[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE
FIRE GRANT PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 8, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-40
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-661 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
HON. DAVID WU, Oregon, Chair
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
PAUL D. TONKO, New York W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
MIKE QUEAR Subcommittee Staff Director
MEGHAN HOUSEWRIGHT Democratic Professional Staff Member
TRAVIS HITE Democratic Professional Staff Member
HOLLY LOGUE PRUTZ Democratic Professional Staff Member
DAN BYERS Republican Professional Staff Member
VICTORIA JOHNSTON Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
July 8, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Prepared Statement by Representative David Wu, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 11
Statement by Representative Ben R. Lujan, Vice Chair,
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Adrian Smith, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member,
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 11
Panel I:
The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey, 8th District
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Panel II:
Mr. Timothy W. Manning, Deputy Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Biography.................................................... 20
Chief Jeffrey D. Johnson, First Vice President, The International
Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC); Chief, Tualatin Valley Fire
and Rescue
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 22
Biography.................................................... 26
Chief Jack Carriger, Stayton Fire Department, Stayton, Oregon;
First Vice-Chairman of the National Volunteer Fire Council
(NVFC)
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 28
Biography.................................................... 33
Mr. Kevin B. O'Connor, Assistant to the General President,
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF)
Oral Statement............................................... 34
Written Statement............................................ 36
Biography.................................................... 41
Chief Curt Varone, Division Manager, Public Fire Protection
Division, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Oral Statement............................................... 41
Written Statement............................................ 43
Biography.................................................... 44
Mr. Ed Carlin, Training Officer, Spalding Rural Volunteer Fire
Department, Spalding, Nebraska
Oral Statement............................................... 45
Written Statement............................................ 47
Biography.................................................... 49
Discussion....................................................... 49
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Timothy W. Manning, Deputy Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS).......................................................... 62
Chief Jeffrey D. Johnson, First Vice President, The International
Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC); Chief, Tualatin Valley Fire
and Rescue..................................................... 69
Chief Jack Carriger, Stayton Fire Department, Stayton, Oregon;
First Vice-Chairman of the National Volunteer Fire Council
(NVFC)......................................................... 72
Mr. Kevin B. O'Connor, Assistant to the General President,
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF).............. 81
Chief Curt Varone, Division Manager, Public Fire Protection
Division, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).......... 83
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE FIRE GRANT PROGRAMS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ben Ray
Lujan [Vice Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Reauthorization of the
Fire Grant Programs
wednesday, july 8, 2009
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
I. Purpose
On Wednesday, July 8, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
of the Committee on Science and Technology will hold a hearing to
examine the Assistance to Firefighter Grant (AFG) and Staffing for
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant programs, together
referred to as the FIRE grants, in preparation for their
reauthorization. The current authorization for AFG will expire at the
end of this fiscal year; the authorization for SAFER will expire at the
end of FY 2010.
II. Witnesses
Panel I
Congressman Bill Pascrell is the Representative from New Jersey-8th
District.
Panel II
Mr. Timothy Manning is the Deputy Administrator of the National
Preparedness Directorate at the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Chief Jeffrey D. Johnson is the First Vice President of the
International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and the Chief of the
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue.
Chief Jack Carriger is the Stayton, Oregon Fire District First Vice
Chairman of the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC).
Mr. Kevin O'Connor is the Assistant to the General President of the
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF).
Chief Curt Varone is the Division Manager of the Public Fire Protection
Division for the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
Mr. Ed Carlin is the Training Officer of the Spalding Rural Volunteer
Fire Department in Spalding, Nebraska.
III. Hearing Issues
Congress created AFG and SAFER to increase the safety of the public
and firefighting personnel, from fire and related hazards. This hearing
will examine how well FEMA has met this challenge in awarding grants to
fire departments across the country, with respect to balancing the
needs of career, volunteer, and combination fire departments, along
with national emergency response funding priorities. In addition, the
hearing will examine progress toward decreasing the number of fire
fatalities, injuries, and related property loss, in both civilian and
firefighter populations.
IV. Background
The AFG Program competitively awards funds to local fire
departments to purchase emergency response equipment and training.
SAFER, also competitively awarded, funds the hiring, recruitment, and
retention of firefighting personnel. Both programs are administered by
FEMA, within DHS, through the Office of Grants and Training. Since AFG
began in 2001, fire departments across the country have over subscribed
for the grants. For FY 2008 alone, FEMA received 21,022 applications
for AFG funds, with requests totaling $3,137,121,053 and 1,314
applications for SAFER funds, with requests totaling $583,953,578. A
total of $454,403,597 in grants was awarded for AFG in FY 2008 and
$152,847,595 was awarded for SAFER in FY 2008. In addition to the
grants that go for equipment and personnel, FEMA also provides funding
for fire prevention and safety, as well as grants to emergency medical
service (EMS) providers unaffiliated with fire departments.
History of FIRE Grants
Congress created the AFG program in 2000 in response to concerns
over local budget shortfalls at a time of increasing responsibilities
for fire departments. Introduced as H.R. 1168, the Firefighter
Investment and Response Act, the program was enacted into law in the FY
2001 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 398, Title XVII).
Congress reauthorized AFG in the FY 2005 National Defense Authorization
Act (P.L. 108-375, Title XXXVI) with funds authorized through FY 2009.
Congress created the SAFER program amidst concern that local fire
departments needed assistance in hiring, or recruiting and retaining
volunteer firefighters, in order to meet national consensus standards
for minimum staffing levels. The program was introduced in H.R. 3992,
and later enacted in section 1057 of the FY 2004 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136). This authorization will expire in FY
2010.
Current Activity for the AFG Program
Support from AFG may be used for a number of different activities.
Under the existing authorization, grants may fund the purchase of
firefighting equipment, protective gear, and vehicles. Permissible
training activity under the grants includes terrorism incident
response, arson prevention and detection, hazardous material response,
and fire inspector certification. The grants may also be used for
firefighter health and safety programs and to modify fire stations to
improve firefighter health and safety. FEMA must annually convene a
panel of fire service organization representatives to advise the agency
on priorities and grant making criteria for the following fiscal year.
The program guidance from FEMA notes that ``The AFG program is an
important part of the Administration's larger, coordinated effort to
strengthen homeland security preparedness,'' and as such, reflects the
priorities of the National Preparedness Guidelines. DHS issued these
guidelines in 2007 to coordinate and increase the level of preparedness
at all levels of government to respond to catastrophic events, and
terrorist attacks in particular. To help governments plan, the
Guidelines established the Target Capabilities List and the Universal
Task List.\1\ Similar to previous years, FY 2009 AFG priorities are
first responder safety, enhancing national capabilities, addressing
risk, and promoting inter-operability.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Department of Homeland Security National Preparedness
Guidelines, September 2007 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/
National-Preparedness-Guidelines.pdf)
\2\ Fiscal Year 2009 Assistance to Firefighters Grants Guidance and
Application Kit, April 2009 (http://www.firegrantsupport.com/docs/
2009AFGguidance.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The grants are peer-reviewed. Peer reviewers score the applications
according to the clarity of the proposed project/purchase and
accompanying budget, the organization's financial need, the cost-
benefit of the proposed project/purchase, and the degree to which the
proposed project/purchase enhances daily operations or the department's
ability to protect life and property. The authorizing legislation
requires that FEMA take into account the cost-to-benefit ratio when
considering applications and making awards. The FEMA grant guidance to
fire departments notes that ``DHS will provide a higher level of
consideration to departments with significant levels of incidents and
to departments that protect large populations relative to other
applicants, regardless of the type of community served.'' Therefore
lower call volumes and smaller communities receive lower priority. The
authorizing legislation requires that volunteer departments, which
typically serve rural areas, receive funding in proportion to the
percentage of the U.S. population they serve (approximately 55
percent). There is no other specific guidance on geographic
distribution of the funds, other than a directive that they be
dispersed to a diverse mix of type (volunteer, career, or combination),
geographic location, and composition of community served (urban,
suburban, or rural).
In addition to the FEMA guidance for the program, departments must
also meet certain legislative requirements. Local fire departments
applying for a grant must provide matching funds in accordance with the
population of the community they serve (see Table 1). Other
restrictions in the program include a cap per fiscal year relative to
the size of the community (see Table 2), a 25 percent cap on total
appropriated funds available for fire vehicles, and a 3.5 percent floor
on funds that must be used for EMS training and equipment.
Current Activity for the Fire Prevention and Safety Grants Program
Under current statute, a minimum of five percent of AFG funding
must be used for Fire Safety and Prevention (FP&S) Grants. In the
1970's, the President's National Commission on Fire Prevention and
Control released America Burning, which cited the death rate from fires
in the U.S. at 12,000 people per year. The NFPA reports that the
current average is 3,760 deaths per year, and at least $10 billion per
year in total property damage. While the number of deaths has decreased
significantly since the 1970s, a report by the National Academy of
Public Administration (NAPA) notes that the decline in fire fatality
rate slowed or ended in the late 1990s. The report also notes that
fatality rates vary dramatically across demographic groups: African-
Americans are three times more likely than whites to die in residential
fires; males are 78 percent more likely to die in fires than females;
and those with less than a high school education are five times as
likely as those with some college education to die in residential
fires.
FP&S grants fund fire prevention programs at both local fire
departments and other related community organizations. The
authorization sets aside a minimum of five percent of AFG funds for
FP&S grants, and sets a cap of $1,000,000 per grant per fiscal year.
FEMA guidance for FP&S supports activities in two categories: ``(1)
activities designed to reach high-risk target groups and mitigate
incidences of deaths and injuries caused by fire and related hazards;
and (2) research and development activities aimed at improvements of
firefighter safety.'' For 2006 and 2007, the two years for which the
breakout for research and prevention grants were reported by FEMA, 33
and 38 percent, respectively, went toward firefighter safety research.
Most research was performed at universities.
Current Activity for the SAFER Program
SAFER grants may be used to hire new personnel and to provide
funding for recruitment and retention of firefighters for volunteer and
combination departments. Ten percent of the total SAFER funding is
reserved for recruitment and retention. The majority of funds assist
local departments in paying the salaries of new firefighters, hired to
bring local departments into compliance with safe staffing minimums
established in national voluntary consensus standards. The original
legislative requirement includes an escalating local match, with the
department providing 10 percent of the salary and related costs of the
firefighter for the first year of the grant, 20 percent the second
year, 50 percent the third, and 70 percent in the fourth. The
department is also required to retain the firefighter for at least one
more year following the fourth year of the grant. Regardless of
matching funds, the current law sets a cap (adjusted annually for
inflation, starting from $100,000 in 2005, set at $108,380 for 2008) on
the total amount of money the grant can pay over the four year span for
each firefighter. Ten percent of the hiring funds must go to volunteer,
or mostly volunteer departments (mostly volunteer departments are
defined as those where 50 percent of the personnel do not receive
financial compensation for their services).
In response to concerns that current economic conditions would
hinder the ability of communities to provide matching funds, and thus
discourage departments from applying for existing SAFER funds, the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) included a
provision waiving the matching requirements for SAFER grants awarded in
FY 2009. The waiver was similarly permitted for FY 2010. Amidst further
concerns that grant requirements prevented struggling communities from
applying for funds, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L.
111-32) included a provision allowing the Secretary of Homeland
Security to waive the following requirements: that the grants be used
only to hire new firefighters, that they not supplant local funding,
that the department commit to at least one additional year of funding
beyond the term of the grant, and that the federal funding shall not
exceed the cap set in statute.
Like AFG funding, SAFER awards are also made via a peer-review
process. FEMA also convenes a panel of fire service organization
representatives to offer recommendations on the program criteria for
each grant year. FEMA's FY 2008 program guidance for SAFER (FY 2009 is
not yet available) states that, ``As a result of the enhanced staffing,
a SAFER grantee's response time should be sufficiently reduced with an
appropriate number of trained personnel assembled at the incident
scene.'' FEMA accords higher consideration to departments with higher
call volumes and serving large populations in making staffing award
decisions. For the recruitment and retention grants, volunteer, or
mostly volunteer departments, receive higher consideration.
Funding Levels for the Grant Programs
AFG: In total, since FY 2001, $5.2 billion\3\ has been appropriated
for the AFG program. The table on the next page shows the authorized
and appropriated levels for the AFG program since FY 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This does not include appropriations from the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
SAFER: In total, since FY 2005, $1.1 billion has been appropriated
for the SAFER program.\4\ The table below shows the authorized and
appropriated levels for the SAFER program since FY 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ SAFER was not appropriated in FY 2004.
The grants are given out to all-volunteer departments, all-career
departments, and combination volunteer/career departments in an
approximate proportion to the amount of grant requests they receive
from these types of departments. In FY 2008, 48 percent of AFG money
went to all-volunteer fire departments, 27 percent went to combination
volunteer/career fire departments, and 19 percent went to all-career
departments. The remaining six percent went to paid on-call
departments. Career firefighters are more common in urban areas and
volunteer firefighters are more common in rural areas; however, there
is a differential in the correlation. Sixty-seven percent of AFG money
went to rural departments in FY 2008 while 20 percent went to suburban
departments and 13 percent went to urban departments. More than 60
percent of all applications are for fire trucks and engines, only 25
percent of the appropriated funds may be used for that purpose.
Firefighting equipment and personal protective gear are also heavily
requested.
In FY 2007, two percent of FP&S money went to all-volunteer fire
departments, five percent went to career departments, five percent went
to combination departments, and 88 percent went to other community
organizations. In FY 2007, FEMA received 2,561 applications for FP&S
funds, with requests totaling $330,719,746. A total of $33,887,071 was
awarded.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ FY 2008 award numbers are not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In FY 2008, 32.4 percent of SAFER applications came from all-
volunteer fire departments, 48.0 percent came from combination
volunteer/career fire departments, and 17.4 percent came from all-
career fire departments. The remaining 2.1 percent came from Statewide
and Local Volunteer Firefighter Interest Organizations.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.firegrantsupport.com/docs/2008SAFERApps.pdf
Review of AFG
In 2007, at the request of the Department of Homeland Security,
NAPA reviewed the performance of the AFG program and offered
recommendations for its improvement.\7\ The report recommends that AFG
should convert from primarily funding basic firefighting and EMS needs
to prioritizing grant applications that would more likely increase
preparedness for catastrophic events. The report also recommends the
program should prioritize applications that fund mitigation
capabilities, including public education, and applications that target
places and people at greatest risk from fire. The report further
recommends that the program should work with DHS to build a national
network of response capabilities that can be deployed quickly where
needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ National Academy of Public Administration, Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program: Assessing Performance, April 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lujan. The hearing will come to order.
Good morning. Today's hearing addresses a key program in
increasing public safety and protecting the safety of first
responders. The FIRE grants help fire departments across the
country increase their capabilities to fight fires, respond to
medical emergencies, handle disasters and better confront all
that is asked of the modern fire service.
The authorizations for the Assistance for Firefighter Grant
(AFG) program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire Emergency
Response, or the SAFER program, are both facing expiration.
These grant programs provide funding for local fire
departments, ones in every state and every district, to obtain
equipment and training and to increase their ranks of
firefighters.
The FIRE grants were created to help local communities keep
up with the needed manpower and equipment to handle the
increasing array of tasks falling to local fire departments.
The growing duties include emergency medical services, fighting
fires at the wildland-urban interface and serving as first
responders to terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
In this economy, maintaining equipment, training and
personnel to safely respond to all calls is increasingly
difficult, or impossible, in many jurisdictions. Fire
departments around the country have been forced to lay off
firefighters and forego needed equipment and training.
Therefore, the over $6 billion of grants that have gone to fire
departments since 2000 have been integral to maintaining public
safety in many communities. This year and last year, fire
departments in my district in New Mexico have benefited from a
half a million dollars of this funding.
Fire remains a serious problem in the United States. More
people die in fires in the United States than from all other
natural disasters combined. On average, 3,700 citizens die in
structure fires each year and over 100 firefighters are killed
in the line of duty. In addition to these fatalities, there are
thousands of injuries and over $10 billion in property losses
each year. Fires are often a surprise to their victims but the
statistics tell us that fire fatalities and injuries are not
random. Demographics shape who is most likely to die in fires.
Vulnerable populations like the poor and the elderly suffer the
most. Males are more likely to die than females, as are
minorities and those without a high school education. I hope
that the witnesses today will offer insight on why fires
disproportionately affect these individuals and how these
trends can be changed.
I would also like to learn today how we can improve upon
the contribution FIRE grants make to public safety and the
safety of first responders. I hope the witnesses will offer
insight on the best balance to serve the needs of fire
departments and the populations they protect, and I hope to
learn how any proposed changes would affect the fire.
I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us
today.
I now would like to recognize Representative Smith for his
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lujan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vice Chair Ben Lujan
Good morning. Today's hearing addresses a key program in increasing
public safety and protecting the safety of first responders. The FIRE
Grants help fire departments across the country increase their
capabilities to fight fires, respond to medical emergencies, handle
disasters, and better confront all that is asked of the modern fire
service.
The authorizations for the Assistance for Firefighters Grant
Program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response--or
SAFER program--are both facing expirations. These grant programs
provide funding for local fire departments, ones in every state and
every district, to obtain equipment and training, and to increase their
ranks of firefighters.
The FIRE grants were created to help local communities keep up with
the needed manpower and equipment to handle the increasing array of
tasks falling to local fire departments. The growing duties include
emergency medical services, fighting fires at the wildland-urban
interface, and serving as first responders to terrorist attacks and
natural disasters.
In this economy, maintaining the equipment, training, and personnel
to safely and swiftly respond to all calls is increasingly difficult,
or impossible, in many jurisdictions. Fire departments around the
country have been forced to lay-off firefighters and forego needed
equipment and training. Therefore, the over $6 billion of grants that
have gone to fire departments since 2000 has been integral to
maintaining public safety in many communities. This year and last, fire
departments in my district in New Mexico have benefited from a half a
million dollars of this funding.
Fire remains a serious problem in the U.S. More people die in fires
in the U.S. than from all other natural disasters combined. On average,
3,700 citizens die in structure fires each year, and over 100
firefighters are killed in the line of duty. In addition to these
fatalities, there are thousands of injuries and over $10 billion
dollars in property lost each year. Fires are often a surprise to their
victims but the statistics tell us that fire fatalities and injuries
are not random. Demographics shape who is most likely to die in fires;
vulnerable populations, like the poor or the elderly suffer the most.
Males are more likely to die than females, as are minorities, and those
without a high school education. I hope the witnesses today will offer
insight on why fires disproportionately affect these individuals and
how these trends can be changed.
I would also like to learn today how we can improve upon the
contribution FIRE grants make to public safety and the safety of first
responders. I hope the witnesses will also offer insight on the best
balance to serve the needs of fire departments and the populations they
protect. And, I hope to learn how any proposed changes would affect the
fire service.
I will now recognize Ranking Member Smith for his opening
statement.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for holding the
hearing today to discuss reauthorization of the Department of
Homeland Security's firefighter grants program. I want to
welcome all of our witnesses and thank you for coming here
today to testify on these essential programs. I especially want
to thank Mr. Ed Carlin for coming all the way from rural
Nebraska, the Spalding Rural Volunteer Fire Department,
obviously located in the 3rd District of Nebraska, and I
appreciate your willingness to share and certainly for your
service to our community, our state and certainly our nation.
The Assistance to Firefighters Grant program and the
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, the acronym
SAFER, programs both provide much-needed assistance to fire
departments across our country. In rural areas, many
communities rely upon all-volunteer departments to respond to
fires and other emergencies. The equipment needed to fight
fires and save lives and properties is costly and requires
departments to have certain minimum response capabilities
regardless of whether they are protecting a community of a few
thousand people or a large city of a few hundred thousand
people. Acquiring these capabilities are particularly difficult
in many small communities that do not possess the financial
resources necessary to provide adequate support to these
departments. As such, firefighter grants have proven absolutely
vital for rural and volunteer fire departments that have small
taxes bases and the least stability to acquire such equipment.
In numerous discussions with fire chiefs and firefighters
in my district, the AFG program is frequently cited as a
lifesaver and the only means by which their department can
attempt to purchase up-to-date equipment which requires a
significant portion of their budget for their volunteers.
Because of the volunteer departments' reliance upon the AFG
program and because of the AFG program's proven track record of
successfully awarding grants through an open, competitive
process based on need, I am concerned about the United Fire
Service's proposal to transition away from this model to one
where statutory set-asides limit program flexibility based on
department type. I fear this redistribution of AFG funds will
put many rural and all-volunteer departments at a severe
disadvantage when it comes to obtaining the necessary
equipment.
Similarly, also worrisome to me is a proposal to provide
priority to applicants with higher call volume and population.
Volunteer departments serving predominantly rural areas benefit
tremendously from firefighter assistance programs because,
unlike many other agency programs, the grants are distributed
on need rather than population. Population and call volume
isn't the only determinate of need, and we must be cognizant of
the unique role the volunteer firefighters play in serving
their communities and not limit an extremely critical source of
funding for their departments.
I am extremely appreciative of the services all brave
firefighters provide on behalf of our nation's citizens and I
look forward to hearing from the witnesses on this very
essential program.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Adrian Smith
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today to discuss
reauthorization of the Department of Homeland Security's Firefighters
grants programs.
I want to welcome our all of our witnesses and thank you for coming
here today to testify on these essential programs. I especially want to
offer a warm welcome to Mr. Ed Carlin from Spalding Rural Volunteer
Fire Department, which is located in the Third District of Nebraska. I
sincerely appreciate your willingness to appear before the Subcommittee
today to discuss these important issues and am grateful for your
service to your community and nation.
The Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program and the Staffing
for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) program both provide
much-needed assistance to fire departments across our nation. In rural
areas, many communities rely upon all-volunteer departments to respond
to fires and other emergencies. The equipment needed to fight fires and
save lives and property is costly, and requires departments to have
certain minimum response capabilities regardless of whether they are
protecting a community of a few thousand people or a large city of a
few hundred thousand people. Acquiring these capabilities are
particularly difficult in many small communities that do not possess
the financial resources necessary to provide adequate support to these
departments. As such, Firefighter grants have proven absolutely vital
for rural and volunteer fire departments that have small tax bases and
the least ability to acquire such equipment.
In numerous discussions with fire chiefs and firefighters in my
District, the AFG program is frequently cited as a ``lifesaver,'' and
the only means by which their department can attempt to purchase up-to-
date equipment--which requires a significant portion of their budget--
for their volunteers. Because of volunteer departments' reliance upon
the AFG program, and because of the AFG programs' proven track record
of successfully awarding grants through a fully competitive process, I
am concerned about the Unified Fire Service's proposal to replace the
program's current need-based focus with one where statutory set-asides
limit program flexibility based on department type. I fear this
redistribution of AFG funds will put many rural and all-volunteer
departments at a severe disadvantage when it comes to obtaining the
necessary equipment.
Similarly, also worrisome to me is a proposal to provide priority
to applicants with higher call volume and population. Volunteer
departments serving predominantly rural areas benefit tremendously from
firefighter assistance programs because--unlike many other agency
programs--the grants are distributed on need rather than population.
Population and call volume isn't the only determinant of need, and we
must be cognizant of the unique role our volunteer firefighters play in
serving their communities and not limit an extremely critical source of
funding for their departments.
I am extremely appreciative of the services all brave firefighters
provide on behalf of our nation's citizens and I look forward to
hearing from the witnesses today on this essential program.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Wu follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman David Wu
Good morning. I would like to welcome everybody to this morning's
hearing on the reauthorization of the Assistance to Firefighter Grant
program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response grant
program, known collectively as the FIRE Grant programs. Supporting our
nation's first responders is critical; historically the Science and
Technology Committee has been one the strongest backers of the fire
service. In the last Congress, the Science Committee reauthorized the
U.S. Fire Administration, which delivers vital training and provides
national leadership to the fire service. Today, we are looking at the
FIRE Grant programs, which help raise the capabilities of fire
departments to tackle fires and other emergencies.
Since fiscal year 2001, the AFG program has provided over $4.8
billion to local fire departments to purchase equipment, vehicles, and
training. The program, created by Congress in 2000 because of concerns
that local budgets were unable to handle the mounting responsibilities
being assigned to the fire service, continues to be a critical asset to
community safety in this tough economy. Congress created the SAFER
program in 2004 to help fire departments hire firefighting personnel
and meet voluntary consensus standards on safe minimum staffing levels.
Through SAFER, $689 million in grants have gone to help fire
departments respond quickly and safely to all emergencies.
Fire is a serious problem in the United States, killing over 3,000
people a year--a rate higher than all other industrialized countries.
In addition, approximately 20,000 people are injured, and $10 billion
in property is lost each year due to fire. Statistics show that
minorities and low-income Americans are disproportionately the victims
of fires. The AFG program also supports grants for fire prevention and
safety. I hope to learn today about the types of activities the fire
prevention and safety grants currently fund and how they may be
improved to combat these high numbers of death, injury, and loss.
I am pleased to have a panel of first-hand experts with us who can
offer their recommendations on how to improve the FIRE Grant programs
to meet the growing challenges our first responders face. From
responding to emergency medical calls to fighting wildfires that
encroach into adjacent communities, fire departments must be ready for
any type of emergency. The Nation's 30,000 fire departments serve a
variety of communities, from the largest to the smallest. Many of those
who serve as firefighters do so on a volunteer basis. As cities and
towns of all sizes struggle to provide services in this economy, the
FIRE Grant programs are a key resource for protecting the safety of the
public and firefighters.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Harry E. Mitchell
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today we will examine and evaluate the Assistance to Firefighter
Grant (AFG) and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response
(SAFER) Grant programs.
Firefighters are often the first--and the last--to leave an
emergency scene. Whether it's putting out a house or an apartment
fire--or responding to a wildfire or a car accident--we depend on
firefighters every day.
As you know, Congress created the AFG program in 2000 to help local
fire departments accommodate increasing responsibilities. SAFER was
created to assist local fire departments with hiring, or recruiting and
retaining volunteer firefighters, in order to meet national consensus
standards for minimum staffing levels.
I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses on how the AFG
and SAFER programs have increased the safety of the public and
firefighting personnel, from fire and related hazards.
I yield back.
Panel I:
Mr. Lujan. It is my pleasure to introduce our first witness
panel. Our friend, Congressman Bill Pascrell, is a U.S.
Representative from the 8th District of New Jersey. Mr.
Pascrell, you have five minutes for your spoken testimony, and
your written testimony will be included in the record for the
hearing. Congressman Pascrell, please begin.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 8TH DISTRICT
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, my friend from New Mexico and the
Ranking Member, Mr. Smith. I want to thank also, of course, our
Chairman, David Wu, and Bart Gordon, the Full Committee Chair.
It seems like a lifetime but this legislation--I had
introduced this legislation in the 106th Congress. That is when
it passed. It passed before 9/11 and it passed because so many
firefighters, both career and volunteer, came to Washington
knowing that this legislation was a bottom-up piece of
legislation, unheard of before, with two or three signatures on
it for a year and a half and then probably more signatures when
it passed than any other bill that term, and it was passed in
2000. Billions of dollars of course have been competitively bid
for.
By every estimation, this is either the first or second
best federal program in the whole government, and I think it is
important because the peers--the firefighters themselves make
the judgment--bureaucrats are not involved, and I think this is
why the program has been so successful, Mr. Chairman, and it
really was the inspiration for the second piece of legislation,
which is not before you today which I ask also that you
reauthorize, and that is the SAFER bill. When I teamed up with
Congressman Boehlert from Cooperstown, New York, who is no
longer with us--retired, and we passed the SAFER bill, which
helps the personnel in many of our fire departments,
particularly at a time when our economy is feeling a tremendous
amount of pressure and communities cannot respond as they
should.
Now, when we looked at this in the later 1990s, it was
quite obvious from the firefighters that I assembled,
volunteer, career, and retired, it became very obvious that
there was a tremendous amount of need out there, and who better
could define those needs but firefighters? Gee, that was
something new on Capitol Hill. Let us go to the source of the
problem, let us go to those folks who have to deal with the
situation every day, and when you look at the federal
responsibility and response to the very needs, you would see
that that was a part of public safety that was tremendously
neglected. The Federal Government had relatively little input
into helping communities respond to their fire needs. That is
why the FIRE Act was passed.
These brave firefighters are on duty every day. We saw what
happened on 9/11 when so many lost their lives responding. They
are our first responders. They respond faster and quicker than
the Federal Government. They are in our communities all
throughout the United States, yet we knew that there were
communities in this country where they have to push the
apparatus to the fires. We were very careful when we shaped
this legislation that it not become top heavy in any area, that
rural areas, suburban areas and urban areas, we would balance
whatever the legislation would be, and I think those
firefighters who have acted in reviewing and analyzing 3,000
applications that come in every year and finally making the
decision as to which departments show the greatest need, we
have extended--and I want to compliment FEMA (Federal Emergency
Management Agency) for helping put together sessions throughout
the country so that firefighters and those who do the grant
writing can come to these sessions and learn how to fill out a
grant because that is three-quarters of the battle, and I
really--they have done a terrific job. They have really done a
sensational job.
So the FIRE Act was passed and officially established
through title 17 and actually became part of the National
Defense Authorization Act. So since 2001, the program has
responded to the needs such as infrared cameras, personal
protective gear, hazmat detection devices, and fitness
programs, which have saved firefighters' lives. Many of these
firefighters never went through a physical or hadn't taken
periodic physicals. Saved lives. My own District, I could give
you specific examples. That is important. We want healthy
people going online. We want people that are able to do the
physical work that is necessary to protect us to be able to do
that, and of course, inter-operable communication systems.
So we know that this competitive grant process has worked.
I would put it against any such competitive process in the
entire Federal Government, not just in Homeland Security, but
in the entire Federal Government. Together, as I said, with the
FIRE and SAFER, make up what we commonly refer to as the FIRE
grant programs.
I want to make the point again, Mr. Chairman, that the FIRE
grant programs are vital and are vital and necessary today as
the day we passed them. In fact, when you look at the
applications that are coming to FEMA and when you see what the
needs are, you will see things haven't changed dramatically
really in those 10 years. They haven't really changed that
dramatically, even after 9/11.
Today, in the midst of a terrible economic recession,
localities throughout America are being forced to cut budgets
and unfortunately public safety is the first to go. Sixty
percent of fire departments do not have enough self-contained
breathing apparatus to equip all firefighters on a shift.
Forty-eight percent of fire departments do not have enough
personnel alert safety system devices to equip all emergency
responders on a shift. Sixty-five percent of fire departments
do not have enough portable radios to equip all emergency
responders on shift. Eight years after 9/11, that is not
acceptable. It is just not acceptable. Less than 20 percent of
the fire departments in the United States are able to cover the
cost of apparatus replacement through their normal budget. I
mean, how many pancake breakfasts do you need to have to buy a
$600,000, $700,000 piece of equipment? It doesn't work. It
doesn't work. The same can be said for the SAFER grants.
I come here today to state that there is one thing we do
agree upon and that is, it is essential that we reauthorize
both the FIRE and SAFER grants in the 111th Congress. Clearly,
adjustments must be made to both programs in the next
reauthorization based on the lessons we have learned. We made
some adjustments in the past by changing and minimizing the
amount of matching money from the local communities, and I
think it has been particularly helpful to a lot of communities
who couldn't make the match.
So I want to thank you for allowing me to testify. This is
in my bone marrow. I am available for questions, and if you
want to ask any questions, ask them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pascrell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bill Pascrell, Jr.
I want to thank Full Committee Chairman Bart Gordon, Subcommittee
Chairman David Wu and Ranking Member Adrian Smith for holding this
important hearing and allowing me to testify before this subcommittee
about the need to reauthorize the fire grants, an issue which has been
very near and dear to me.
I am very proud to say that in the 106th Congress I authored the
original FIRE Act and helped lead the effort with many of my colleagues
in Congress to get this vital grant program started. At that time we in
Congress began to realize that our national public security could not
be ensured if we simply left it to states and localities to provide the
equipment and resources necessary for our firefighters. It was a great
sight to behold so many of our nation's finest and bravest firefighters
come to the halls of Congress and lobby their Members on the need to
pass the FIRE Act. I think it's especially noteworthy that all the fire
service organizations--volunteers and career--truly joined together and
worked hand-in-hand to help get the FIRE Act up and running.
In the end the FIRE Act was passed and the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program was officially established through
Title XVII (17) of the FY 2001 National Defense Authorization Act.
After the terrible attacks we witnessed on 9/11 few could argue against
the critical need for these fire grants. On that fateful day 343
firefighters lost their lives while bravely trying to save others. The
lesson was clear--we needed to provide those firefighters with the
equipment and training necessary to match their bravery and strength.
With those men and women as our inspiration, we fought on a bipartisan
basis to establish funding for fire grants and protect those grants
against repeated annual cuts in the President's budget.
Since 2001, this program has positively impacted public safety by
providing more than $3 billion for infrared cameras, personal
protective gear, hazmat detection devices, improved breathing
apparatuses, advanced training and fitness programs, fire engines,
prevention and education programs, and inter-operable communication
systems. A number of independent evaluations of the program have
demonstrated its success:
On May 13, 2003, the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA)
released the first independent evaluation of the Assistance to
Firefighters Program and concluded overall that the program was
``highly effective in improving the readiness and capabilities
of firefighters across the Nation.''
Another evaluation was released by the DHS Office of
Inspector General in September 2003, which concluded that the
program ``succeeded in achieving a balanced distribution of
funding through a competitive grant process.''
Finally, in the FY 2008 DHS Program Assessment Rating
Tool report issued in May, the FIRE Act grant program received
the second highest rating of any program in DHS scoring only
one percentage point lower than the U.S. Secret Service
Domestic Protectees program.
After the success of the FIRE Act, we again worked with all the
fire services groups in the 108th Congress to address concerns that our
nation's firehouses were not being adequately staffed. In response we
passed the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act--the
SAFER Act, which authorized grants to career, volunteer and combination
local fire departments for the purpose of increasing the number of
firefighters to help communities meet industry minimum standards and
attain 24-hour staffing to provide sufficient protection from fire and
fire-related hazards.
Together FIRE and SAFER make up what we commonly refer to as the
fire grant programs and while I could go on for days relating the
countless stories of lives that were saved or disasters that were
averted throughout our nation due to these grants, the point I want to
make here is that the fire grant programs are as vital and necessary
today as the day we passed them. Today, in the midst of a terrible
economic recession, localities throughout America are being forced to
cut budgets and unfortunately public safety funds are too often the
target. Sadly while public safety budgets can increase and decrease
from year to year, the threat of fire and natural disaster are
constant--these threats in no way accommodate for our economic
condition.
Furthermore, the need for FIRE grants is made clear by the
statistics, according to the 2006 DHS report Four Years Later--A Second
Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service:
60 percent of fire departments do not have enough
self-contained breathing apparatus to equip all firefighters on
a shift;
48 percent of fire departments do not have enough
personal alert safety system devices to equip all emergency
responders on a shift;
65 percent of fire departments do not have enough
portable radios to equip all emergency responders on shift;
Less than 20 percent of fire departments in the
United States are able to cover the cost of apparatus
replacement through their normal budget.
Similarly, the need for the SAFER grants is demonstrated by the
large number of firefighters being laid off throughout the Nation. I
imagine the Members here know of at least one similar situation in
their own district. Finally, I want to make the point that in FY 2009,
nearly 20,000 fire departments across the country applied for more than
$3.1 billion in FIRE Act grant assistance--so no one should be able to
claim that the demand for these grants does not still exist.
Mr. Chairman, I came here today to state what we all should agree
upon, that it is essential that we reauthorize both the FIRE and SAFER
grants programs in this 111th Congress. Clearly adjustments must be
made to both programs based on the lessons we have learned, but that
should not and cannot hinder us from advancing these fire grant
programs which have shown to be effective. I have always said that real
homeland security starts on the streets of our local towns and not in
the hallways of Washington--I truly believe these fire grants awarded
to local municipalities are key to our homeland security
infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for this invitation and the chance
to speak on this essential issue.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. Pascrell. If none of
the Members have any questions, Mr. Pascrell, you are now
excused. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you.
Mr. Lujan. And we will now take a short break before our
next panel.
[Recess.]
Panel II:
Mr. Lujan. At this time I would like to introduce our
second panel. Mr. Timothy Manning is the Deputy Administrator
of the National Preparedness Directorate at the Federal
Emergency Management Agency of the Department of Homeland
Security, and comes from the great State of New Mexico, most
recently as the director of our homeland security department.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Manning. Chief Jeffrey Johnson is
the First Vice President of the International Association of
Fire Chiefs and the Chief of the Tualatin--did I get that
correct, Chief?
Chief Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Lujan. Valley Fire and Rescue. Chief Jack Carriger is
the Stayton, Oregon, Fire District First Vice Chairman of the
National Volunteer Fire Council. Mr. Kevin O'Connor is the
Assistant to the General President of the International
Association of Firefighters, and Chief Curt Varone is the
Division Manager of the Public Fire Protection Division for the
National Fire Protection Association, and our final witness is
Mr. Ed Carlin, who is the Training Officer of the Spalding
Rural Volunteer Fire Department in Spalding, Nebraska.
You will each have five minutes for your spoken testimony.
Your written testimony will be included in the record for the
hearing. When you all complete your testimony, we will begin
with questions, and each Member will have five minutes to
question the panel. Mr. Manning, please begin.
STATEMENT OF MR. TIMOTHY W. MANNING, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)
Mr. Manning. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Smith, Members of the Committee. I am Tim Manning. I am
the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, and on behalf of Administrator Fugate, it is a
privilege to appear before you today to offer the
Administration's support for the reauthorization of the
Assistance to Firefighters and Staffing for Adequate Fire and
Emergency Response Grant programs.
Mr. Chairman, we at FEMA share your continued support of
the Nation's fire service. We understand the value of these
programs to firefighters across the country and the citizens
they serve. Having been raised in a fire service family and
served as a volunteer firefighter myself, I have a firsthand
appreciation for the dedication of these men and women, and I
am honored to be able to support them in my capacity at FEMA.
And as a former State emergency manager, I have a great
appreciation of the values these grant programs can add to the
fire and emergency services through improved response capacity,
increased responder safety, and ultimately a greater public
safety.
Our door is always open to these first responders. Within
his first weeks at FEMA, Administrator Fugate and I met with
representatives of the International Association of Fire
Chiefs, the International Association of Fire Fighters and the
Metropolitan Fire Chiefs. Our partnership with the fire service
is also demonstrated through the process by which each year's
AFG and SAFER programs are developed. Each year, FEMA convenes
a panel of professionals from the nine major fire service
organizations to assist in the development of funding
priorities for the coming year and to discuss any changes in
the program requirements, and our collaboration and outreach
extends throughout the grant award process.
All grant awards under these programs are competitive and
are based on funding priorities recommended by the fire service
and based on peer reviews by panels comprised of
representatives from the fire service.
Mr. Chairman, reducing loss of life and property caused by
fire remains a significant challenge. Death and injury rates by
fire in the United States are still unacceptably high. Each
year, fire injures kill more Americans than the combined losses
of all other natural disasters. In 2007, fires in the United
States resulted in 3,430 civilian deaths, 17,675 injuries and
$14.6 billion in direct property loss, and during that year,
118 firefighters lost their lives in the line of duty.
We believe that AFG and SAFER programs can help reduce
these numbers. We also believe that without these programs,
these numbers might be higher. Our data is beginning to show
that the rates of firefighter and civilian injuries in
communities that receive AFG awards are better than the
national average. For example, from fiscal year 2005 to 2007,
firefighter injuries in AFG communities were reduced by 6.2
percent while the national average rose by 6.1 percent, and
civilian casualties decreased more than eight percent over the
national average. The AFG program provides competitive grants
to address the training, safety, apparatus, personal protective
gear, firefighting equipment and firefighter wellness fitness
needs for departments large and small, career and volunteer.
Through its component grants for fire prevention and safety,
the AFG program provides resources to fire departments and
nonprofit organizations alike including public education
programs, school-based programs, smoke alarm distribution
projects for households, and in doing so, SAFER funding allows
the fire departments to increase their number of trained front-
line firefighters available for their communities, which in
turn reduce response times, increases deployment capabilities
and enhances the overall public safety.
From fiscal year 2002 to 2009, the AFG program has received
applications from over 160,000 applicants, and has made over
48,000 grants totaling over $3.7 billion in financial
assistance. Under its component FP&S (Fire Prevention and
Safety) program, 17,000 applications have been received,
resulting in $172.9 million being awarded to 1,829
organizations to enhance fire safety and prevention efforts.
And in fiscal 2005, the SAFER program has received 7,500
applications and provided 974 fire departments and volunteer
firefighter interest organizations with $406 million in direct
financial assistance.
Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my statement by again
emphasizing the support and respect that we have at the
Department from Secretary Napolitano to Administrator Fugate to
myself the respect we have for the men and women of the
Nation's fire service. A commitment to the fire service also
represents an ongoing commitment to public safety in our
communities and the people who reside within them. We look
forward to working with the Committee, Congress, and the
community to reauthorize AFG and SAFER programs.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith, thank you for allowing
us to be here today and I am happy to answer any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Manning follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy W. Manning
Chairman Wu, Ranking Member Smith, Members of the Subcommittee, I
am Timothy Manning and I serve as Deputy Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). On behalf of Administrator Fugate,
it is a privilege to appear before you today to offer this
Administration's support for the reauthorization of the Assistance to
Firefighters (AFG) and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response (SAFER) Grant Programs.
Mr. Chairman, all of us at FEMA share your continued support of the
Nation's fire service and the men and women who serve in it. We
understand the value of these programs to firefighters across the
country and to the citizens they serve. Having been raised in a fire
service family and serving as a volunteer firefighter myself, I have a
first hand appreciation of the service these men and women provide to
communities throughout the country. As a former State emergency
manager, I have a great appreciation of the value these grant programs
can add to the fire and emergency services through improved response
capability, increased responder safety and ultimately greater public
safety.
Our door is always open to these first responders. Within his first
weeks at FEMA, Administrator Fugate has met with representatives of the
International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association
of Fire Fighters and the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs. During my tenure, I
have also met with many of these organizations.
Our partnership with the fire service is also demonstrated through
the process by which each year's AFG and SAFER Programs are developed.
Each year FEMA convenes a panel of fire service professionals to assist
in the development of funding priorities for the coming year. This also
provides an opportunity to discuss any changes in program requirements.
There are nine major fire service organizations represented on these
yearly panels. They are:
The Congressional Fire Services Institute;
The National Volunteer Fire Council;
The International Association of Arson Investigators;
The International Association of Fire Fighters;
The National Fire Protection Association;
The National Association of State Fire Marshalls;
The International Association of Fire Chiefs;
The International Society of Fire Service
Instructors, and
The North American Fire Training Directors.
