The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
New FIRE Act Grant Period. New Calls to Kill It.
Funding to this program has been reduced every year since 2001 and there have been efforts to kill the program entirely.
It doesn’t help our case when you read statements such as this one taken from a report by Dr. David B. Muhlhausen.
The Findings
Overall, the CDA report finds that fire grants, including grants that subsidize the salaries of firefighters, had no impact on fire casualties. Indeed:
- AFG grants 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.
Read the entire report here:
www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2499.cfm
It doesn’t help our case when you read statements such as this one taken from a report by Dr. David B. Muhlhausen.
The Findings
Overall, the CDA report finds that fire grants, including grants that subsidize the salaries of firefighters, had no impact on fire casualties. Indeed:
- AFG grants 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.
Read the entire report here:
www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2499.cfm
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
I wonder how much the definition constituting a LODD is being evaluated here? As it is we see the data coming from the USFA regarding LODD's and the message is that despite all the safety initiatives we still lose about 100 firefighters a year. However, looking at the same data one can say that the number of firefighters who died in a fire related incident are down. If one looks at the number of LODDs a year we see many that are considered a LODD because of a 24 hour window and died from heart attack etc, when it is possible the fire or incident had nothing to do with the death. Now I brought this up before and I know it is a delicate topic, but really when looking we are counting any death even in the realm of being on duty as a LODD. One incident that really sticks out for me is the suicide of the asst chief in Washington State, which the only thing fire related was he committed suicide on duty.
Now LODD aside, the topic touches on fitness with the use of grants for equipment. OK, now looking into things how many depts really have a fitness program in place? How many depts say we have to take what we can get? How many issues are out there with regards to training and people not showing up for training, but rushes for a fire call?
What I would like to know is what is the basis for making such judgements? The rules just recently changed to SAFER making it possible to recall laid off FF's and did away with the matching grant. As it is many depts could not apply for such before because the municipality or governing body could not or would not meet the match. How many firefighters across the country have lost jobs because of the economy but did not receive such grants? How many injuries and deaths have occurred because departments have been forced to do more with less? Was the study a "broad stroke" (which I believe it is) or were areas where layoffs occurred looked at for increases and places which did receive grants, looked at for decreases? I'm guessing it was a broad look across the country, vs to actually see the benefits of such grants.
-
Permalink Reply by David Jarvis on
-
Just cause someone has a "Dr." atttched to his name everone should listen. Give me a frigin break.
I am just curious as to where this "Dr". gets his statistics and numbers from. I learned one thing from taking a previous class on sadistics is you have to have all the proper and factual input prior to comming up with particular statistic. I was always under the impression that a "safer grant" was to increase staffing needs of a particular fire department that is already overtaxed from incresing call volume not by funding to increase salaries yahoo! everyone gets a raise.
A lot of fire departmental organizations that are going to apply for a "safer grant" are hurting to the point where there is a huge decrease in services due a decrease in minimal staffing levels because of the economy, such that engines and fire stations are closed and response times are increasing.
On a final note if I am not mistaken isn't The Heritage Foundation a private enterprise?
-
-
Just wanted to add that it doesn't help when you have depts making training as an incident to help "pad" their runs to enable a better chance of securing such a grant.
-
-
I was always under the impression that a "safer grant" was to increase staffing needs of a particular fire department that is already overtaxed from incresing call volume not by funding salaries
SAFER was for a dept to add personnel in the past, it was also a matching grant that meant the municipality had to also fork over money in order to get the grant and hence many depts couldn't meet that committment to get the grant.
The rules recently changed for SAFER where it is a No Match grant for the first 2 years, along with that depts can apply for SAFER to recall firefighters laid off. It isn't so much because of an increasing call volume, but to procure adequate staffing.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
The information IS in the public domain. Though USFA has not released statistical information for the year just ended, here is a link to a 10 year table. Note how static the number of deaths are and the spike in property loss due to fire.
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/national/index.shtm
We constantly hear that the number one concern on volunteer departments is recruiting and retaining firefighters. If this data is a reliable snapshot, it makes you wonder how that can be if we are seeing net gains in both career and volunteer members. How is the up-tick explained? I really don’t know.
