a more proactive stance in highlighting what it does on a regular basis.

"We can't just be constantly reacting when someone comes along and tries to eliminate our programs," he said.

"We need to recognize opportunities that present themselves and take advantage of these situations to constantly publicize the work of the fire service."

Brant said the new study seems to be directly opposed to the findings of a 2006 report completed for the University of Pittsburgh/GSPIA, which offered a contrasting view.

Results of a survey of fire departments in western Pennsylvania that received AFG funding included:

• 70 percent responded that the awarded equipment brought them in compliance with national standards
• 46.7 percent responded that the AFG grant strengthened their response capability
• 58.7 percent answered "very much" (daily to a couple of times a month) in using the awarded AFG equipment to save property
• 42 percent answered "very much" (daily to a couple of times a month) in using the awarded AFG equipment to saving lives
• 85 percent responded that the AFG grant has improved the safety of the firefighters because the previous equipment/gear was unsafe or inoperable