Our collaboration and outreach extends throughout the grant award
process. All awards under these programs are competitive and are based
on funding priorities recommended by the fire service and on peer
reviews by panels comprised of representatives of the fire service. It
is also important to note that these programs represent the
collaboration of two FEMA components. The first is the Grant Programs
Directorate's Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program Office. The
other is the United States Fire Administration. Both these FEMA
components are staffed by dedicated public employees, many who began
their careers as firefighters.
Mr. Chairman, reducing the loss of life and property caused by fire
remains a significant challenge. Death and injury rates by fire in the
United States are still unacceptably high. Each year fires injure and
kill more Americans than the combined losses of all other natural
disasters. In 2007, fires in the United States resulted in 3,430
civilian deaths, 17,675 civilian injuries, and $14.6 billion in direct
property losses. During that year 118 firefighters also lost their
lives due to fire. We believe that the AFG and SAFER Programs can help
reduce these numbers.
In Fiscal Year 2000, Congress amended the landmark Federal Fire
Protections and Control Act of 1974--the same act that created the
United States Fire Administration--and created the AFG Program.
Subsequent amendments in Fiscal Year 2004 created the SAFER Program. In
the few short years since their creation these programs have provided
the fire service with resources and capabilities which have without
question saved lives and property.
The AFG Program provides competitive grants to address the
training, safety, apparatus, personal protective gear, firefighting
equipment, and firefighter wellness and fitness needs of fire
departments large and small, career and volunteer. Through its
component grants for Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S), the AFG Program
provides resources to fire departments and non-profit organizations to
address fire prevention issues, including public education programs,
school based programs, and smoke alarm distribution projects for
households. FP&S also provides funding for research and development
projects aimed at improvements to firefighter health and safety. The
SAFER Program has addressed staffing needs by enhancing these fire
departments' ability to hire career firefighters and to recruit and
retain volunteer firefighters. In doing so, SAFER funding allows fire
departments to increase the number of trained, front-line firefighters
available in their communities which in turn reduces response times,
increases deployment capabilities, and enhances overall public safety.
From Fiscal Year 2002\1\ through Fiscal Year 2009, the AFG program
has received applications from 160,798 eligible applicants and made
48,822 grants totaling $3,731,619,486 in financial assistance. Under
its component FP&S Program 17,406 applications have been received
resulting in $172,983,355 being awarded to 1,829 organizations to
enhance fire safety and prevention efforts. Similarly, since its
inception in Fiscal Year 2005 the SAFER Program has received 7,531
applications and has provided 974 fire departments and volunteer
firefighter interest organizations with $406,428,090 in direct
financial assistance. Further, since its inception, the SAFER Program
has resulted in the hiring of 3,705 firefighters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In Fiscal Year 2001, AFG was paper based, but since Fiscal Year
2002 it has been electronically based and operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over that same period (Fiscal Year 2002 through Fiscal year 2009)
applications under the AFG Program were distributed as follows:
59.17 percent of AFG applications were for ``Fire
Operations and Fire Fighter Safety'' programs;
30.37 percent of AFG applications were for
``Firefighting Vehicles''; and
10.45 percent were under ``Fire Prevention.''
Of those AFG Program applications:
63.62 percent came from ``All Volunteer'' fire
departments;
20.81 percent came from combination fire departments;
10.54 percent came from ``All Paid'' or ``Career''
fire departments; and
5.03 percent came from ``Paid On Call/Stipend''
departments.
Over that same period (Fiscal Year 2002 through Fiscal Year 2009)
applications under the SAFER Program were distributed as follows:
58.12 percent of SAFER applications were for ``Fire
Fighter Hiring''; and
41.88 percent of SAFER applications were for ``Fire
Fighter Recruitment and retention.''
Of those SAFER Program applications:
29.83 percent were received from ``All Volunteer''
fire departments;
48.89 percent were received from combination fire
departments;
19.94 percent were received from ``All Paid'' or
``Career'' fire departments; and
1.79 percent were received from ``Interest
Organizations'', i.e., regional, State or local entities with
an interest in the recruitment and retention of volunteers.
In Fiscal Year 2009, $565,000,000 has been appropriated for the AFG
Program. By statute a minimum of five percent of those funds, or
$28,250,000, must be set aside for the FP&S grants. Further for Fiscal
Year 2009, $210,000,000 has been appropriated for the SAFER Program. In
Fiscal Year 2009, the AFG Grant Program opened on April 15, 2009 and
closed on May 20, 2009. A total of 19,786 applications have been
received. The Fiscal Year 2009 SAFER and FP&S Grant application periods
have not yet opened and the grant guidance is still being developed.
Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my statement by again emphasizing the
support and respect that we at the Department of Homeland Security--
from Secretary Napolitano, to Administrator Fugate, to myself--have for
the men and women of the Nation's fire service. A commitment to the
fire service also represents an ongoing commitment to the public safety
in our communities and the people who reside within them. We look
forward to working with you, this Committee and the Congress on the re-
authorization of the AFG and SAFER Programs. Thank you Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Smith and Members of the Subcommittee, for allowing me
to testify today. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Biography for Timothy W. Manning
Tim Manning is the Director of the New Mexico Department of
Homeland Security and Emergency Management and Homeland Security
Advisor to Governor Bill Richardson. He was named the Department's
first Director by Governor Richardson in April 2007, having previously
been appointed to the Cabinet as Director of the Governor's Office of
Homeland Security in 2005 and as the State Director of Emergency
Management since early 2003. In addition to the State's intelligence
and anti-terrorism programs, Mr. Manning also oversees the daily
administration of the state's disaster and emergency preparedness,
mitigation, response, and recovery efforts.
Mr. Manning has previously served as a Deputy Cabinet Secretary of
the New Mexico Department of Public Safety. He has a diverse background
in emergency services, working in a number of positions in the state's
emergency management agency from entering as the hazardous materials
response program coordinator up through to the Chief of the Emergency
Operations Bureau, and eventually the agency's Director. Prior to his
service with the State of New Mexico, Mr. Manning had service as a
firefighter, EMT, rescue mountaineer, and hazardous materials
specialist. He also spent ten years as a hydrogeologist working on the
investigation and restoration of chemical contaminant sites and water
resource projects. In addition to his role in the cabinet of Governor
Richardson, Mr. Manning is a guest lecturer and subject matter expert
at the Center for Homeland defense and Security at the Naval
Postgraduate School in Monterey California.
Mr. Manning is currently Co-Chair of the National Homeland Security
Consortium; Chairman of the National Emergency Management Association's
Homeland Security Committee; Executive Board member of the Governor's
Homeland Security Advisors Council of the National Governors
Association and Chair of the Intelligence and Information Sharing
Committee; a member of the Director of National Intelligence's Homeland
Security and Law Enforcement Partners Group; an Interagency Threat
Assessment Coordination Group Advisory Committee member; and Chair of
the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) Commission, an
international emergency management standards setting and accreditation
body. He has previously served as a Regional Vice President of NEMA and
the Chairman of the Response and Recovery Committee, where he oversaw
the efforts of the EMAC during Hurricane Katrina, and continues to
serve on many other boards and commissions. Mr. Manning is also
currently Chair of the New Mexico State Emergency Response Commission
and Intrastate Mutual Aid Commission. He received a Bachelors of
Science in Geology from Eastern Illinois University, and is a graduate
of the Executive Program at the Center for Homeland Defense and
Security of the Naval Postgraduate School. He is currently researching
terrorism and political violence towards a Master of Letters from the
University of St. Andrews, Scotland.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Manning.
Chief Johnson.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF JEFFREY D. JOHNSON, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT,
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS (IAFC); CHIEF,
TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE AND RESCUE
Chief Johnson. Good morning, Chairman Lujan, Ranking Member
Smith and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am Jeff
Johnson, First Vice President of the International Association
of Fire Chiefs, and Fire Chief from Tualatin Valley Fire and
Rescue in Oregon.
The IAFC believes that the Assistance to Firefighters Grant
program is an extremely successful program that improves the
safety of the American public. It is one of the few DHS
programs dedicated to all-hazard preparedness response. In
addition, the program is well designed to improve the baseline
operational capabilities of the American fire service.
The program has the following core components that assure
its effectiveness: the program distributes funding directly to
local fire departments which reduces the amount of overhead and
processing costs found in other DHS programs; every year, DHS
convenes a meeting with the major fire service organizations to
develop the criteria for awarding FIRE and SAFER grants, which
ensures that the program is attuned to the needs of its end-
users; and the program uses a peer review process that ensures
grants are awarded based on merit and demonstrated need.
External reviews by federal agencies have highlighted the
effectiveness of the program. A 2003 survey of over 1,500 FIRE
grant recipients by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found
that more than 97 percent of the respondents agreed that the
AFG program had a positive impact on their department's
operational capabilities. In addition, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) reviewed the AFG program in 2007 and rated it
effective. OMB also gave the program a 100 percent score for
``Program Management'' and ``Program Results/Accountability.''
However, there is still a clear need for the program.
Because of the recent economic downturn, many departments
must close fire stations, lay off firefighters, cut training
and equipment and fire prevention budgets. Meanwhile, they
continue to face the constant risks presented by natural and
manmade disasters.
As the Subcommittee considers reauthorizing the AFG
program, we would like to recommend some of the following
changes:
1. LThere is a need to restructure the SAFER grant
program. Currently, the SAFER grant program requires
local jurisdictions to make an escalating match with a
five-year commitment. In the current economic downturn,
many local jurisdictions cannot make this commitment.
As a result, there was a 20 percent drop in
applications from all career and combination
departments with a majority of career firefighters in
2008. The IAFC recommends that the SAFER grant program
be changed to a three-year commitment with a straight
20 percent match.
2. LThe IAFC recommends that Congress removes the SAFER
cap per firefighter restriction which is at about
$108,000 in 2008. This cap does not take into account
the high cost of firefighters in jurisdictions such as
mine, where a rookie firefighter is budgeted and
actually does cost $76,000 a year. In my case, the
Federal Government's match would run out in the second
year, even with a three-year commitment on a 20 percent
match. Removing the cap would fix this problem.
3. LThe FIRE grants should support improved
regionalism. According to the FIRE grant guidance, DHS
has the ability to waive the legislatively established
funding limits in order to support regional projects.
However, DHS does not reward fire departments that take
regionalism to the next step and consolidate or
amalgamate. For example, my department is composed
historically of 12 separate fire departments. We now
serve more than 432,000 people in nine cities and three
counties in the Portland metropolitan area. To reward
departments that consolidate and cover large
populations, the IAFC recommends that the funding limit
be raised.
4. LCongress should establish centers of excellence in
fire safety research. Currently, the AFG program funds
a number of projects that are aimed at reducing more
than 100 firefighter deaths, and as discussed, over
3,000 civilian fire deaths each year. While beneficial,
many of these programs are not comprehensive research
programs. Also, their results need to be transferred to
the mainstream fire service. The IAFC recommends the
creation of two or three centers of excellence in fire
safety research. The research centers would be
partnerships between major fire service organizations
and major research institutions aimed at improving
firefighter health and public fire safety.
The FIRE grant program should also have a waiver to local
match requirements for economically challenged areas. According
to the existing statute, most jurisdictions must meet a 20
percent match while jurisdictions serving smaller populations
must meet matches as low as five percent. Some jurisdictions
cannot meet these requirements, especially due to the economic
downturn, but still need training and/or to replace antiquated
equipment. The IAFC recommends that Congress create the
authority for DHS to waive the local match requirement for
these departments.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith, I would like to thank
you again for the opportunity to testify on the importance of
the FIRE and SAFER grant programs. We look forward to working
with the Committee and yourselves to continue these important
programs. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chief Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chief Jeffrey D. Johnson
Good morning, Chairman Wu, Ranking Member Smith, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee. I am Jeff Johnson, First Vice President of
the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), and Fire Chief of
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, which is located in Beaverton, Oregon.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning on the importance
of reauthorizing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)
Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program, which strengthens the
baseline operational capabilities of America's fire and emergency
services.
The IAFC represents the leadership of over 1.1 million firefighters
and emergency responders. IAFC members are the world's leading experts
in firefighting, emergency medical services, terrorism response,
hazardous materials spills, natural disasters, search and rescue, and
public safety policy. Since 1873, the IAFC has provided a forum for its
members to exchange ideas and uncover the latest products and services
available to first responders.
The Fire and Emergency Service Community
America's fire and emergency services are the only organized group
of American citizens that is locally situated, staffed, trained, and
equipped to respond to all types of emergencies. There are
approximately 1.1 million men and women in the fire and emergency
services--approximately 300,000 career firefighters and 800,000
volunteer firefighters--serving in over 30,000 fire departments around
the country. They are trained to respond to all hazards ranging from
earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes and floods, to acts of terrorism,
hazardous materials incidents, technical rescues, and fires. America's
fire and emergency services also provide 68 percent of the Nation's
pre-hospital 9-1-1 emergency medical response.
The fire service protects America's critical infrastructure--the
electrical grid, interstate highways, railroads, pipelines, petroleum
and chemical facilities--and is, in fact, even considered part of the
critical infrastructure. The fire service protects federal buildings,
including military installations, and interstate commerce. No passenger
airliner takes off from a runway that is not protected by a fire
department.
The Success of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program
The AFG program is one of the few grant programs dedicated to all-
hazards preparedness and response. The FIRE grant program was created
in 2000 as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 106-398) to improve the baseline operational
capability of America's fire service through improved equipment,
training, and staffing. The program also includes the Fire Prevention
and Safety (FP&S) grants, which are designed to enhance fire prevention
programs and fire safety research. In 2004, Congress reauthorized the
program. The SAFER grant program was created in 2003 as part of the FY
2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136) to specifically
address the staffing shortages in career, volunteer and combination
fire departments. Between FY 2001 and FY 2009, Congress appropriated
$4.815 billion for the FIRE grant program. Also, Congress appropriated
$689 million for the SAFER grant program between FY 2005 and FY 2009.
From the IAFC's perspective, the AFG program has been very
successful. The programs distribute federal funding directly to local
fire departments, which reduces the amount of overhead and processing
costs that are found in other DHS grant programs. Every year, DHS
convenes annual meetings of the major fire service organizations to
develop the criteria for awarding the FIRE and SAFER grants, which
ensures that the award process is attuned to the needs of the end
users. The AFG grant funds are awarded through a peer-review process to
ensure that applications are judged on merit and demonstrated need. The
programs also are designed to ensure that federal funds are used to
supplement, and not supplant, local budgets. These factors ensure that
the federal funds are used judiciously to meet the program's goal of
improving public safety.
There is clear evidence of the AFG program's success based on
external federal studies. In 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) surveyed over 1,500 AFG recipients to assess the effectiveness
of the program. The USDA found that ``more than 97 percent of the
respondents reported that the AFG program had a positive impact on
their department's ability to handle fire or fire-related incidents.''
More than 75 percent of the respondents said that the grants had a
``significant'' impact on their operational capabilities. In addition,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed the program in 2007,
and rated it ``Effective.'' Notably, the OMB also gave the program a
100 percent score for ``Program Management'' and ``Program Results/
Accountability.''
In 2006, the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) and the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) completed a statutorily-mandated analysis
of the AFG program entitled ``Matching Assistance to Firefighters
Grants to the Reported Needs of the U.S. Fire Service.'' The report
compared data received from fire service needs assessments in 2001 and
2005. This report demonstrated that the AFG program had begun to make
progress in meeting the needs of the fire service. The following
examples show some of the progress made by the program nationwide:
The percentage of departments where there were not
enough portable radios to equip everyone on a shift declined by
13 percentage points (from 77 percent to 64 percent).
The usage of thermal imaging cameras increased (and
the need therefore decreased) by 31 percentage points (from 24
percent to 55 percent).
The percentage of departments without enough SCBA to
equip all emergency responders on a shift declined by 10
percentage points (from 70 percent to 60 percent).
The percentage of departments without enough PASS
devices to equip all emergency responders on a shift declined
by 14 percentage points (from 62 percent to 48 percent).
The report also found improvements in the size of the population
covered by fire prevention programs. The programs include plans review;
permit approval; routine testing of active alarm systems; the
distribution of free smoke alarms; and programs that work with at-risk
youth to reduce arson.
One problem in measuring the effectiveness of these programs is
that the most recent data that we have is from 2006. The data shows
that the AFG program was beginning to show progress. However, we would
encourage the Committee to support an updated needs assessment and
further analysis of the AFG program's effectiveness as part of a FIRE-
SAFER reauthorization bill.
The Continued Demonstrated Need for the AFG Program
While the studies listed above have documented the success of the
AFG program, there is still a demonstrated need for its
reauthorization. In 2006, the USFA and NFPA also released a report
entitled ``Four Years Later--A Second Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire
Service.'' This document updated an earlier 2002 needs assessment. The
2006 report still found a number of equipment and training shortages
that can be addressed by the AFG program:
An estimated two-thirds (66 percent) of departments
have at least some personal protective clothing that is at
least 10 years old. This includes basic equipment, such as
helmets, bunker gear, coats and boots.
An estimated 63 percent of fire departments involved
in wildland firefighting have not provided formal training in
those duties to all involved personnel.
An estimated 36 percent of fire departments involved
in emergency medical services or hazardous materials response
have not provided training to all involved personnel.
In communities with a population of less then 2,500,
21 percent of fire departments, nearly all- or mostly-volunteer
departments, deliver an average of four or fewer volunteer
firefighters to a mid-day house fire.
In light of the recent economic downturn, many fire departments
across the country have seen their budgets cut. To respond to these
budget cuts, fire stations have been shut down, firefighters have been
laid off, and training, equipment, and fire prevention budgets have
been cut. Meanwhile, fire departments face increased risks, including
the widespread transportation of ethanol-blended fuels (which requires
new training and equipment) and the outbreak of pandemic influenza,
along with the continued risks presented by natural disasters and man-
made incidents. Over the next two years, the IAFC believes that the
FIRE and SAFER grants will be critical for helping local fire
departments prepare for and respond to these risks.
Proposed Changes to the FIRE Program
While the IAFC believes that the AFG program runs well, we would
recommend the following legislative changes to the FIRE grant program:
Waiver to the local match for economically-challenged
jurisdictions: According to the current statute, most fire
departments have to meet a 20 percent match. A jurisdiction
with 50,000 or fewer residents has to meet a 10 percent match,
and a jurisdiction with 20,000 or fewer residents only has to
meet a five percent match. There are some jurisdictions that
cannot meet these local match requirements due to the economic
downturn, but still need to replace antiquated equipment or
need new training. Since the FIRE grant program is designed to
improve the operational baseline capability of fire
departments, we ask that the Committee create the authority for
the DHS to grant a waiver for the local match for these needy
departments. We would be willing to work with the Committee to
develop a fair, credible and transparent process for granting
waivers for needy departments.
Establish Centers of Excellence in Fire Safety
Research: Every year, over 100 firefighters die in the line of
duty and over 3,000 members of the public die in fire-related
deaths every year. The FP&S grants fund a number of research
projects to study issues such as how to improve firefighter
cardiovascular health, reduce community fire risk, and the
IAFC's National Fire Fighter Near-Miss Reporting System, which
is designed to reduce firefighter deaths and injuries. However,
many of these projects are single projects that are not part of
a comprehensive research program. Also, there needs to be
greater success at transferring new technology and important
information developed by the FP&S grants to the mainstream fire
service.
To address these concerns, the IAFC supports the use of the
FP&S funds to develop two or three centers of excellence in
fire safety research that would establish long-term,
comprehensive applied research programs to improve firefighter
health and public fire safety. We envision these research
centers as being joint partnerships between major fire service
organizations and regionally-accredited, major academic
research institutions aimed at reducing firefighter and public
mortality and improving firefighter and public safety. These
centers would be overseen by the AFG office and funded at up to
$2 million in the first year and no more than $5 million
annually thereafter from the FP&S grants.
Reward Improved Regionalism: The FIRE grant program
is designed to support regionalism and even allows a separate
category of applications for regional projects. According to
the FIRE grant guidance, the DHS has the ability to waive the
legislatively established funding limits under the AFG to fund
larger projects that support training and equipment acquisition
that ``positively affect inter-operability between
jurisdictions.'' The IAFC supports these incentives to promote
greater regional cooperation between jurisdictions. Mutual aid
between jurisdictions is the backbone of our national emergency
response system.
However, we are seeing an increasing trend, especially in
the West Coast states, to take regionalism ``to the next
level.'' To improve operational capabilities and derive
economies of scale, many departments are combining into larger,
amalgamated fire departments. For example, my fire department,
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, is composed of what were
historically 12 departments. Today, my fire department has 500
members and protects more than 432,500 people in nine cities
and portions of three counties in the Portland, Oregon
metropolitan area. My fire department is limited to a $1
million grant, but if the 12 departments had applied separately
for AFG funding, they would be able to apply for a much larger
amount. In order to promote greater regional integration and
support greater equality for fire departments that are composed
of historically smaller entities, the IAFC recommends that the
funding cap be raised for larger fire departments.
Proposed Changes to the SAFER Program
The IAFC also would recommend some major revisions to the SAFER
grant program. The current program requires a five-year commitment with
an escalating local match of 10-20-50-70-100 percent. The current
economic downturn has demonstrated some weaknesses in this formula.
Many jurisdictions can no longer make a five-year commitment to the
program, because they do not know what their budget situation will look
like in the fifth year when they have to cover 100 percent of the
firefighter's salary. In 2008, the DHS reported a greater than 12
percent drop in SAFER grant applications from 2007, including a 20
percent drop in applications from all-career and combination
departments with a majority of career firefighters. In addition, there
is an increasing number of jurisdictions that have had to decline SAFER
grants or give back federal funding, because they can no longer meet
the local match requirements in the second, third, or fourth year.