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/firefighters/index.shtm
As far as the pedigree of the Heritage Foundation, I used it to merely demonstrate what kind of information is out there that must be fought off. The HF newsletter goes out to millions of conservatives. I have no thoughts on the Heritage Foundation as an entity.
John: Currently, there are THREE definitions for what constitutes an LODD. They are USFA, NIOSH and NFFF, I believe.
TCSS.
Art
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
What a surprise, the Heritage Foundation determines that a government program should be eliminated. I'll have a read of the report (thank you for attaching a link to it) and see what they have to say, but out of the gate, any right-wing organisation is going to come to the conclusion that government=bad.
Maybe someone could find a similar report with the opposite conclusion from the NFPA or IAFF?
-
-
David:
Muhlhausen lists his name as David Muhlhausen, PhD.
I wouldn't discount the man's credibility.
He also lists his sources for his "opinions".
If you check out the ten year table at USFA (http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/national/index.shtm)
there are examples of what he alludes to.
Food for thought.
-
Permalink Reply by Allen Wahlstrom on
-
Rather than do away with these grants, why not have oversight on what is or more importantly IS NOT purchased with this funding.
Now I am not a big gov kind of guy, but making sure these departments are purchasing the right things seems important. And we all know that fitness equipment sits unused in many departments...
On that note, take the fitness money and split it between equipment and training for peer fitness coordinators in each department.
Getting equipment is great, and I work for a department that is blessed with great funding most of the year. We have solid equipment, a decent place to workout that is climate controlled and even TV's and stereo in Stations 1 and 2. But, many are not versed on the proper use of our fitness gear. Now that is more the firefighters fault than management on this one, simply due to the fact we have peer fitness coordinators assigned to each one of us.
Firefighter fitness is to me our biggest weakness on the fire ground. We go from 0-60 in an instant, and many are not fit enough to go from the couch to the kitchen without being short of breath.
We are at fault for OUR OWN fitness issues, and funding of more firefighters, better equipment, and nicer gear is not going to change that.
Do we need more funding, of course...
Companies that run 3 on an engine are not meeting 2 and 2, or RIT requirements and funding with help cities alleviate that issue, but if we hire guys in peak shape, then watch them become 50 pounds overweight in 5-10 years, we are to blame.
Until not wearing your seatbelt becomes a financial decision (fines to firing) we are going to needlessly lose firefighters at our current rate.
Until there is a fitness assessment that has teeth in every department we are going to lose out of shape firefighters to heart attacks at our current rate or worse.
We have gear that is 100 fold more protective than we did 30 years ago, it is lighter, more fire resistant, allows us to go places we never would have even 25 years ago, and we get ourselves killed needlessly because we trust our gear to make us Superman!
I know I know this is a bit OT, but the reality is all the money in the world is not going to reduce fatalities if we do not spend it wisely.
-
-
Wally:
But I thought the AFG process of computer, narrative and peer review was suppose to get the money into the hands that needed it for the things that they needed?
Think of all of the departments who have been told that they didn't qualify for the grant because they a) couldn't get past the computer b) didn't write a compelling narrative or c) there wasn't enough money to go around.
The bottom line is and always will be response time and trucks and turnouts won't improve that.
We all know what will.
TCSS.
Art
-
Permalink Reply by Wade Seely on
-
The only thing I would like to add is that statistics over a range of time can be manipulated to showcase whatever a person with the right knowledge wants them to. It all depends on what perameters are set for the statistics. Ten different people with ten different agendas can show staticstics that back there cause.
TCSS
-
-
Art,
A REAL fire prevention budget (i know it's not sexy) will make more difference than better equipment. Look at federal departments and their fire loss data. To have a fire a year on most average sized installations is almost always on the high side of jobs.
As for grant writing... ummm, hire a college kid with good grammar and creative use of the language. tie him or her to an old salt who knows what is needed, and viola...
Still, taking care of ourselves is a must.
-
-
One of the reasons that I included the link to the numbers of firefighters nation-wide; both career and volunteer is because of all of the cuts we are seeing and hearing about. The talk is that we are losing firefighters; yet the total numbers keeps going up. So, I don't understand. Either the fire service isn't as bad off with manpower or there are new departments cropping up, as established departments lose personnel.
And if manpower is driving SAFER, then you have to ask: are we hiring new and increasing staffing, hiring to replace staffing or both?
Hmmm.
Art
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