Congress attempted to address this issue temporarily earlier this year
in both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) and the
Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-32) by waiving the local
match and other SAFER Act requirements. The IAFC supported these
temporary relief measures, and believes that the situation can be
simplified with a straight three-year local commitment for the SAFER
grant program with a 20 percent match.
The IAFC also would recommend that Congress remove the SAFER
program's $100,000 statutory cap per firefighter (which was increased
with inflation to $108,380 in 2008). This cap does not take into
account the costs of hiring even a rookie firefighter in some parts of
the country. For example, my fire department budgets $76,070 for a
rookie firefighter for one year. Even under a three-year commitment
with a 20 percent match, the $108,380 from the Federal Government would
run out in the second year. Regardless of the federal match required by
law, the statutory cap per firefighter would require me to pay 100
percent of the ``subsidized'' firefighter by the third year. To prevent
this contradiction, the IAFC would urge the Committee to remove this
cap.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for its
continued dedication to helping America's fire service. Last year, this
subcommittee passed the United States Fire Administration (USFA)
Reauthorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-376), which strengthened the USFA
and the National Fire Academy. The IAFC is grateful that the
Subcommittee is now focused on reauthorizing the FIRE and SAFER grant
programs. As my testimony demonstrates, these programs play a vital
role in making sure that local fire departments are prepared to respond
to all-hazards and they have a proven record of effectiveness. We hope
that the Subcommittee will consider the recommendations that we have
outlined here today, and look forward to working with you to pass an
AFG reauthorization bill this year.
Biography for Chief Jeffrey D. Johnson
Jeff Johnson, Fire Chief and Chief Executive Officer of Tualatin
Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R), joined the fire district in 1989,
following an 11 year fire service career in Douglas County, Oregon.
Chief Johnson served as Division Chief and Assistant Chief at TVF&R
prior to becoming Fire Chief in 1995.
Serving a resident population of more than 432,500 in nine cities
and portions of three counties in the Portland (OR) metropolitan area,
TVF&R is a fire district with approximately 500 members providing fire,
EMS, and specialty rescue response along with prevention services.
While under Chief Johnson's leadership, TVF&R has twice received the
International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)/U.S. Safety and
Engineering Fire Service Excellence Award, the Nation's top award for
organizational excellence in the fire service. TVF&R is accredited by
the Center for Public Safety Excellence Commission on Fire
Accreditation International CPSE/CFAI).
Chief Johnson is an ambassador for excellence and innovation in our
service to the community. Additionally, he advocates for cooperative
initiatives and other business practices that achieve efficiencies and
demonstrate smart government and value for the citizens' investment. He
has authored two fire service books and is a featured guest lecturer
across the nation.
Chief Johnson is the Vice President of the International
Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and holds membership in the
Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association and the various IAFC Sections. He
is the IAFC's alternate representative to the SAFECOM Executive
Committee and a member of the SAFECOM Emergency Response Council.
Additionally, he is a member of the USA Delegation to the Comite'
Technique International De Prevention Et D'Extinction Du Feu (CTIF),
also known as the International Association of Fire and Rescue
Services.
By gubernatorial appointment, he is the Chair of Oregon's State
Inter-operability Executive Council and a member of the Oregon
Governor's Homeland Security Council. He is Past President of both the
Western Fire Chiefs Association (WFCA) and the Oregon Fire Chiefs
Association (OFCA), the Past Chair of the Oregon Governors' Fire
Service Policy Council, and a charter member of Oregon's Meritorious
Service committee. Locally, he is a board member for both the
Washington County Office on Consolidated Emergency Management (OCEM)
and for the Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency
(WCCCA; the 911/dispatch center.
In the corporate environment, Chief Johnson sits on the boards of
two private companies, specifically as a member of the Informed
Corporation Board and as the Chairman of the Global Public Safety
Solutions (GPSS) Board. He also is on the Editorial Board of FireRescue
Magazine.
Chief Johnson holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business and
Associate Degrees in Fire Science and Criminal Justice Administration.
He is a graduate of the National Fire Academy's Executive Fire Officer
(EFO) Program and achieved the CPSE Chief Fire Officer (CFO)
Designation. During his leisure time, Jeff enjoys spending time with
his wife Kay and their two children. An avid outdoorsman and student of
Oregon history, he enjoys camping, fishing and motorcycling in Oregon's
back country.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Chief.
Chief Carriger.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF JACK CARRIGER, STAYTON FIRE DEPARTMENT,
STAYTON, OREGON; FIRST VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL VOLUNTEER
FIRE COUNCIL (NVFC)
Chief Carriger. Good morning, Chairman Lujan and Ranking
Member Smith and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I
would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing
me to be here today and I would like to also thank Chairman Wu
for his dedicated service to public safety and his commitment
to this program and others.
My name is Jack Carriger. I am the Fire Chief for Stayton
Fire District, which is in the northwest section of Oregon, and
I am also here as the First Vice President of the National
Volunteer Fire Council. The council has participated since the
inception of the AFG program and SAFER program in the criteria
and strategic planning of the programs through the Department
of Homeland Security and has continued to be a part of that
input, which has made this program the success that it is. That
we in the fire service can give input to DHS and provide the
information that is used to base the criteria development for
the AFG grants and the SAFER grants is probably, as it has been
testified earlier, one of the most successful things that has
happened on this Hill in many years. Stakeholders have input
that is solicited through the meetings since 2000 at its
inception and the process was codified last year during the AFG
reauthorization. In addition to consulting with the fire
service through the criteria development and strategic
planning, AFG convenes panels of firefighters to evaluate and
rank applications based on merit and based on the panel's
rankings awards those grants to departments across the United
States, both rural, suburban and metro departments equally.
When AFG was created in 2007, it was the first federal
program designed to assist local fire agencies with goals of
bringing all fire departments to a baseline to be able to
provide a base level of security for the citizens of our
country. And then in 2002 and 2004, AFG was reauthorized and a
second assessment study was published in 2006 that found
significant progress had been made in several areas including a
56 percent increase in the number of departments with enough
portable radios to provide everyone on shift, a 33 percent
increase in the percentage of departments with enough self-
contained breathing apparatus to provide everybody on shift,
129 percent increase in the number of departments with thermal
imaging cameras and 21 to 42 percent increase in the overall
percentage of departments with written agreements of
cooperation using outside personnel and equipment in response
to emergencies.
In addition to statistical documentation of the program's
success, there are several available web sites such as
www.firegrantsupport.com, which is maintained by FEMA, and
www.firegrantdata.com, which is maintained by several of the
national fire service organizations, and I can tell you that my
department has received several of these grants and they have
made an extreme difference in our ability to not only provide
service to the public but to provide service to other agencies
through inter-operability and through compatibility. Our first
grant was for SCBAs (self-contained breathing apparatus). Our
equipment was more than 15 years old and did not meet any of
the current NFPA standards. We were able to purchase new SCBAs
that were compatible with larger departments around us and all
of those neighboring departments that surrounded us.
Our second grant was to receive personal protective
equipment, which included helmets, turnouts, boots, and gloves,
which replaced equipment that was 15 to 20 years old, and this
allowed us to not only be able to provide safer service to the
public but to provide that extra level of safe protection to
the firefighters themselves, and as is stressed so heavily in
the fire service today, the need for everyone to go home is
based on our ability to provide safety for those firefighters,
both career and volunteer.
Our third grant was for a rehabilitation trailer for
firefighters and other emergency agencies, people that provide
monitoring, care and treatment on scene for firefighters while
they are working, especially in long-duration incidents.
The SAFER Act has brought a new ability to the volunteer
fire service to be able to go out and actively participate in
recruitment and retention programs that are so vitally
important to the volunteer service right now with its
challenges of finding people that are willing to take the time
out of their lives and help revitalize the ranks of the
volunteer fire service in the United States, and we at the NVFC
feel that this program is vital to the future of the fire
service in general, and that both SAFER and AFG are vital to
the future of our ability to provide first response service to
the communities that we serve, which is equal across the Nation
no matter what size the Department is.
At NVFC, we would like to see some things take change in
the service. Although we feel that the program is an excellent
program, it is designed well through criteria development,
through strategic planning and through the peer group
evaluation, those groups continually bring better things to the
matrix process and the application process but we would also
like to see Congress authorize additional tools for assessing
AFG and SAFER. This would include another fire service needs
assessment to measure the progress that has been made in
bringing fire departments up to baseline levels of readiness
based on national consensus standards. It would also include
developing tools to analyze the impact that grants are having
in the communities and incorporated data from NFIRS (National
Fire Incident Reporting Systems). State fire training agencies
should be made eligible grantees through the AFG including
grants for the purchase of vehicles and equipment. Grants for
State training agencies should be capped at $1 million, the
same as all but the largest fire department jurisdictions.
State training agencies are a critical component of creating
and delivering training throughout the country, especially in
rural areas. National organizations should be able to be
eligible to apply for SAFER recruitment and retention grants.
Recruitment and retention is one of the most significant
challenges facing volunteer fire service today. State and local
interest organizations are already eligible to apply for these
grants and have been able to use the funds to assist hundreds
of departments. National organizations could use the same
approach and even on a larger scale and larger groups for
departments.
The local matching requirement for the departments through
the fire prevention and safety should be eliminated. This would
hopefully rejuvenate the participation in those programs as
well as in the interest of national organizations, which
currently have no matching requirements.
I would like to thank you again for allowing me to
participate, and if you have any questions, I would be more
than happy to answer those.
[The prepared statement of Chief Carriger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chief Jack Carriger
Chairman Wu, Ranking Member Smith and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to be
here today to speak with you about the Assistance to Firefighters Grant
(AFG) program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response
(SAFER) Grant program as the subcommittee prepares legislation to
reauthorize both programs. My name is Jack Carriger and I am the Chief
of the Stayton Fire Department in northwest Oregon as well as the First
Vice-Chairman of the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC).
The NVFC is a nonprofit organization representing the interests of
the more than one million volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel in
the United States. Volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel serve in
more than 20,000 communities across this country. Their services save
local taxpayers more than $37.2 billion each year. Without volunteer
firefighters and EMS personnel, thousands of communities, particularly
in rural areas, simply could not afford to provide effective emergency
services to their citizens.
Program Overview
The AFG and SAFER programs provide assistance to local fire and EMS
agencies through a competitive grant process that ensures that funding
is efficiently directed to the communities that need it most. AFG funds
are used primarily to purchase equipment, protective gear, emergency
vehicles and training while SAFER funds are used for hiring career
firefighters as well as recruitment and retention of volunteer
firefighters. By statute, five percent of AFG funds are set aside to
support ``fire prevention and control activities.'' These funds have
traditionally been administered as a separate program, the Fire
Prevention and Safety (FP&S) grants.
With several notable exceptions, AFG, SAFER and FP&S use local
matching requirements restrictions on using federal funding to replace
local spending to ensure that the programs are building capacity and
improving safety rather than simply helping local governments balance
their budgets. The size of grant awards is capped based on community
size to ensure that there is funding available to help a large number
of communities of different sizes.
Over the past few years, I have represented the NVFC at criteria
development and strategic planning meetings that the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) holds in order to receive stakeholder input on
AFG, SAFER and FP&S. In March, I participated in a conference call with
other stakeholders to provide input on criteria for the Fire Station
Construction (FSC) grants that were funded through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009.
Stakeholder input has been solicited though criteria development
meetings since the inception of AFG in 2000--a process that was
codified during the last AFG reauthorization. DHS is able to take the
input from the criteria development meetings and use it to recalibrate
the grant criteria each year to ensure that it is addressing the most
pressing needs of the fire service. The meetings also offer DHS an
opportunity to share information with the fire service about emerging
trends within the grant programs that may necessitate consideration of
additional adjustments to the criteria.
In addition to consulting the fire service through the criteria
development and strategic planning meetings, DHS convenes panels of
firefighters to evaluate and rank grant applications based on merit.
Based on the panel rankings, awards are made directly to fire and EMS
agencies. This funding delivery method, combined with the outstanding
work of Grants Program Directorate (GPD) of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), which administers the various programs, has
resulted in more than 95 percent of appropriated funds reaching local
first responders.
AFG
When AFG was created in 2000, it was the first federal program
designed to assist local fire agencies, with the goal of bringing all
fire departments up to a baseline level of readiness. Congress
authorized a needs assessment study to identify major areas of need
based on national consensus standards in 2000 and again in 2004 when
AFG was reauthorized. The second needs assessment study was published
in 2006 and found that significant progress had been made in several
areas, including:
-- A 56 percent increase in the number of departments with
enough portable radios to equip everyone on a shift.
-- A 33 percent increase in the percentage of departments with
enough self-contained breathing apparatus to equip everyone on
shift.
-- A 129 percent increase in the number of departments with
thermal imaging cameras.
-- A 21-42 percent increase (depending on the type of
incident) in the overall percentage of departments with written
agreements to coordinate the use of outside personnel and
equipment in a response.
A 2007 DHS Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review of AFG
determined that the program was 95 percent effective--the second
highest rating of any DHS program behind only the Secret Service
Domestic Protectees program. The Assessment found that AFG has been
particularly successful at reducing on-scene firefighter injuries and
reducing the percentage of grant dollars spent per firefighters
trained.
In addition to the statistical documentation of the program's
success, there is substantial anecdotal evidence available on various
web sites including www.firegrantsupport.com, which is maintained by
FEMA, and www.firegrantdata.com, which is maintained by several
national fire service organizations. My own fire department has
received three AFG three AFG grants have been for firefighter safety
and wellness. The first grant we received replaced Self Contained
Breathing Apparatus that was for the most part over twenty years old
and no longer compatible with or neighboring departments we know can
work with all of our surrounding departments. The second grant assisted
us in providing our firefighters with new Personal Protective Equipment
which included turnout gear, helmets, gloves and boots that meet
current NFPA standards that our old equipment, in most cases over
fifteen years old, did not meet and left our firefighters exposed to
much higher risk. Our third grant provided a firefighter rehabilitation
unit designed to provide monitoring, care and treatment to firefighters
and other emergency service agencies on scene. These grants have
allowed us to provide a much higher level of protection to our
volunteers then we have ever been able to provide before.
One of the challenges in tracking the impact of AFG in statistical
terms is a lack of comprehensive data on fire incidents nationally. The
National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) is in the process of
being updated using funds authorized last year in the United States
Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of 2008, which was written by
this committee. More consistent and comprehensive reporting of fire
incidents will allow us to examine with far greater accuracy the true
impact of AFG. Additionally, Congress should authorize another needs
assessment of the fire service in order to examine progress that has
been made since the last assessment was performed.
In each of the past three years, an average of nearly 20,000 fire
departments and EMS agencies have submitted requests for an average of
more than $3 billion through AFG. The largest percentage of these
requests--both in the number of applications and funds requested--have
come from volunteer departments, which are first-due responders to
approximately 70 percent of communities nationwide.
Volunteer departments serve urban and suburban areas but are most
highly concentrated in rural communities that have small tax bases and
higher rates of poverty on average than larger jurisdictions. DHS needs
assessments have consistently shown that equipment, training and
apparatus needs are most acute in volunteer departments. Many volunteer
departments rely on used equipment and apparatus, either purchased from
or donated by other departments. According to a 2005 survey by the U.S.
Fire Administration, in communities of 2,500 or less, only 43.5 percent
of fire departments purchase new apparatus. According to the same
survey, 71 percent of those communities are served by fire departments
that are involved in structural firefighting without all personnel
having formal training.
Over the years, the roles and responsibilities the fire service has
been asked to take on have been gradually expanding--a process that
accelerated after the terrorist attacks on our country in September,
2001. Since that time, a number of grant programs have been established
through DHS to improve preparedness, including providing assistance to
first responders. Funding through these programs is made available
primarily in densely populated communities, which are perceived to have
a higher risk of terrorist attack. Since Hurricane Katrina, the
priorities of these programs have been altered to recognize the
importance of preparing for a wider range of disasters. Still, the bulk
of funding is still being directed to urban areas--both directly and by
providing larger allocations of block-grant funding to states with
major population centers.
Of all DHS programs, the various firefighter assistance grants
stand alone in serving communities of all sizes and distributing
funding based on need rather than population (although population
protected is one component taken into account in ranking AFG
applications). AFG is particularly important to volunteer departments
because it addresses the pressing needs that represent the largest
proportion of their budgets--equipment, training and apparatus
expenditures.
Even with little-to-no costs in the form of personnel compensation,
most volunteer departments still rely on private fundraising to balance
their operating budgets. Volunteer firefighting and EMS professionals
respond to emergency calls with or without the type of equipment,
training and apparatus that their counterparts in many larger
communities take for granted. For many volunteer departments, AFG
represents their only option for purchasing up-to-date firefighting
tools.
AFG is also an invaluable tool in encouraging training within the
volunteer fire service. Earlier I cited the percentage of fire
departments serving small communities that have not trained all of
their personnel for structural firefighting, and similarly dismaying
statistics exist for training levels of personnel responding to other
types of incidents, including EMS, wildland fires and hazardous
materials incidents, among others.
One of the things that is consistently stressed at stakeholder
criteria development meetings is that departments receiving grants for
equipment and apparatus must have their personnel trained to use it. As
a result, departments must certify that their personnel are trained to
a level consistent with minimum national consensus standards for the
use of a piece of equipment or apparatus that they are applying for.
Departments that do not already meet this minimum standard are still
eligible to receive AFG funds if they adopt a plan to train their
personnel and their applications will actually score higher if they
include funds to pay for necessary training.
Last year, the NVFC adopted a position that all volunteer fire
departments should at least be working towards training all personnel
to a level consistent with NFPA 1001: Standard for Fire Fighter
Professional Qualifications. This is not a unique position within the
fire service, but it was a major step for the NVFC because there are a
number of volunteer departments in the country that do not believe
training their personnel to that level is possible, desirable or some
combination of the two.
Incorporating national consensus standards into the AFG criteria is
having a ripple effect on the way that some states approach training.
The Mississippi Fire Academy recently changed its field-delivered
training and now offers classes that lead to certification based on
NFPA 1001 requirements. The NVFC's Mississippi Alternate Director
George Stevens is the Lamar County (MS) Fire Coordinator and reports
that this change was in part the result of a lobbying effort by the
state's County Fire Coordinators, who were motivated by the
requirements in AFG.
Some of the major challenges facing volunteer departments in
training their personnel include a lack of resources, time constraints
on the individual volunteers and a lack of locally-available training
opportunities. AFG is a vital part of the solution to dealing with all
of these issues, first and foremost by providing departments with
resources to pursue additional training.
State training agencies also play a critical role in training
volunteer firefighters, but are not currently eligible for funding
through AFG. These agencies deliver training to fire departments in
remote areas by producing and disseminating training materials, funding
training offerings at local colleges and other institutions and through
regional training facilities. State training agencies should be made
eligible to apply for funds through AFG to supplement ongoing efforts
and encourage expanded training offerings.
SAFER
Staffing was originally a component of AFG, but based on input from
the fire service through the criteria development process, AFG has
never funded staffing grants. Instead, Congress created the SAFER
program in 2003 to address the significant personnel needs that exist
throughout the fire service.
SAFER's primary function is to assist career, combination and
volunteer departments with hiring personnel. There is also a minimum 10
percent set-aside required by statute to assist combination and
volunteer departments with recruitment and retention (R&R) of
volunteers.
In each of the past three years, 1,300-1,700 fire departments have
applied for $750-$593 million in funding through SAFER. One of the
reasons for the low level of requests through SAFER (relative to AFG)
has been high local matching requirements for hiring grants. Many
departments have been forced to return hiring grants because they are
unable to meet the local match. This was addressed, at least in the
short-term, in ARRA, which eliminated local matching requirements for
SAFER for FY 2009 and 2010. There has never been a local matching
requirement for the R&R portion of SAFER, which have represented 30-40
percent of total requests over the past three years.
There is no single more significant challenge facing the volunteer
fire service than recruitment and retention. While the total number of
people who are members of volunteer fire departments has remained
relatively constant over the past 25 years, the average age of those
individuals has been increasing to the point where today, approximately
half of all volunteer firefighters are over the age of 40. In 1987,
roughly 65 percent of volunteer firefighters were 39 years of age or
less.
As this trend suggests, fire departments are increasingly having
difficulty recruiting and retaining the next generation of volunteer
firefighters. There are a variety of reasons for this: increased
training requirements mean that individuals have to commit more time
than ever to volunteering; people today are commuting longer distances
to work, leaving less time for training and putting particular strain
on departments ability to have adequate staffing during working hours;
an increase in the number of one- and two-parent households in which
all the parents are working; and pressure from career fire departments/
union locals to prevent career firefighters from volunteering during
off-duty hours (also known as ``two-hatters'').
This last issue is already being addressed to some degree through
SAFER. Fire departments that receive a SAFER hiring grant are
prohibited by statute from discriminating against two-hatters. Two-
hatters tend to be individuals who got their initial firefighter
training and experience through their hometown volunteer fire
department. In a 2005 study, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
estimated that 27,000 (close to 10 percent of) career firefighters
volunteer during off-duty hours. The volunteer protections in SAFER
ensure that hiring grants aren't increasing capacity in career
departments by subtracting from the ranks of volunteers.
Volunteer fire departments can use R&R funds for a variety of
activities from marketing campaigns to establishing modest financial or
other incentives to their personnel. In addition to fire departments,
local and State interest organizations are eligible to apply for R&R
funding. My department received a SAFER grant in FY 2008 that is
currently in the process of being implemented. The grant includes
matching funds to assist the District with hiring a full time volunteer
recruitment and retention office for the District, this person will
also assist the nine surrounding Fire Districts with their R&R
challenges in meeting the need for increased volunteer firefighting.
The Oregon Volunteer Firefighters Association received a SAFER
grant in 2006 to establish a State-wide marketing program to assist
local fire departments in recruiting volunteers in their areas. The
Oregon Fire Chief's Association also received a SAFER Grant in 2007
that was incorporated with the Volunteers grant to enhance recruitment
and retention across the state. A number of departments have reported
an increase in interest and in volunteers since the programs were
implemented.
One of the major benefits to allowing interest organizations to
compete for SAFER funds is that they can implement programs with the
potential to reach volunteer fire departments that are not applying for
R&R grants. Many of these departments desperately need additional
personnel but are unsure about how to go about implementing a
recruitment and retention program. Through the grant that OVFA received
in 2006, we have directly assisted more than 200 and indirectly
assisted all 340 volunteer and combination departments--many times more
than the 32 fire departments in the State of Oregon that applied for
SAFER funding in FY 2006.
As I just alluded to, one of the major benefits of allowing
interest organizations to compete for SAFER funds is that they can
implement programs with the potential to reach the vast majority of
volunteer fire departments that are not applying for R&R grants. Many
of these departments desperately need additional personnel but are
unsure about how to go about implementing a recruitment and retention
program. Through the grant that OSFA received in 2006, we have assisted
more than . . . departments in the State of Oregon, three times the
number of departments in the state that applied for SAFER funds.
Unfortunately, national organizations are not currently eligible
for R&R funding. The NVFC is already active in promoting recruitment
and retention on a number of fronts, operating a national 1-800-
FIRELINE phone number where individuals interested in learning about
volunteering can be connected with a department in their area and last
year developing, in partnership with USFA, an extensive Recruitment and
Retention manual. National organizations should be made eligible to
compete for R&R grants so that they have access to additional resources
to leverage ongoing efforts and establish new initiatives for
departments nationwide.
FP&S
As mentioned earlier, FP&S grants are a component of AFG. By
statute, FP&S must comprise at least five percent of funds appropriated
to AFG, although in recent years the actual awards have been in excess
of that figure.
While AFG and SAFER focus on building response capacity, FP&S
focuses on reducing the national fire problem through prevention
activities, with a primary goal to target high-risk populations and
mitigate high incidences of death and injury. Over the past three
years, approximately 2,700-3,330 fire departments and interest
organizations have applied for $270-$448 million through FP&S.
The NVFC has received FP&S funds to operate our Heart-Healthy
Firefighter program, the only national program dedicated to saving
America's firefighters and EMS personnel from heart disease, the
leading cause of line-of-duty death. Through the Heart-Healthy
Firefighter program, the NVFC disseminates information, materials and
programs to implement locally that emphasize heart health through
fitness, proper nutrition and lifestyle choices to firefighters and EMS
personnel. The program has also provided more than 15,000 health
screenings at no cost to firefighters.
In the 2004 AFG reauthorization, the matching requirement for
interest organizations was eliminated in an attempt to encourage
additional applications. Since the reauthorization we have seen a
substantial increase in applications from interest organizations.
Unfortunately, since that time we have also seen a major decrease in
funding requests from fire departments. In FY 2007, the last fiscal
year for which application statistics have been made available on
www.firegrantsupport.com, applications from non-fire departments made
up nearly 43 percent of total funds requested. Between 2005 and 2007,
fire departments have gone from requests through FP&S have fallen from
$394 million to $191 million.
The NVFC would like to see the FP&S local matching requirement
eliminated altogether in order to level the playing field between fire
departments and interest organizations and encourage more applications
generally.
NVFC Priorities for Reauthorization
The NVFC's main priority for reauthorization of AFG/FP&S and SAFER
is to extend the programs without substantial changes. We believe that
the programs are well-run, distributing funding in an efficient manner
to the most deserving awardees. Through the criteria development and
strategic planning meetings, DHS is already able to make adjustments to
the programs on a yearly basis to ensure that the program is responsive
to the shifting needs of the fire service.
There are a few changes that we would like to see made, that I
alluded to earlier and will summarize again:
Congress should authorize additional tools for assessing AFG/
FP&S and SAFER. This would include another fire service needs
assessment to measure the progress that has been made in
bringing fire departments up to a baseline level of readiness
based on national consensus standards. It would also include
developing tools to analyze the impact that grants are having
in communities and incorporate data from NFIRS.
State fire training academies should be made eligible grantees
through AFG, including grants to purchase vehicles and
equipment. Grants for State training academies should be capped
at $1 million, the same as all but the largest fire department
jurisdictions. State training academies are a critical
component of creating and delivering training throughout the
country and especially in rural areas.
National organizations should be made eligible to apply for
SAFER R&R grants. Recruitment and retention is one of the most
significant challenges facing the volunteer fire service today.
State and local interest organizations are already eligible to
apply for these grants and have been able to use funds to
assist hundreds of fire departments. National organizations
could use the same approach to benefit an even larger group of
departments.
The local matching requirement for fire departments through
FP&S should be eliminated. This would hopefully re-invigorate
participation by fire departments in the FP&S program as well
as create equity between fire departments and interest
organizations, which currently have no matching requirement.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today. I look
forward to answering any questions you might have.
Biography for Chief Jack Carriger
Chief Carriger started his emergency service career as a Reserve
Deputy with the Marion County Sheriff's Office where he spent 10 years.
During that time he was promoted to the rank of Sergeant in charge of
the Reserve Training Academy.
After leaving the Sheriff's office he joined Marion County Fire
District #1 as a volunteer. During his ten years with MCFD he served as
a Lt., a member of the Training Committee, President of Volunteer FF
Association, and became involved with the OVFA.
In October 1996, Chief Carriger was hired by Nestucca Fire District
to serve as their Fire Chief.
In November of 2002 he accepted the Fire Chief's position with
Stayton Fire District where he continues to serve.
During his career he has been involved with the following: Adjunct
Instructor for CCC; OVFA President; OFCA member; Board Member BPSST;
Chair of the Fire Advisory Committee to BPSST; Tillamook County Fire
Defense Board, 1st Alt. Chief; Chair, Tillamook County 911 Advisory
Committee; Chair, Santiam Canyon 911 Center Council; Interim Director
of Santiam Canyon 911 Center.
Currently he serves on the following local, State, and national
committees and councils: Marion County Emergency Management; Marion
County Communications Plan Committee; Marion County Fire Defense Board
1st Alt Chief; Santiam Canyon 911 Center Executive Board; Chair of the
Oregon State FF Training and Emergency Relief Fund; State Mobilization
Plan Review Committee; FIRE ACT Grant Criteria and Development
Committee; Advisory Committee to FIRE ACT Administration Staff; 1st VP
National Volunteer Fire Council.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Chief.
Mr. O'Connor, you are recognized. I just want to remind the
witnesses of the five-minute timeline. We may be called for
votes close to 11:00 so that way we can get through all the
questions. Mr. O'Connor.
STATEMENT OF MR. KEVIN B. O'CONNOR, ASSISTANT TO THE GENERAL
PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS (IAFF)
Mr. O'Connor. Thank you, Chairman Lujan, Ranking Member
Smith. I am Kevin O'Connor, representing the men and women of
the International Association of Fire Fighters. Prior to my
IAFF service, I served for 15 years as a firefighter/EMT in the
Baltimore County Fire Department and was also a proud volunteer
in that same jurisdiction.
Let me begin by thanking this committee for its continued
interest in the AFG and SAFER programs. Without the consistent
bipartisan support of the Science Committee, neither program
would have ever been authorized. Today I am here to support the
reauthorization of both programs but also to offer constructive
advice to make AFG and SAFER more efficient and cost effective.
In its eight-year history, as you have been told, AFG has
dispensed over 40,000 grants totaling almost $4 billion; but
those statistics belie the fact that the programs have not
always met their original objective. AFG and SAFER were
designed to strengthen the ability of local fire departments to
better protect safety nationwide. While some communities have
used the grants to make important enhancements in local fire
protection, it is clear that the funds are not being used
effectively and the current statutory limitations are
undermining AFG's mission. Recognizing this problem, the IAFF
worked with the IAFC and NFPA, who are also at this table
today, as well as others to craft a proposal which we believe
addresses serious impediments under current law that may
prevent many communities from taking full advantage of AFG and
SAFER. Empirically, the overwhelming majority of FIRE grants
are awarded to departments that protect a relatively small
percentage of the population. Since 2002, fire departments
protecting only 20 percent of our nation's populations have
received a disproportionate share of AFG funding. We fully
support ensuring that communities of every size, large and
small, both career and volunteer departments, receive a fair
share of AFG grants. However, the current distribution of
funds, which protects only a small portion of the population,
is an inefficient use of scarce federal resources.
For a glaring example of this disparity, we only need to
look at my old fire department, Baltimore County. There, career
units run 70 percent of the calls but are only eligible under
current guidelines for $1.7 million in AFG grants. The county's
33 independent volunteer companies, which run 30 percent of the
call volume, are collectively allowed to apply for $33 million
in grants. Other examples abound and are enumerated in my
written testimony.
By all measurements, this is an uneven and ineffective
allocation. The system should be changed. Therefore, we
advocate revamping the program to apportion AFG into four
separate pots of money: 30 percent allocated for all volunteer
departments, all career, and all combination departments with
the remaining 10 percent allocated through open competition.
We further suggest that the funding caps be adjusted
upwardly. Under current law, for example, the New York City
Fire Department, which runs 357 fire companies and responds to
nearly half a million calls for assistance per year, can only
receive $2.75 million in AFG funding. Under our proposal, the
smallest jurisdictions could receive up to $1 million and
cities with over a million residents could receive up to $10
million. So the smallest communities would still continue to
enjoy proportionately very large awards. By increasing the size
of awards for larger jurisdictions, AFG could finally start
making measurable differences in a larger department's response
capabilities.
Lastly, we suggest lowering the match from 20 to 15 percent
with exceptions to further reduce or eliminate the local
portion if financial distress can be enumerated. We concur with
the IAFC's position in that regard. These changes will improve
AFG and ensure that federal dollars are spent in a way that
maximizes the benefit to public safety while ensuring that
communities of all sizes continue to benefit from the program.
SAFER, the staffing component of AFG, also needs to be
reformed. In its current iteration, SAFER requires an
increasing local match over five years and caps the federal
share at $110,000 per position. As a result, SAFER has become a
program that only benefits a small number of growing but
prosperous jurisdictions. To truly assist departments in
meeting safe staffing and deployment requirements, the rules
governing SAFER should be simplified. We advocate: one,
establishing a flat 20 percent match to allow for better
resource management; two, shortening the grant period from five
to three years to allow communities to better plan
expenditures; and three, eliminate the current cap to address
significant differences in starting salary as has been
testified to by Chief Johnson. Collectively, these changes will
enable more communities to use SAFER to increase the number of
firefighters which in turn improves local response capabilities
and assists in meeting national consensus standards.
In conclusion, the changes we advocate with the united fire
service organizations will improve both AFG and SAFER to better
fulfill their statutory obligation to improve the capabilities
of local communities while ensuring that federal resources will
be used more effectively to protect public safety.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify and will be ready
to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Connor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin B. O'Connor
Thank you Chairman Wu, Ranking Member Smith and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Kevin O'Connor and I am the
Assistant to the General President of the International Association of
Fire Fighters (IAFF) for Governmental Affairs and Public Policy. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of
General President Schaitberger and the nearly 300,000 firefighters and
emergency medical personnel in our 3148 affiliates from every
congressional district in the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I testify today not only as a representative of the
IAFF, but as a former firefighter who fully understands the critical
impact that the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program has on
the ability of local firefighters to serve their communities. I spent
my entire adult life in the fire service, starting as a volunteer
firefighter and serving for over fifteen years as a professional
firefighter and emergency medical technician in the Baltimore County,
Maryland Fire Department, where I worked as a line firefighter assigned
to both engine and ladder companies as well the medic unit. I also
served as the Administrative and Fire Ground Aide to the Chief of the
Fire Department.
Since AFG's inception, the various fire service organizations, many
of whom are represented on this panel today, have worked together to
improve the programs and ensure that they are administered effectively
so that local fire departments nationwide, in communities of all sizes,
may benefit. However, over time we have seen that the programs have not
met their original objective. The FIRE and SAFER grant programs were
meant to strengthen the ability of local fire departments to protect
the public safety and respond to all hazards nationwide. While some
communities have used FIRE and SAFER to make important enhancements in
local fire protection, restrictions in current law prevent many
communities from taking full advantage of the programs, undermining
AFG's mission of enhancing the safety of firefighters and the public
nationwide.
Recognizing this problem, the IAFF, working with the International
Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Fire Protection Association,
the Congressional Fire Services Institute and other prominent
firefighter organizations representing all facets of the fire service--
professional and volunteer, labor and management--have together
proposed a series of amendments to FIRE and SAFER which we believe will
address the significant impediments under the law that prevent many
communities from taking full advantage of the programs.
The Need for FIRE and SAFER
The modern fire service is no longer simply responsible for
firefighting. In almost every community in America, our duties
encompass a wide variety of emergency services including firefighting,
advanced and basic life support emergency medical services, technical,
high-angle and water rescue operations, terrorism and hazardous
materials response. Additionally, today more than ever our nation's
firefighters are on the front lines working to protect our nation's
homeland security, whether responding to a natural disaster such as
Hurricane Katrina, the Midwestern floods, or a terrorist attack like
that at the Murrah Building or the World Trade Center and the Pentagon
on 9/11. Firefighters are expected to risk, and give, our lives and we
do so every day without hesitation. Yet, despite the ever-growing
duties and risks facing local fire departments, firefighters are too
often expected to perform their duties with outdated equipment, minimal
training and insufficient personnel.
Thus, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program was created and
given a unique mission: to protect the health and safety of
firefighters and the public nationwide through the provision of federal
funding for staffing, training, equipment and health and wellness
programs. AFG, popularly known as the FIRE Grant program, was later
expanded to include the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response (SAFER) Grant program to provide a mechanism to fulfill the
original goal of assuring fire departments had adequate staffing to
operate effectively and safely.
By utilizing a peer-review process and awarding funds directly to
local fire departments, FIRE and SAFER grants are among the most well-
administered grants in the Federal Government. A recent Office of
Management and Budget study recognized FIRE as among the most
efficiently-administered grant programs.
Although only $750 million was available to make awards in 2008,
local communities applied for nearly four billion dollars in FIRE and
SAFER grants. Furthermore, an assessment of the fire service's needs
conducted by the National Fire Protection Association concluded that
local fire departments continue to face significant equipment and
training needs. And while SAFER grants have enabled local communities
to hire approximately 3300 new firefighters, the U.S. Fire
Administration has found that most fire departments are unable to
respond to many common emergencies with existing staff, and an
estimated two-thirds of all jurisdictions do not currently have enough
firefighters to safely respond to emergencies.
The FIRE and SAFER grant programs are clearly an efficient means by
which to improve local baseline capabilities and fulfill the critical
and ongoing unmet needs of local departments. Yet, after eight years,
is it also clear that the funds are not being used in the most
effective manner, and that current statutory limitations are preventing
the program from fulfilling its mission of protecting firefighters and
public safety.
Impediments Under Current Law
The restrictions under current law preclude many communities,
including many of the most needy communities in the Nation, from being
able to take full advantage of the FIRE and SAFER grant programs. Under
current law, the overwhelming majority of FIRE grants are awarded to
fire departments that protect a relatively small percentage of the
population. Since 2002, nearly seventy percent of funds have been
awarded to rural departments, while only ten percent of funds have been
awarded to protect metropolitan areas. Viewed another way, over two and
half billion dollars has been awarded to protect twenty percent of the
U.S. population, while slightly less than four-hundred million dollars
has gone to benefit departments protecting fifty-eight percent of the
population. By all measurements, this is an uneven and ineffective
allocation.
The SAFER grant program also contains a number of budgetary
restrictions, including a high local match and the need for
municipalities to budget five years into the future, that have
complicated the ability of many jurisdictions to apply for and maintain
a grant, and have prevented many jurisdictions from seeking a grant at
all. Although the SAFER grant program is not due for reauthorization
until 2010, we believe that the restrictions under SAFER are so
onerous, the program is in danger of failing unless fixed now.
Consequently, the united fire service feels that both programs should
be re-authorized together.
The difficulties facing communities in applying for FIRE and SAFER
grants have only been exacerbated by the current economic crisis.
Communities nationwide have cut their fire department budgets and
reduce services, simultaneously making it more difficult to meet the
programs' requirements while also making funding through FIRE and SAFER
more important than ever.
It is with these obstacles in mind that we present our proposals to
the Subcommittee. We strongly believe that this package of amendments
to the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program will help ensure that
federal funding is spent in a way that maximizes the benefit to public
safety and that grants are distributed more equitably among fire
departments.
Improving the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program
Funding Disparity
As mentioned previously, the most significant problem facing the
FIRE Grant program is uneven distribution of funds such that the lion's
share of funds are awarded to departments that protect a subset of the
population. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 68.4
percent of funds awarded under the FIRE grant program since the
program's inception have been awarded to rural areas, while only ten
percent have been awarded to urban areas.
When AFG was first authorized, there was a legitimate fear that the
funding would be monopolized by large urban departments. All
stakeholders agreed that the AFG program should be more balanced in its
approach to awarding grants. I am very proud that I was part of those
original discussions to fashion a system that allowed fire departments
of all sizes to share in the FIRE Grant program. But, in our attempt to
assure fairness, we overcompensated and created a situation in which
the grants are skewed disproportionately against professional and
combination departments.
These statistics can be viewed in the following chart:
This disparity can be explained by two reasons. First, current law
contains a set-aside for volunteer fire departments and majority-
volunteer departments, but contains no similar set-aside for any other
type of department. This protection was built into the original law,
with the support of the IAFF, to alleviate concerns that the majority
of FIRE funds would be awarded to professional departments in urban
areas. In part, this concern came from a fear that volunteer
departments would not have the resources or know-how to apply for
grants. In addition to the set-aside, FEMA has done a superb job of
ensuring that the grant applicant process is easy, transparent, and
accessible. FEMA has gone so far as to hold grant-writing workshops
across the country, many of which are heavily marketed to volunteer
departments and promoted by Members of Congress. These efforts have
done much to enable applications by volunteer departments such that
their ability to apply for a grant is no longer a common concern.
The second reason for the disparity in grant awards is due to the
differences in the way volunteer and professional fire departments are
organized. In the career fire service, a fire department is generally a
function of the local government, such as a city or county, and
consists of many fire stations that protect the jurisdiction in
question. A volunteer fire department, on the other hand, generally
consists of a single fire station that protects a defined geographic
area. As a result, a professional fire department will generally
protect a much larger population and run a significant number more
calls than would a volunteer company.
My former fire department in Baltimore County, Maryland provides a
good example of this dichotomy. Over a three year period, Baltimore
County averaged approximately 120,000 to 125,000 emergency calls each
year with the career component responding to over seventy percent of
the calls. Of the 125,000 responses, 80,000-85,000 are run by the
professional Baltimore County Fire Department, which consists of
twenty-six fire stations. 32,000-33,000 of the calls are run by the
thirty-three volunteer departments in the County. Under current law,
the Baltimore County Fire Department is eligible for $1.75 million in
FIRE grants. The thirty-three volunteer departments, however, are each
considered separate eligible applicants, and are eligible to receive a
million dollars apiece or $33 million in aggregate. In other words, the
volunteer departments in Baltimore County are eligible to receive
almost twenty times the amount of funding as is the professional
department, even though they combined only run one-third as many calls
as the professional department. This pattern is not unique to Baltimore
County. In nearly every state, the number of volunteer fire departments
dwarfs the number of professional departments; in almost every case,
the professional departments run far more calls than do the volunteers.
No one begrudges the ability of volunteer fire departments to
receive FIRE grants. However, the current distribution of funds to
protect only a small portion of the population is an inefficient use of
scarce federal resources. According to the National Fire Protection
Association, volunteer departments protected twenty-one percent of the
population, professional departments protected forty-five percent, and
combination departments protected thirty-three percent.
Lest I give the wrong impression, professional fire departments do
protect a very large number of small communities. Over half of the
IAFF's locals consist of less than fifty people, the vast majority of
which serve communities of under 50,000. As a matter of fact, a full
quarter of our locals consist of less than twenty-five members. The
IAFF is not simply an organization representing big city departments.
Current law guarantees that rural communities and small communities
are guaranteed a portion of FIRE grants, and we would not support any
proposal that would eliminate that requirement.
Likewise, volunteer departments have significant needs and should
continue to receive a large portion of FIRE grants. Thus, to alleviate
the disparity in FIRE grant awards and to maximize the benefit federal
dollars can provide to public safety, we propose that professional,
volunteer and combination departments are each guaranteed thirty
percent of total grant funding. This provision better allocates FIRE
grants to those departments that serve a majority of the population,
while still ensuring that volunteer and combination departments receive
the vast majority of FIRE grant dollars.
We also recommend amending current law to codify FEMA's current
requirement that priority be provided to applicants that protect large
populations and have high call volume relative to other applicants.
This provision is consistent with current guidance and will help ensure
that federal dollars are used more effectively.
Funding Cap
Current funding caps under the FIRE grant program are too low to
prove effective. Under current law, the largest jurisdictions, those of
one million population or more, can receive no more than $2.75 million.
All metropolitan areas of one million or more in the United States are
professional departments, which means that the entire City of New York,
with hundreds of fire stations and nearly fifteen-thousand firefighters
and emergency medical personnel, is limited to $2.75 million in FIRE
grant awards. Simply put, $2.75 million is insufficient to measurably
improve the fire department's preparedness and safety.
The Chief of the Kansas City Missouri Fire Department and Past
President of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, Smokey Dyer,
also noted the restrictions placed on his fire department by the
current funding cap: ``The FIRE Act is a great program, but needs to be
re-tooled. It's just plain wrong that as Chief of the Kansas City
Missouri Fire Department with almost 500,000 people and all the issues
confronting a major urban city, that I can only apply for a million
dollars in AFG grants and our neighboring town of Lee's Summit, a
bedroom community with significantly fewer hazards and population
(82,000) density, where I was also privileged to serve as Fire Chief,
is also eligible for the same grant level. For Kansas City to really
benefit from the AFG program, we need to be able to access much larger
grants.''
Many of the largest fire departments do apply for FIRE grants, but
they cannot make the best use of the funds they receive because of the
cap. For this reason, we propose increasing the funding cap for
communities of all sizes and all types of departments, so that the
largest communities, those of one million or more, are eligible to
receive up to $10 million. Communities of 500,000 or more would be
eligible for $5 million, those of 100,000 or more for $2 million, and
those smaller than 100,000 for $1 million. Even the smallest volunteer
departments would qualify for a grant of $1 million under our proposal.
Local Match/Maintenance of Effort
The reduced property values, shrinking tax bases, and tighter
budgets that have restricted the ability of many local fire departments
to afford urgently-needed equipment and training are also preventing
these same jurisdictions from affording FIRE's current 20 percent match
required of metropolitan areas. To alleviate this burden, we propose
reducing the local match from 20 percent to 15 percent.
Additionally, while the fire service supports the principle of a
local match, we recognize that there will be a few cases each year
where cash strapped jurisdictions are facing critical public safety
needs but are unable to afford this reduced match. To this end, we
propose providing the Department of Homeland Security with the
authority to waive the local match requirements for particularly needy
departments.
For the same reason that many communities are unable to afford the
current local match, many communities, especially in the years to come,
will prove ineligible to receive a FIRE grant because they do not meet
the maintenance of effort requirement under current law. This provision
requires that grantees maintain their fire department budget at one-
hundred percent of the average budget over the previous two years. As
fire departments in communities of all sizes must make due with less,
due to the current recession, this provision will significantly shrink
the pool of eligible applicants unless addressed. Reducing the current
maintenance of effort requirement to eighty percent will help assure
that communities will be able to apply for FIRE grants in the coming
years, while still requiring that they fund their departments as
robustly as possible.
Improving the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grant
Program
Although the FIRE grant program faces significant serious
shortcomings, the situation facing the SAFER grant program is
particularly dire. The hiring portion of the SAFER grant program
contains numerous budgetary restrictions by which municipalities must
abide if they wish to receive, and keep, a SAFER grant:
Municipalities must supply an increasing local share
of the firefighter's salary over four years and provide 100
percent of the firefighter's salary in the fifth year.
Municipalities must retain firefighters hired with
SAFER funds for at least five years.
Municipalities may not use SAFER funds to supplant
State or local funds.
If a municipality fails to meet these requirements, it must return
the grant to the Federal Government. Unfortunately, this is happening
in greater and greater numbers. According to the Department of Homeland
Security, since SAFER's inception four years ago, seventy-eight
grantees have had to repay the Federal Government a total of $62.7
million because they failed to meet the rigorous requirements. An
additional seventy-one grants totaling $51.4 million were declined by
municipalities that felt they could not meet the program's obligations.
In North Aurora, Illinois, for example, the North Aurora Fire
Protection District was forced to turn down a $650,000 SAFER grant it
received, citing the sliding match and the maintenance of position
requirement as commitments they could no longer keep. The grant was
originally intended to add six additional firefighters to the
District's roster.
SAFER's restrictions have proven to be extremely difficult for many
municipalities to abide by, and have only been exacerbated by the
economic crisis. Although Congress enacted temporary measures to waive
SAFER's local match and provide the Secretary of Homeland Security the
authority to waive some of SAFER's other restrictions for 2009 and
2010, without a permanent change in law the SAFER Grant program will be
left unable to fulfill its mission of helping local communities meet
safe firefighter staffing levels.
The most significant issue facing SAFER is the simple inability of
municipalities to accurately budget five years into the future. Current
law requires that communities increase their local match over four
years and pay 100 percent of a firefighter's salary in the fifth year,
and many communities are finding that they cannot meet their
commitments in the third, fourth, and fifth years of the grant cycle.
Furthermore, current law requires that a department maintain its
staffing levels throughout the five year grant cycle. The simple fact
of the matter is that five years ago, the very notion that communities
today would have to cut fire department budgets and lay off
firefighters was unthinkable. No one could have predicted the depths of
this recession, and likewise, few communities have sufficient resources
to handle unanticipated expenses and dramatically lower than expected
revenues.
In further illustration of this point, the Washington Fire Chiefs
recently conducted a survey of their members to determine whether the
sliding local match required under SAFER precluded fire departments
from applying for a grant, or accepting a grant for which they had
previously applied. Twenty-one percent of the departments responded
that, although they had received a SAFER grant, they were unable to
meet the local match. Additionally, sixty-one percent of departments
replied that the local match requirement precluded them from applying
for a SAFER grant at all.
In essence, the current budgetary requirements under SAFER limit
federal awards to only well-off communities. Clearly, this was never
Congress's intent.
We think the best way to address these issues is to simplify the
entire grant process. The joint fire service proposal calls for an
across-the-board twenty-percent match, rather than the sliding scale
under current law, and shortening the length of the grant period from
five years to three. These changes will make it easier for
municipalities to commit to a SAFER grant and prevent many unseen
circumstances from necessitating a grant's return to the Federal
Government.
SAFER law should also be amended to eliminate the current funding
cap. Under current law, departments are granted up to $100,000 per
firefighter over four years to fund the cost of the firefighter's
salary and benefits. The average first-year firefighter salary is
currently $37,429. Thus, in many jurisdictions, the $100,000 only meets
the federal commitment for the first years of the grant, leaving the
local department to bear more than the local match in the third and
fourth years. This is especially true in urban areas and on the West
Coast. In Portland, Oregon, for example, a first year firefighter's
salary is $52,538, well over the national average.
By eliminating the funding cap, more communities will be able to
take advantage of SAFER grants without regard to subsidizing any unmet
federal share.
Lastly, we propose that the waiver authorities granted to the
Secretary of Homeland Security just last month on a temporary basis be
made permanent. Specifically, the Secretary should be granted the
authority to permit grants be used to avoid or reverse firefighter
layoffs, waive the local match, maintenance of position requirement and
maintenance of budget requirement. We anticipate that such waivers will
be an uncommon occurrence, but will provide the Department with the
flexibility to help fire departments that have particularly great need
and are at particularly great risk.
Conclusion
On behalf of the International Association of Fire Fighters, I
appreciate the opportunity to share with you our views on how to best
improve the Assistance to Firefighters grant program. Having been
intimately involved in the creation and administration of the FIRE and
SAFER grant programs, it is clear to the IAFF that current law
undermines the programs' mission to enhance the safety of firefighters
and the public nationwide. The changes we have produced with the united
fire service organizations and have outlined here today will help
fulfill the programs' intent and allow the Federal Government to better
play a key role in protecting the public safety.
To the extent that the IAFF can assist the Subcommittee in
achieving this vision, I am happy to offer our expertise and pledge to
work closely with you and your staffs.
Again, I'd like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
testify today and am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Biography for Kevin B. O'Connor
Mr. O'Connor currently serves as Assistant to the General President
of the International Association of Fire Fighters, representing 295,000
professional firefighters and emergency medical personnel in every
state in the United States and Canada.
He also serves as Chairman of the Congressional Fire Service
Institute Advisory Board and previously served as a Commissioner on the
Maryland Fire, Rescue, Education and Training Commission, where he was
responsible for recommending training and operational standards for the
7,000 professional and 35,000 volunteer fire, rescue and emergency
medical personnel in the State of Maryland.
From 1985 to 2000, Kevin served as a professional firefighter and
emergency medical technician for the Baltimore County Fire Department
in Baltimore County, Maryland, where he had previously served as a
volunteer firefighter.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Connor.
Chief Varone.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF CURT VARONE, DIVISION MANAGER, PUBLIC FIRE
PROTECTION DIVISION, NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION
(NFPA)
Chief Varone. Good morning. I am Curt Varone, Division
Manager, Public Fire Protection for the National Fire
Protection Association. Mr. Chairman, Subcommittee Members,
NFPA strongly supports reauthorization of the U.S. FIRE grant
programs, both AFG and SAFER, and appreciates the opportunity
to speak about these programs. For my allotted time, I want to
focus on three areas: research we have done to analyze the
needs of our nation's fire service and the impact these
programs have had on alleviating those needs; some thoughts on
enhancements that can be considered during reauthorization; and
lastly, NFPA's position on the most effective ways to continue
to reduce fires and fire fatalities and firefighter fatalities.
By way of background, NFPA is the principal source for
voluntary consensus codes and standards related to fire safety
in the fire service. Our standards utilize a true consensus
approach to address a broad range of topics such as
professional qualifications and performance testing,
maintenance and operational procedures for protective and
firefighting equipment. Many NFPA codes and standards appear as
mandatory references cited throughout federal agency
regulations including DHS, DOT (Department of Transportation),
CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency) and OSHA (Occupational Safety
and Health Administration). NFPA is also a recognized authority
on fire analysis and research. In 2001 and 2005, working with
the U.S. Fire Administration, NFPA conducted two national
surveys of the needs of U.S. municipal fire departments. In
both surveys, needs were defined as the comparison of
department resources to resources required for compliance with
applicable national standards and guidelines. As part of the
second needs assessment, NFPA examined the degree of match
between the type of resource for which a grant was awarded and
the department's reported need for that type of resource. NFPA
also examined the changes in the levels of need for the most
commonly requested types of resources. Our analysis concluded
that the grant program was well designed, well executed and
well targeted and has made a difference in the needs it was
intended to address. However, the difference has been limited
simply because the needs of our nation's first responders are
great.
Despite this, some notable changes stand out. The
percentage of departments with enough self-contained breathing
apparatus to equip all emergency responders on a shift
increased by 10 percentage points from 30 percent to 40
percent. The percentage of departments with enough personal
alert safety system devices to equip all emergency responders
on a shift increased 14 percent from 38 to 52 percent. Personal
protective equipment accounted for the largest share of grant
funds awarded for departments in the years analyzed.
The NFPA matching analysis, part of our second needs
assessment, shows a positive correlation between the express
needs and the impact of the AFG program in targeting that need.
NFPA believes that there are ample data to support the
successful initiation by both programs of vital changes
necessary to protect the health and safety of the public and
firefighting personnel against fire and fire-related hazards.
The AFG program is a good beginning and SAFER is an even more
recent good beginning. We have a long way to go to close our
national gap in staffing and we need to continue to support
SAFER for several years in order to ensure that it fulfills its
objectives of helping fire departments meet safe staffing
levels to provide protection from fire as well as emergency
response to many other types of hazards identified by DHS.
These programs can be strengthened. In the reauthorization,
NFPA believes it would be appropriate to eliminate the cost
share in fire prevention and firefighter safety grants as was
the original intent of the program, or to allow a waiver or
reduction of the match requirement for applicants facing a
demonstrated economic hardship. Data show that roughly three
out of every five emergency responses by U.S. fire departments
are medical emergency calls. Therefore, the NFPA recommends
that a minimum of five percent of funding be designated for
fire service-based emergency medical services. Finally, NFPA
believes that funds for training and equipment should be
utilized to meet the latest applicable national voluntary
consensus standards.
In order to facilitate fire prevention and fire control
activities, the USFA could identify specific safety strategies
they wish to give priority to in the calls for a proposal,
specify fire and life safety education programs in the listed
grant fund purposes and/or require all AFG grants to include an
aligned fire prevention or mitigation project. The USFA could
also direct some funds to building the fire prevention
personnel and organizational infrastructure in local fire
departments. An NFPA research project on fire code
effectiveness measurement showed several examples of how lack
of funding and other limitations are forcing communities to
leave most inspectable commercial properties uninspected.
Lastly, the way to decrease the number of fires and fire-
related fatalities, particularly in vulnerable populations, is
through a combination of education, teaching individuals how
they can be safer from fire, engineering utilizing the latest
technologies to prevent, mitigate, detect and suppress fire,
and enforcement, ensuring that the latest codes and standards
are being followed. To do this, we need to adequately staff,
train and equip local fire services.
Today we ask our fire service to do a lot more than fight
fires. We ask them to be the first line of defense in a full
range of ordinary and extraordinary situations. As we place
more demands on them, we must be willing to provide them with
the resources to do the job. We know from our analysis that the
fire service is woefully underfunded. The FIRE grant programs
are working. They are moving the fire service in the right
direction and must continue. It is essential that the FIRE
grant programs be reauthorized. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chief Varone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chief Curt Varone
Good morning. I am Curt Varone, Division Manager, Public Fire
Protection, for the National Fire Protection Association. Mr. Chairman,
Subcommittee Members, NFPA strongly supports the reauthorization of the
U.S. FIRE Grant Programs the Assistance to Firefighter Grant (AFG) and
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) and
appreciates the opportunity to speak about these programs.
For my allotted time I want to focus on three areas--research we
have done to analyze the needs of our nation's fire service and the
impact these programs have had on alleviating the needs, some thoughts
on enhancements that can be considered during reauthorization and
lastly NFPA's position on the most effective ways to continue to reduce
fires and fire fatalities.
By way of background, NFPA is the principal source for voluntary
consensus codes and standards related to fire safety and the fire
service. Our standards use a ``true consensus'' approach, to address a
broad range of topics such as professional qualifications; performance,
testing, maintenance, and operation standards for protective and
firefighting equipment.
Many NFPA codes and standards appear as mandatory references cited
throughout federal agency regulations, including DHS, DOT, CMS, EPA and
OSHA.
NFPA is also a recognized authority on fire analysis and research.
In 2001 and 2005, working with the U.S. Fire Administration, NFPA
conducted two national surveys of the needs of U.S. municipal fire
departments. In both surveys, ``needs'' were defined as the comparison
of department resources to resources required for compliance with
applicable national standards and guidelines.
As part of the second needs assessment, NFPA examined the degree of
match between the type of resource for which a grant was awarded and
the department's reported need for that type of resource. NFPA also
examined the changes in levels of need for the most commonly requested
types of resources.
Our analysis concluded that the grant program was well-designed,
well-executed and well-targeted and has made a difference in the needs
it was intended to address. However, the difference has been limited
simply because the needs of our nation's first responders are great.
Despite this, some notable changes stand out:
The percentage of departments with enough self-contained breathing
apparatus (SCBA) to equip all emergency responders on a shift increased
by 10 percentage points, from 30 percent to 40 percent of departments.
The percentage of departments with enough personal alert safety system
(PASS) devices to equip all emergency responders on a shift increased
by 14 percentage points, from 38 percent to 52 percent. Personal
protective equipment accounted for the largest share (39 percent) of
grant funds awarded for the departments and years analyzed.
The NFPA matching analysis, part of our second needs assessment,
shows a positive correlation between the expressed need and impact of
the AFG program in targeting that need.
NFPA believes that there are ample data to support the successful
initiation by both programs of vital changes necessary to successfully
protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel
against fire and fire-related hazards. The AFG program is a good
beginning and SAFER is an even more recent good beginning. We have a
long way to go to close our national gap in staffing and we need to
continue supporting SAFER for several years in order to ensure that it
fulfills its objective of helping fire departments meet safe staffing
levels to provide protection from fire as well as emergency response to
many other hazards identified by DHS.
These programs can be strengthened. In the reauthorization, NFPA
believes that it would be appropriate to eliminate the cost share in
the Fire Prevention and Firefighter Safety Grant as was the original
intent of the program or to allow a waiver or reduction of the match
requirement for applicants facing a demonstrated economic hardship.
Data show that roughly three out of every five emergency responses
by U.S. fire departments are medical emergency calls; therefore, NFPA
recommends that a minimum of five percent of funding be designated for
fire service-based emergency medical services (EMS). Finally, NFPA
believes that funds for training and equipment should be utilized to
meet the latest applicable national voluntary consensus standards
available at the time of application.
In order to facilitate fire prevention and control activities, the
USFA could identify specific safety strategies they wish to give
priorities in the call for proposals, specify fire and life safety
education programs in the listed grant fund purposes and/or require all
AFG grants to include an aligned fire prevention or mitigation project.
The USFA could also direct some funds to building the prevention
personnel and organizational infrastructure in local fire departments.
An NFPA research project on fire code effectiveness measurement showed
several examples of how lack of funding and other limitations are
forcing communities to leave most inspectable commercial properties
uninspected.
Lastly, the way to decrease the number of fires and fire related
fatalities, particularly in vulnerable populations, is through a
combination of education--teaching individuals how they can be safer
from fire; engineering--utilizing the latest technologies to prevent,
mitigate, detect and suppress fire; and enforcement--ensuring that the
latest codes and standards are being followed. To do this, we need to
adequately staff, train and equip the local fire services.
Today, we ask our fire service to do a lot more than fight fires.
We ask them to be the first line of defense in the full range of
ordinary and extraordinary situations. As we place more demands on
them, we must be willing to provide them with the resources to do the
job. We know from our analysis that the fire service is woefully
underfunded. The Fire Grant programs are working, are moving the fire
service in the right direction and must continue. It is essential the
FIRE grant programs be reauthorized.
Thank you.
Biography for Chief Curt Varone
Curt Varone is a Division Manager and Director of the Public Fire
Protection Division at the National Fire Protection Association. He has
over 37 years of experience in the fire service, retiring in 2008 as a
Deputy Assistant Chief (shift-commander) with the Providence, Rhode
Island, Fire Department, after twenty-nine years of service. He is also
a practicing attorney licensed in both Rhode Island and Maine.
Curt joined the fire service in 1972 as a volunteer firefighter in
North Providence. As the department transitioned from a volunteer to a
combination department, Curt served as a call firefighter, being
promoted to lieutenant in 1977. 1979 he was hired as a full-time
firefighter by the Providence Fire Department, where he rose steadily
through the ranks. He has served with both Massachusetts Urban Search
and Rescue Task Force MATF01 and Rhode Island Urban Search and Rescue
Task Force RITF01. Curt was one of the principal organizers of RITF01,
and served as task force leader. In 2005 he led the team on a
deployment to Hancock County, Mississippi in the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina.
Curt has two Bachelor degrees from Providence College, the first in
biology (1978), and the second in fire safety (1982) summa cum laude.
He is a cum laude graduate of Suffolk University Law School, Class of
1985. Since graduating from law school, he has engaged in the general
practice of law with a concentration in fire service issues.
In 1997, Curt completed the Executive Fire Officer Program at the
National Fire Academy, becoming the first person ever to receive four
Outstanding Applied Research Awards. In 1998 he was awarded an
Executive Fire Officer Fellowship to study Advanced Issues in State and
Local Government at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of
Government. He presently teaches in the Executive Development program
at the National Fire Academy.
He also teaches courses in Fire Tactics, Fire Protection, Fire
Service Law, and Firefighter Occupational Safety & Health in the fire
science program at Providence College, is an instructor-coordinator for
the Rhode Island Fire Academy, and teaches NIMS ICS for Rhode Island
Emergency Management Agency.
Curt has written two books, Legal Considerations for Fire and
Emergency Services, and Fire Officer's Legal Handbook, and writes the
Fire Law column for Firehouse Magazine. He continues to serve as a
volunteer firefighter in Exeter, Rhode Island.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Carlin.
STATEMENT OF MR. ED CARLIN, TRAINING OFFICER, SPALDING RURAL
VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, SPALDING, NEBRASKA
Mr. Carlin. Chairman Lujan, Ranking Member Smith and
Members of the Committee, thank you for giving me the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide testimony in
regards to the AFG program. My name is Ed Carlin. I live in the
small town of Spalding and belong to the Spalding Volunteer
Fire Department, a department made up of 35 volunteers. I also
help serve my community as an elected official on the city
council. In addition, I am a career firefighter currently
serving as captain on the Grand Island Fire Department. Our
fire department functions with 68 members operating out of four
stations. We provide emergency services such as fire, EMS,
rescue, hazardous-material response, airport response and
technical rescue response such as trench and high-angle rescue.
While off duty, I teach both fire and EMS education to
departments in Nebraska. As a career firefighter, a volunteer
firefighter, and a fire and EMS instructor, I have been able to
see the benefits of the AFG program and some of the shortfalls
of the grant as I travel throughout the state. I was asked to
come before you and give an oral testimony to what I have seen
and experienced on a local and community level where I am
involved.
Funding for career and volunteer fire departments was
almost impossible to obtain until the AFG program was
established. A lot of the departments are in areas classified
as low-income areas. Although these designations offered relief
to citizens in the area, it did nothing to help the fire
departments. With poor economies not just locally but across
the Nation along with their low-income classification, funding
for equipment and staffing was becoming impossible to secure.
The community where I reside, Spalding, Nebraska, had this
problem until awarded an AFG grant in 2008. The community only
had one fire apparatus, a 1948 pumper that could not hold water
due to a rusted tank. This tank could not be fixed or relined
due to the structural integrity of the tank. When a fire broke
out, they would have to park this pumper next to a hydrant and
deploy a portable tank so they could pump out of it until
mutual aid arrived from the rural fire district. Valuable time
was lost setting up this tank, allowing a fire to further
destroy property and eliminating the window of opportunity for
a rescue. Our ability to protect the two things a firefighter
is sworn to protect, life and property, was jeopardized in our
community. When Spalding applied for a grant, they opted for a
mini pumper for several reasons. The smaller size allowed it to
fit in the current building and allowed for a quicker response.
Once the five percent matching funds was obtained, the grant
was submitted, and as stated earlier, we received this grant.
The new mini pumper will now allow the village to respond with
a reliable pumper to help mitigate emergencies in our area.
Obtaining equipment to protect our firefighters and
allowing them to conduct their mission in a safe, efficient
manner would be next to impossible without the AFG grant. I
believe this program is on the right track of fulfilling its
objective of protecting the public and firefighters from the
hazards of fire. I do know that we have a long way to go to
meet these objectives. It is still hard for some departments to
come up with their matching portion of the grant, which
ultimately keeps them from applying. I know of a few
departments who are not applying this year because they will
not be able to meet the required match for the grant.
In the profession of firefighting, it is often said that
all firefighters are professional and held liable for their
duties whether they are from a career or volunteer fire
department. In the 2009 AFG grant, new priorities were outlined
giving higher levels of consideration to departments that
protect a larger population and have a higher call volume. This
is a highly competitive grant and this provision alone could
possibly eliminate several rural area grants from advancing to
the next round of peer review. I understand the higher call
volume will show a greater cost benefit of the award but the
grant should not discriminate on the basis of the population
served by a certain fire department. A life is a life and death
does not discriminate by population. Possibly, they should give
a higher consideration to departments by the square miles they
protect as well since most rural areas have huge coverage
areas.
I recently instructed a rural department which I could not
allow to participate in any live fire exercises because their
bunker gear did not meet the required standards. They were not
able to complete some of the realistic training that I feel is
critical for firefighters to experience and learn from. If this
department was dispatched to a fire call today and had a rescue
situation in front of them, I can almost guarantee that not one
firefighter would hesitate to attempt a rescue. Not one would
say I cannot go in because Instructor Carlin told me my gear is
not compliant with the NFPA standards. It is what they are
trained to do, whether we like it or not. They are going to do
their job and attempt to save the life. Fortunately, an AFG
grant was awarded to them and they are in the process of
acquiring new gear to protect their firefighters.
It is stated in the program guidance for the 2009 AFG that
our primary goal is to help fire departments and non-affiliated
EMS organizations meet their firefighting and emergency
response needs. Based off this, I do not believe the intent of
the grant program was for it to become biased toward the
population of a given area whether large or small. I feel the
AFG is not a complex grant to apply for but many departments
use grant writers to write their grants. There is nothing wrong
with using a grant writer to provide an edge by using
experience and expertise in the field. There are still
thousands of departments out there that cannot afford to use a
grant writer and will continue to submit their own grants due
to the lack of funds. Funding for the AFG is right on track.
The money goes straight to the fire department and 100 percent
of it can be used at their request.
The SAFER program has also been a huge benefit to fire
departments across the Nation in this time of economic crisis.
Fire departments nationwide are being forced to freeze hiring
and lay off firefighters. Unlike factories, manufacturing
plants and other businesses that can slow production or reduce
production to coincide with their layoffs, we cannot. There is
no control over fires, accidents, injuries and other emergency
calls, and our call volumes will not decline. Fire scenes are
demanding and often require continuous aggressive actions to
stop the fire. Waging this war in dangerous environments close
to a point of exhaustion, firefighters work as they await other
units to arrive and relieve them so they can rehabilitate and
return to the battle. At these scenes, manpower is often the
primary resource, and without it, firefighters will be forced
to operate in multiple roles, putting them in dangerous
situations without the help they need.
In closing, as these cuts to fire departments are made, I
would not expect the number of injuries and fatalities to
firefighters on fire and emergency scenes to decline, but
possibly increase instead. It was evident early on that the
SAFER grant was needed to adequately staff the fire
departments' manning to a level where they could safely
respond. SAFER funding needs to remain at a higher level at
$420 million but taking money from the AFG program and adding
it to the SAFER program is not the solution. With 21,000
departments applying for $3.2 billion in the AFG, it is evident
that there is still a need for the AFG to be fully funded.
Thank you, and I will be happy to answer questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carlin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ed Carlin
Chairman Wu, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the Committee,
thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today to
provide testimony in regards to the AFG program. My name is Ed Carlin.
I live in the small town of Spalding located 60 miles away and belong
to the Spalding Volunteer Fire Department, a department made up of 35
volunteers. I also help serve my community as an elected official on
the city council. In addition, I am also a career FF currently serving
as Captain on the Grand Island Fire Department. Our fire department
functions with 68 members operating out of four stations. We provide
emergency services such as fire, EMS, rescue, hazardous material
response, airport response and technical rescue such as trench and high
angle rescue.
While off duty, I teach both fire and EMS education to departments
in Nebraska. As a career firefighter, a volunteer firefighter and a
fire and EMS instructor I have been able to see the benefits of the AFG
and some of the short falls of the grant as I traveled throughout the
state. I was asked to come before you and give an oral testimony to
what I have seen and experienced on a local and community level, where
I am involved.
Funding for career and volunteer departments was almost impossible
to obtain until the AFG was established. A lot of the departments are
in areas classified as low income areas. Although these designations
offered relief to citizens in the area, it did nothing to help the fire
departments. With poor economies not just locally but across the
Nation--along with many areas being classified as low income--funding
for equipment and staffing was becoming impossible to secure.
The community where I reside--Spalding, Nebraska--had this problem
until awarded an AFG grant in 2008. The community had only one fire
apparatus, a 1948 pumper that could not hold water due to a rusted
tank. This tank could not be fixed or relined due to the structural
integrity of the tank. When a structure fire broke out they would have
to park this pumper next to a hydrant and deploy a portable tank so
they could pump out of it until mutual aid arrived from the Rural Fire
District. Valuable time was lost setting up this tank, allowing a fire
to further destroy the property and eliminating the window of
opportunity for a rescue.
Our ability to protect the two things a firefighter is sworn to
protect, life and property, was jeopardized in our community When
Spalding applied for a grant they opted for the Mini pumper for several
reasons. The smaller size allowed it to fit in the current building our
pumper was housed in and allowed for a quicker response. Once the five
percent in matching funds was obtained, the grant was submitted and as
stated earlier we received the grant. This new mini-pumper now allows
the village to respond with a reliable pumper to help mitigate
emergencies in our area.
Obtaining equipment to protect our firefighters and allow them to
conduct their missions in a safe, efficient manner would be next to
impossible without AFG program. I believe this program is on the right
track of fulfilling its objective of protecting the public and
firefighters from the hazards of fire. I do know that we have a long
way to go to meet these objectives. It is still hard for some
departments to come up with their matching portion of the grant, which
ultimately keeps them from applying. I know of a few departments who
are not applying this year because they will not be able to meet the
required match for the grant. As easy as it sounds to obtain five to
ten percent in matching funds, it is still very hard to do for some
departments that have small budgets with no leeway.
Grant Review Criteria
In the profession of fire fighting it is often said that all
firefighters are professionals and are held liable for their duties
whether they are from a career or volunteer department. In the 2009 AFG
grant, new priorities were outlined giving higher level of
consideration to departments that protect a larger population and have
a higher call volume. This is a highly competitive grant and this
provision alone could possibly eliminate several rural area grants from
advancing to the next round of ``peer review,'' where the grants are
actually read and discussed. I understand the higher call volume will
show a greater benefit of the award, but the grant should not
discriminate on the basis of the population served by a certain fire
department. A life is a life and death does not discriminate by
population. Possibly, DHS should give higher consideration to
departments by the square miles they protect as well since most rural
areas have huge coverage areas.
I recently instructed a rural department which I could not allow to
participate in any live fire exercises because their bunker gear did
not meet the required standards. They were not able to complete some of
the realistic training that I feel is critical for firefighters to
experience and learn from. If this department was dispatched to a fire
call today and had a rescue situation in front of them I can almost
guarantee that not one firefighter would hesitate to attempt the
rescue. Not one would say ``I cannot go in because Instructor Carlin
told me my gear is not compliant with NFPA standards.'' It is what they
are trained to do and whether we like it or not they are going to do
their job and attempt to save a life. Fortunately, an AFG grant was
awarded to them and the department is in the process of acquiring new
gear to protect their firefighters. This is just another example of why
we need to make sure this grant remains a grant to help firefighters
and fire departments equally across the Nation based on their needs.
It is stated in the Program Guidance for the 2009 AFG that ``Our
primary goal is to help fire departments and nonaffiliated EMS
organizations meet their firefighting and emergency response needs. AFG
seeks to support organizations that lack the tools and resources
necessary to more effectively protect the health and safety of the
public and their emergency response personnel with respect to fire and
all other hazards.'' Based off this I do not believe the intent of the
grant program was for it to become biased toward the population of a
given area.
I feel the AFG is not a complex grant to apply for but, due to the
urgent need and competiveness, many departments use grant writers to
write their grants. There is nothing wrong with using a grant writer.
It can provide an edge by using experience and expertise in the field
to demonstrate needs, further increasing the chance of an award.
There are still thousands of departments that could not afford a
grant writer to and will continue to submit their own grants due to the
lack of funding.
Funding from the AFG is right on track. The money goes straight to
the fire department and 100 percent of it can be used for their
request. Whether they are a small or large fire department, this grant
is needed by all departments across the Nation to upgrade their
equipment so we can continue to provide our services to the public.
SAFER
The SAFER program has also been a huge benefit to fire departments
across the Nation in this time of economic crises. Fire departments
nationwide are being forced to freeze hiring and lay off firefighters.
Unlike factories, manufacturing plants and other businesses that can
slow production or reduce their production to coincide with their
layoffs, we cannot. There is no control over fires, accidents, injuries
and other emergency calls and our call volumes will not decline.
Departments nationwide will continue to respond to their call volume
understaffed and it will be the public who will suffer by waiting
longer for a rescue unit or engine company to arrive.
Fire scenes are demanding and often require continuous aggressive
actions to stop the fire. Waging this war in dangerous environments
close to a point of exhaustion, firefighters work as they await other
units to arrive and relieve them so they can rehabilitate and return to
the battle. At these scenes manpower is often the primary resource and
without it firefighters will be forced to operate in multiple roles,
putting them in dangerous situations without the help they need.
As these cuts to fire departments are made I would not expect the
number of injuries and fatalities to firefighters on fire and emergency
scenes to decline, but possibly increase instead. It was evident early
on the SAFER grant was needed to adequately staff the fire departments
manning to a level where they could safely respond. SAFER funding needs
to remain at the $420 million, but taking money from the AFG program
and adding it to the SAFER program is not the solution. With 21,000
departments applying for $3.2 billion dollars in the AFG it is evident
that there is still a need for the AFG to be fully funded.
Thank you and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Biography for Ed Carlin
Ed Carlin has been a career firefighter with the Grand Island Fire
Department for 13 years serving initially as a FF/Paramedic and now as
a Captain. Some of training received by the Grand Island Fire
Department includes FFI, rescue technician, Haz-mat technician, Officer
I and II and many other Fire and EMS courses.
He also belongs to the Spalding Volunteer Fire Department in the
community of Spalding where he resides and serves on the city council
as well. In his off-duty time he enjoys teaching Fire and EMS classes
across the State of Nebraska.
Ed is married to Wendy, who works as a dental hygienist, and has
three kids, Will, Sarah and Nick.
Discussion
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Carlin, and at this point we will
open our first round of questions. The Chair recognizes himself
for five minutes.
I want to thank each of you for sharing your testimony
today. My district in New Mexico is a rural district, for the
most part. My familiarity with the important responsibilities
that our fire service has across New Mexico is one that I had
serving in my previous capacity. We were a regulatory
commission that was structured in such a way that our fire
marshal for the State of New Mexico and our State fire academy
were under our jurisdiction, and we worked closely with them in
the State of New Mexico to create opportunities to be able to
take advantage of a fire fund that was put in place at the
State level but that was not being fully allocated to our
firefighters across New Mexico and our fire districts,
recognizing the importance of being able to get them the
support that they need. But the emphasis in our state was to
look at those ISOs that were in trouble, those fire districts
that didn't have the tax base or the ability to get their
resources and so we put together the FIRE grant fund to be able
to emphasize the fact that we could grow those fire departments
that were weaker, and as we strengthened them, the state as a
whole would be in a better position to be able to protect our
citizens, to be able to respond to different areas. I have
counties where we don't have many people that reside in them.
Mr. Manning is familiar with those. I was in many of them just
last week. And it is important that we are also able to provide
them support. And so with that being said, with some of the
suggestions that we are hearing today, how will we make sure
that we are able to still fully support the fire needs of all
parts of the country as we are looking to make sure we are
maximizing the investments that can be made? And I would open
that up to any one of you.
Mr. O'Connor. I will take a crack at it, Mr. Chairman,
Kevin O'Connor again from the IAFF. I think that everybody at
this table is committed and recognizes that there is not an
unlimited pool of federal resources. There is no way that the
Federal Government can properly resource all local fire
departments. So with the limited pot of money that we have--and
some of the observations here I completely concur with--we have
to make sure that we spent it efficiently. I think that when
you look at the data over eight years, clearly it has helped
departments of all sizes, and we recognize that and we think
that that should continue. But I think in an objective
analysis, as the stewards of the public dollar, we have an
obligation to make sure that it is spent efficiently. That
doesn't mean that population needs to be the only requisite,
which is one of the reasons why in adopting the proposal 30/30/
30, you essentially are comparing apples to apples.
For our organization, a lot of people are under the
misconception that we only represent large jurisdictions. We
have 3,100 chapters across the country. We call them the
locals. Over half of them have under 50 people and 20 percent
have under 15 members, so some of the same problems that local
volunteer companies are facing, in terms of grant writing, we
have. We have small departments that don't have those
capabilities. But by our measure, if you can group the money
proportionately, all the professional departments--in some of
the areas in Mr. Smith's district, we have locals with eight
people--they will be competing for the professional pot against
New York City. So it is not done as large versus small, it is
trying to compare apples to apples and make sure that there is
a reasonable allocation of dollars, and we just think that on
the front end of this, and I was privileged to be part of that
process, we were very cognizant of the legitimate concerns of
smaller departments and in crafting the statutory requirements
of the 45 percent, we took that in consideration. But as time
has evolved, we have seen just the opposite has been the case,
and this is just an attempt to rectify while ensuring fairness
and equity to everybody.
Chief Carriger. Mr. Chairman, I agree with some of the
statements that Mr. O'Connor and that Mr. Carlin made. I think
it is extremely important that this program be reauthorized but
I believe that we need to look at the fact that there are two
different issues involved in this program with AFG and with
SAFER, and I believe that neither issue is satisfied by robbing
one's resources and giving them to the other. They need to both
be fully funded at the authorized amounts that have been
recognized in the past, and as we continue to grow and as the
system builds for this program, it gets better, and we are
constantly looking at ways to recognize how to apply the matrix
system for the application process in a more fair way, and I
would have to compliment the staff for their constant vigil on
recognizing that there is always a better way. Even though this
program has been very, very effective and I have been very
proud to be a part of it, we are constantly looking for ways to
make it better, and I think that through this process, that
will happen, but that will only happen if both of these
programs are funded to their maximum authorized levels, and
that is what is going to result in providing our country with
the first-response capabilities that this committee is looking
for as a result.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Chief.
I now recognize Mr. Smith for five minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess for the record, Mr. Carlin, could you state the
population of Spalding?
Mr. Carlin. Six hundred.
Mr. Smith. So I overstated in my opening statement when I
talked about communities of a few thousand people up to
communities of a few hundred thousand people and even more, but
how many miles across would you say your jurisdiction is?
Mr. Carlin. I believe Spalding covers about a 350-square-
mile district.
Mr. Smith. So there might be a fire where no people are
located but you still need to fight the fire. Is that accurate?
Mr. Carlin. That is correct. A lot of times they have to
travel miles, which is across the Nation, miles off the road
just to get to a fire, you know.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I do want to
point out that I am constantly impressed and truly amazed by
the cooperation of departments. It might be a volunteer
department complementing a full-time paid department. It might
be one paid department from a neighboring community
complementing another one. Regardless, I appreciate the hard
work and efforts that everyone makes to fight the bad things
that can happen in various communities.
Let us talk a little bit about the matching requirement.
The Unified Fire Service proposal recommends reducing the
current matching requirement for large departments from 20
percent down to 15 percent, and increasing the matching for
small departments up to 15 percent from its current level of
five percent, basically tripling that. Mr. Carriger and Mr.
Carlin, could you discuss how the rural departments you
represent currently deal with the match requirement and how
this increase would impact your ability to apply and receive
the grants?
Mr. Carlin. Coming up with the five percent is hard for
many departments to do. In the regional grants, they add the
population of everyone going together in the grant, and it will
usually take you up to the ten percent match and that is
preventing a lot of the departments in our area from applying
for a regional grant because it brings them up to the ten
percent and they just can't meet that requirement. So a 15
percent match would definitely eliminate several departments
from even applying.
Chief Carriger. Mr. Smith, I would have to agree with Mr.
Carlin. I think it is very difficult for many departments to
come up with the five percent match because when you are
talking about departments that have maybe 40 or 50 volunteer
firefighters on them and they are looking to replace their
SCBAs, you are talking about a cost of a quarter of a million
dollars, and for a lot of those departments, their budget for
the year is less than $50,000 and they have to maintain their
equipment and provide all the services to their community out
of that, so moving that up to 15 percent I would say definitely
would affect the number of departments that would even apply.
And then I think when we start losing departments that apply,
we start losing our ability to have data on who is out there
and who needs what. If they are not involved in the system, we
don't have that information. And I think any time that we do
anything that discourages departments from applying, we have
cut our ability to recognize what the fire service needs for
especially in rural areas in this country are.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson, Mr. O'Connor, would you care to comment on
that scenario of increasing and decreasing the matches to
respective sizes of departments?
Mr. O'Connor. From our perspective, I think that both the
witnesses bring up very, very good points. I don't think it is
in anybody's intention or objective to try to reduce the number
of grants. We honestly thought in crafting the United Fire
Service position that the waiver for DHS to basically take into
account economic exigencies would in fact provide an out to
allow jurisdictions to address that, but when we were, I guess,
contemplating this, we recognized that there are certain
jurisdictions that are small in terms of population but very,
very well disposed financially, and our whole issue here was
equity. So I think that, you know, we certainly would be
willing to work with the Committee in trying to address that
issue because it is not anyone's intention to try to limit the
number of FIRE Act grants.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Anyone else wishing to comment?
Chief Johnson. I would just concur with those comments.
From the IAFC's perspective, we are not interested in raising
that minimum threshold. We can actually live with it the way it
is, for sure, but this was about making 15 percent more
attractive, and likewise we thought the waiver for economic
hardship would deal with the ones that were in the most dire of
need.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lipinski, you are now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for holding this hearing. I thank Ranking Member Smith for this
hearing. I think that both the FIRE and SAFER grant programs
are two vital tools for strengthening local fire departments
nationwide, and although they have only been in existence a
relatively short amount of time, I think they have already
demonstrated their value, particularly in helping local
departments fulfill emergency response duties that obviously
these days have expanded beyond firefighting. Especially in the
post-9/11 world, there has been a big expansion in what these
local departments have to be prepared for.
I am concerned that many of the protections included in the
bill for rural and volunteer departments, though, may have been
more successful than expected, resulting in suburban and urban
departments combined only receiving 30 percent of the federal
funding awarded. The FIRE grants authorizing legislation
required that volunteer and combination departments receive
funding in proportion to percentage of the U.S. population that
they serve, about 55 percent, but from Mr. O'Connor's
testimony, I understand a significantly larger percentage has
been awarded to these departments since 2002. Now, under the
30/30/30 proposal, wouldn't this still--and I am throwing this
question out to whoever wants to address it. Under that
proposal, wouldn't that still result in more than 55 percent,
the required 55 percent going towards volunteer and combination
departments? Who wants to--aren't you still going to have that
even under this 30/30/30 proposal? I know Mr. O'Connor wants to
jump in. I thought maybe someone else wanted to, but go ahead.
Mr. O'Connor. We think so. We think that the aspect of the
combination departments, clearly most of those in our view are
generally departments that are primarily volunteer where you
hire two or three firefighters to help with EMS, help with
being a paid driver. There are notable exceptions. My old
department was a combination department. We had 3,000
volunteers and 1,000 career guys. But by and large when you
take a look at the combination, you know, I can't say this
scientifically and I wouldn't purport to, but if you look at
this pot of 30/30/30 and you break it down, I think certainly
that it would hit the 55 percent bogey. I just think that when
you look at, you know, the way the grants have been distributed
over the eight years, I don't think there is anybody that can
legitimately look at it and say that the larger suburban and
urbanized departments really haven't gotten a fair share, and
nobody wants to tilt the balance. We certainly are not looking
to tilt the balance dramatically in the other side. We would
just like equity, and collectively we thought this was a fair
way to address the issue.
Mr. Lipinski. Chief Carriger.
Chief Carriger. Thank you. And I think that we are all
interested in that. I don't think anybody at this panel feels
any differently about making sure that we are doing the right
thing for the right reason. That is what this is about. I think
there is also other things that have to be considered in this
such as funding from other sources through US&R (Urban Search
and Rescue), through domestic preparedness, and there is a lot
of other funding that is available too, especially metro
departments for specific challenges that they face and the
types of things that they are definitely going to deal with as
opposed to rural departments. So I think that has an effect on
making sure that metro and suburban-type departments do receive
the funding that they justly deserve but I don't think it
always has to come from AFG, and I think that AFG is one of
those programs that--it is the only program that truly can
deliver training, equipment, and again, a capability for rural
fire districts to perform at that baseline level. So when the
metro departments such in the 9/11 incident are faced with
those challenges, those rural departments and those volunteer
departments can come in and help provide service to them as
they have been affected with a baseline of equipment that is
compatible, that is capable and that is safe for those
jurisdictions coming in to operate at that level with the metro
departments.
Mr. Lipinski. Was there something you wanted to add, Mr.
O'Connor? Go ahead.
Mr. O'Connor. Well, just in general I wouldn't take
exception to the comments about the scope of UASI (Urban Areas
Security Initiative) but as most folks in the fire service
community know, specifically fire chiefs in those types of
areas, is that UASI money generally doesn't filter down to the
departments. It is not something that a fire department is able
to identify their specific needs and make the application, and
the chief is absolutely correct with respect to US&R but I
would submit that that is a federal function, those 28 teams
which are chronically underfunded and legitimately we think
that poses a threat to homeland security, but I think you have
to look at that separately because that US&R training is not
specifically geared to basic first response, it is geared to
responding to a Katrina situation, a Murrah building, a World
Trade Center. But the Chief's point is right. There are large
pots of money available but it is not necessarily directed to
the fire service. This AFG is also our pot of money for all
jurisdictions specifically for fire service utilization.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. My time is up. I yield back.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. O'Connor, I had some of the same thoughts pertaining to
the waivers or to the matching funds--I apologize--the matching
funds and making sure that we are able to fully take advantage
of the funding that is available, recognizing that some fire
districts or fire departments have more trouble than others.
You testified that SAFER is in danger of failing if it isn't
fixed now, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
waived the matching requirements and the supplemental allows
departments to use the funding to retain firefighters and to
retain firefighters that may have otherwise been lost. Given
these major changes to the program, why is it still in danger
of failing now and what more should be done to make sure the
program can continue to help local departments?
Mr. O'Connor. I think you have to answer that in two
phases, first off, the specifics to the current crisis that we
are facing economically, and a lot of the steps we are taking
first in the stimulus with the original waiver on the SAFER
grants for this fiscal year; and next coupled with the recently
passed, about two weeks ago, supplemental, which affords the
Secretary of DHS the authority to waive these requirements for
a two-year period. Simply put, no one needs to be lectured or
educated on the crisis nationwide. Small communities, much more
so than large communities--if you take a look at the State of
Massachusetts, Falls River, New Bedford, O'Leary, Ohio, small
communities throughout Michigan are laying off firefighters in
unprecedented numbers. SAFER, the way it is currently
constructed, was authorized at a time when the economy was a
lot better. People did not envision firefighters being laid off
so it was originally authorized as a program to augment a local
jurisdiction's hiring capability. We applaud this Congress, the
Obama Administration and DHS for addressing that on a short-
term basis. So that is with response to what was just done with
respect to the supplemental and the stimulus.
Separate and apart from that when it comes to the
reauthorization, under the current rules, as Chief Johnson very
eloquently articulated, some of the requirements with respect
to the $110,000 the way it is tiered over five years, the
duration of the program really gives great pause to a lot of
budget managers looking at it. We really can't prognosticate
over a five-year period. So I think that you really have to
keep it separate and apart from what was done in both the
stimulus and the supplemental as it relates to what I will call
the tweak on SAFER to address the economic crisis as opposed to
the reauthorization to make structural long-term changes to
make SAFER a more appealing program for communities hopefully
after we recover from this current crisis.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you.
And Deputy Administrator Manning, how does FEMA create the
criteria for fire protection safety grants, and how do the
grants align with other fire protection research being
performed across the Federal Government such as the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, and what is FEMA's view
on the need to create centers of excellent for fire health and
safety R&D?
Mr. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We feel that those
are some of the most important aspects to this, the reduction
in loss of life and property and the creation and the crafting
of good guidance in the grant, not just AFG but across all of
the grant programs and across all of our preparedness policy
can only come from establishment of collection of good data,
the analysis of good data and the creation of centers of
excellence is one way to accomplish that. We would look forward
as we go forward to working with the Committee to identify how
best to accomplish that.
Mr. Lujan. Chief Johnson?
Chief Johnson. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I
think an example I am experiencing right now about the value
that a center of excellence could potentially bring to our
profession is, we have come a long way in the fire service to
bring residential fire sprinklers to the forefront both in the
fire code and other places, but when you try to implement it at
the local level, one of the things that happens is, you find
out your local water purveyors are implementing system
development charges oftentimes between $6,000 and $10,000
because the larger water line requirement to supply a fire
sprinkler system based on engineering calculations make them
up-size their system so they charge you for that in the system
development charge. Now, we all know that a fire sprinkler is
going to use far less water than four of my firefighters
showing up on an engine company after the house is well
involved. We are talking 18 gallons a minute. However, water
purveyors have no empirical evidence that shows that people
will not utilize the full capacity of that water line installed
for fire sprinklers to do things like add less stations on
their sprinkler system for watering their yard. Therefore, they
charge the system. When a homeowner is faced with $3,000 to
install a sprinkler and $10,000 for a water line to supply that
sprinkler, they say ``No.'' We don't have the science, and
absent a research center that conducts this kind of research
and puts some of these things to bed that don't affect just a
single department but affect our nation's fire service, without
that, we will actually continue to perpetuate some of the
barriers that remain. Thank you.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Chief.
Mr. Smith, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Manning, might you have an administrative position on
the United Fire Service's proposal for the AFG reauthorization
and particularly the proposals to introduce the set-asides
based on department size and changing the matching requirements
and the grant size?
Mr. Manning. Thank you. At this point the Administration
has not taken a position on the details of reauthorization. We
anticipate and appreciate the opportunity to work with the
Committee to do so as we go forward but we haven't seen a
formal recommendation. We are aware of the discussion in the
testimony this morning but we look forward to working with the
Committee in identifying the potential impacts of any proposed
changes to the statute as it goes through reauthorization.
Mr. Smith. Do you see a timeline for when you might be able
to have a recommendation?
Mr. Manning. Well, we are available to work with the
Committee at any time and would be pleased to evaluate any
recommendations we may see from the Committee against the
numbers that we--the historical numbers and how they might have
rerun based on new implementation guidance.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you. Also, the President's 2010
budget, it actually cuts the Assistance to Firefighters Grant,
the AFG program, by about 70 percent while doubling it and
pushing money over to the SAFER program to hire new
firefighters. This is despite the fact that more than $3
billion was requested for AFG while only $580 million was
requested for the SAFER grants. Can you explain these numbers?
Mr. Manning. Well, Ranking Member Smith, the presidential
request, the budget that came in from the Administration was,
as you are aware, the first time that there was a request from
the Administration to support these grants. As we go forward in
out years, we anticipate and appreciate working with the
Congress on the funding levels. As was discussed earlier, there
are a number of different funding avenues through different
grant programs. This being our first budget submission and
adjusting those grant programs to the right levels is something
we are working on and will continue to work on closely with the
Committee and the Appropriations Committees on doing so in out
years.
Mr. Smith. Okay. I appreciate that. Anyone else wishing to
comment on those? Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Lujan. Chief Johnson, in your testimony, you include
the importance of how the larger fire departments should get
funding as well. What can be done again--I know the question
was asked before--with some of the smaller fire departments to
ensure that they will be able to get the adequate funding and
be able to benefit from some of the data that you referenced
earlier as well?
Chief Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I think
particularly we are hearing from the large regional systems
that have gone through the trouble on behalf of their local
taxpayers to consolidate and regionalize their service. In our
particular area, were we not consolidated, there would be 12
fire chiefs, 24 assistant fire chiefs, 12 fire training
programs and on and on and on, and by regionalizing we have
saved the taxpayers that kind of redundant overhead and allowed
us to redirect that capacity to the street level. With that
said, these departments, like in our case, if we were left
alone we would be eligible for 12 separate $1 million grants,
and right now we are eligible for a single $1 million grant.
Our position is, we would like to see the disincentive for
cooperating and regionalizing removed when actually you see
language in there that promotes regional efforts and
cooperation. So we just think this was a nuance that was
overlooked and we wanted to bring it to light.
Mr. Lujan. And Chief Johnson, to go a step further as well,
regarding local budgets and the importance of making sure that
we are able to leverage those local budgets, what are your
thoughts there on the unintended consequences of relying on
federal funding to supplant that local funding? How can we
leverage that local funding? And do you think that SAFER should
be changed to allow for the retraining of firefighters as
opposed to just for training of new firefighters?
Chief Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The IAFC's position
is that we believe it was a good move recognizing the current
economic situation to recognize the retention component of the
SAFER grant. We believe this really does--if you remove the
barrier from making these long-term commitments, this really
does create additional capacity, not only for career
departments but for volunteer departments who are also eligible
for this. So we think it makes all the sense in the world. In
terms of leveraging the local match, I think as it relates to
SAFER specifically, it is less of a barrier to come up with a
match for SAFER than it is to say to yourselves, for $100,000
potential federal match, I am willing to lock myself into five
years of commitment, knowing that if I hiccup in there
economically speaking, I have got to pay it all back, that is a
commitment that most policy-makers won't make, and one of the
nuances at a local level is, it is not uncommon that at State
level and local levels boards are not allowed to bind future
boards. So when you make a five-year commitment, you are
outside the four-year term of most local elected officials so
you actually run into statutory issues there. So we think that
shortening this would provide a lot of incentives and remove
the barrier. Thank you.
Mr. Lujan. And Mr. Carlin and Mr. Carriger, if you could
just again talk about the importance of--I think both of you
have referenced how some of our smaller fire departments are
just outdated and the importance of this funding to be able to
assist you in building upon that local support as well. Mr.
Carlin?
Mr. Carlin. I guess with the 30/30/30, just hearing about
it, you know, I would have to look into it further, but if the
panel that reviews the grants busted up their peer reviews to
smaller people, looking at that 30 percent from small
departments, right now if a small area puts in for a grant, my
town of 600 may have someone from Chicago, New York and Miami
looking at my grant and how are they going to understand my
needs. At the 30/30/30, if they bust up the peer reviews to
that population category as well, it may actually benefit the
small areas as well.
Mr. Lujan. Chief?
Chief Carriger. Thank you, sir. I believe that there is
definitely room for improvement in how we apply these grant
fundings, and I think it is very important and certainly from
the volunteer fire service, it is very important to a lot of
the aspects of SAFER continue. The recruitment and retention
section of SAFER is extremely important and it has no match,
and that is open for volunteer departments to put in for
programs, and one of the biggest challenges for volunteer
departments is finding somebody that is capable and has the
time and can truly basically build and implement a marketing
program for finding new volunteers. So I think SAFER is an
extremely important part of this grant process and the program
in general but I think the things that need to happen in
response to the economic situation of our country right now
need to be short-term issues, not permanent issues or not
permanent solutions that, you know, five years from now we are
looking at in recovery times when things are going good like
they were five years ago when most of this was developed that
we are not inadvertently hurting how the program is implemented
to the fire service, and I think that goes right into the AFG
and taking money away from AFG and putting it in SAFER is that
the economy is going to be, I think, somewhat proportionate to
population and the areas that have the larger population are
going to obviously recover faster than the rural areas. So I
think that is even more important for us to remember, that any
adjustments to the program we need to make need to be
unfortunately short term so that we can respond to the economic
situation in our country. But I think here today this panel and
your comments have proven to all of us that this is a program,
it is a puzzle, it is a big picture, and each one of the
sections of this program are vitally important and have a
ripple effect to the other sections of the program and that is
why that funding and the reauthorization and the appropriate
funding to all sections of this is so vitally important to the
fire service.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Chief.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Smith for five minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. O'Connor, can you--in terms of the United Fire Service
proposal, can you tell us a little bit as quickly as you can
how that came about and who signed on to that?
Mr. O'Connor. Discussions, I guess, started beginning
recognizing the reauthorization was occurring this year. As you
all know, there is an organization, the umbrella group for the
fire service, the Congressional Fire Service Institute. A
number of the participants in that including the IAFC, the
NFPA, the IAFF, arson investigators, State fire training
academy directors and others began a series of conversations
about trying to address some of the issues that have been
articulated in everyone's testimony.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. And I appreciate your willingness to
come here today and explain some of this. I mean, clearly there
is some disagreement here, you know, among all of us being
friends, let us say, and can we get everyone to sit down and
discuss this and hopefully arrive--contrary to what some people
think, we elected officials don't like controversy. We like it
when many, many, many parties can get along and agree on things
so that we can kind of make things move quicker here. Do you
think that is a thing that can be achieved?
Mr. O'Connor. Well, speaking solely from the IAFF
perspective, I think that one of the things that has engendered
some of the progress that the fire service has made is the fact
that by and large we have had a great degree of cooperation
among all components. You know, for people that have been in
this town historically, about 15, 18 years ago there was open
warfare between the IAFC and the IAFF, and happily that has
abated and, you know, we have worked very well together for a
great number of years. The same applies with, at least in my
view, the NVFC. I think the chief's comments and testimony
today tracks pretty closely. I don't think there is a great
deal of discrepancy and disagreement. I think everyone at this
table has come from a firefighting background. We all
recognize--you know, Mr. Carlin is obviously a career
firefighter and a volunteer. I started as a volunteer and ended
as a career firefighter.
Mr. Smith. We can put him in charge.
Mr. O'Connor. But, no, I think the short answer to your
question is sure. I mean, everybody here are friends and
everybody has the same objective. We might--it is like anything
else. We might have disagreements on, you know, where the lines
are ultimately cut but as I testified earlier, I don't think
that anybody objectively would look at it and not recognize
that, you know, there needs to be some realignment. The
question is, where do you cut the line.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. And I appreciate, Mr. Manning, I know
that there are many details of a President's budget. I guess I
might hear you saying that the budget with the 70 percent
reduction and shifting of dollars might be a less than optimal
idea and maybe we can steer away from that direction. Am I
correct in hearing you suggesting that maybe?
Mr. Manning. Well, we of course support fully the
President's recommendation, and as we craft the out-year
budgets we will work with the community to identify what the
needs are and of course working through our own process.
Mr. Smith. But for this budget, you would like to see the
70 percent reduction and then shifting dollars elsewhere?
Mr. Manning. Well, for this budget, we are primarily
concerned with making the program as successful as possible and
working with the budget that is provided to us by the Congress.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you.
Mr. Manning, would you agree that some of the investment
that was included on the waivers to be able to provide more
flexibility to fire departments across the country will assist
in the upcoming budget cycle?
Mr. Manning. The changes to the program that were made by
the supplemental and to the waiver authority obviously has a
possibility, has the potential to assist some communities. The
application of that authority is problematic. It can be
difficult as you try to find uniform criteria for the
application. That is something that we will have to look at
closely. I believe that we can work with communities with the
existing grant roles in the AFG. On the SAFER program, I
believe that the waiver authority that was--the waiving of the
match for the next two fiscal years will certainly provide the
assistance to communities throughout the country.
Mr. Lujan. And again, would also highlight the importance
of reauthorizing the SAFER act, correct?
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, absolutely, yes.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Varone, you talked a little bit about the
importance of inspections and making sure that we are being
responsible in that manner. Could you touch upon the importance
of that, especially as we are looking at commercial properties,
residential properties and what more we could do there? And
also if you could highlight the importance of what are the most
effective programs in a few of these areas?
Chief Varone. Well, in terms of inspections, it seems like
one of the first things that gets cut in economic times is
activities in the fire prevention bureau, and there are a lot
of reasons for that but, you know, one of the first things to
go are the inspections, and it is vitally important that the
inspections continue, and we would like to see some additional
consideration through the AFG to help support some of the fire
prevention activities that would help support those inspection
activities.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much. I have no further
questions.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No questions.
Mr. Lujan. With that being said, I want to thank you all
for appearing before the Committee this afternoon. The record
will remain open for two weeks for additional statements from
the Members and for answers to any follow-up questions the
Committee may ask of the witnesses.
With that, the witnesses are excused and the hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Timothy W. Manning, Deputy Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS)
Questions submitted by Chairman David Wu
Q1. In your experience with running the AFG program, if the maximum
allowable grant were as high as $10 million, how many departments would
be able to meet a 15 percent match for that amount? A 20 percent? Are
basing maximum grant awards on jurisdiction population still
appropriate? If, so why?
A1. It has been our experience that all applicants applying for the
Assistance to Firefighters Grants have done so with the knowledge that
a cost-share is one of many conditions of award. Potential applicants
assess their own financial stability as well as their ability to
leverage federal funds. Quantifying the actual number of potential
applicants that would not apply with a changed cost share is not
possible.
With respect to the question regarding the appropriateness of
basing the maximum grant award on the jurisdiction's population, we do
not have any basis for sustaining or removing it. We are not aware of
any specific or systemic benefits for fire departments that have been
realized under these present funding limitations, nor are we aware of
any negative effects.
Q2. What criteria is FEMA using to implement the waiver of matching
funds authority that was given under the Supplemental Appropriations
Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-32)? How does this authority change the
implementation and management of the program? Would FEMA use the same
criteria if a waiver authority was added for the AFG program and how
would such an authority change the implementation and management of the
program?
A2. The waiver of cost share for SAFER grants awarded with
appropriations from FY 2009 and FY 2010 that is contained in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is universal to all SAFER
grants, and hence no specific waiver criteria will be applied--there
will be no cost share for any of these SAFER grants. The waiver of the
cost-share will have little impact on the implementation or management
of the competitive aspects of the grant program. We will still evaluate
the merits of each application based on established criteria, award
grants to the applications that demonstrate the grant funds will have
the highest impact, and monitor or provide oversight to assure that all
the conditions of award are followed.
We would not use this approach (global waiver of the cost-share)
for the Assistance to Firefighters Grants. In the SAFER grants, the
ultimate cost-share amounted to approximately 60+ percent for the local
fire department when all the factors were considered (the diminishing
federal-share, the statutory salary limit, etc.). Adding to the SAFER
burden was the requirement to maintain the pre-SAFER staffing levels.
All of these issues contributed to the changes to the SAFER program for
FY 2009 and FY 2010.
At this time, we do not believe that there is reason to waive the
cost-share under AFG. There is little incidence of a reduction in the
number of applications for AFG from FY 2008 to 2009, and the small
reduction evidenced is, we believe, a reflection in the lesser number
of requested vehicles--the most competitive portion of AFG. More
importantly, there is even less evidence of declinations of award
offers under AFG (less than one tenth of one percent of the award
recommendations) and therefore little to cause concern about cost share
capacity at this time, despite current economic conditions in the
Nation. We believe that applicants' requests are reflective/
representative of the amount of local funds that would be available to
match the federal funds if/when awarded.
Q3. For the Fire Prevention and Safety Grants, what percentage of that
money is used for research projects? What percentage of applicants for
Fire Prevention and Safety Grants apply for research funding? What
percentage of the research funding goes to academic researchers and
what other types of entities apply for this funding?
A3. Please see table below. Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Grants
are, per statutory requirement, at least five percent of the
appropriation for AFG. The program includes both FP&S activities grants
(such as education and awareness programs), as well as research and
development grants. Historically, the percentage of FP&S grants for
research activities has varied between 20-35 percent from FY 2005 to FY
2008. Thus, the percentage of the total AFG appropriation that is being
placed into research has been one to two percent.
Additional applicants, aside from academic entities, include
foundations and organizations that conduct research, primarily focused
on the fire and emergency services, such as Underwriter's Laboratories,
Commission on Fire Accreditation International, and the Fire Protection
Research Foundation, among others.
Q4. In testimony from Chief Jack Carriger of the National Volunteer
Fire Council, he stated that between 2005 and 2007 applications for the
Fire Prevention and Safety grants have dropped from $394 million to
$191 million. What might account for this drop? What are the most
effective activities in preventing fires?
A4. In fact, the amount of federal funding requested through the Fire
Prevention and Safety Grants increased by nearly $60 million between
2006 and 2007. However, under the Fire Prevention and Safety grants,
eligible applicants include not only fire departments, but national,
regional, State, local, or community organizations that are recognized
for the experience and expertise in fire prevention and safety programs
and activities. Both public and private non-profit organizations are
eligible to apply for funding. Additionally, under the research and
development activity, eligible applicants include national, regional,
State and local organizations, such as academic, public health,
occupational health, and injury prevention institutions, especially
those that are recognized for their experience and expertise in
firefighter safety research and development programs or whose
applications demonstrate the potential to improve firefighter safety.
From 2006 to 2007, there was an increase in organizations applying for
these grants.
The statistics quoted by Chief Carriger of the National Volunteer
Fire Council take into account only those applications submitted by
fire departments themselves. There was a sharp decrease between 2005
and 2007 in the applications for fire prevention activities in the FY
2005-FY 2007 timeframe. This drop may be attributable to any number of
variables. For example, in FY 2005 there was an error in the
interpretation of the authorizing statute, and no match from fire
departments was required. In FY 2006 & 2007, that error was corrected.
With respect to effective strategies, recent assessments by
entities such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have
shown that some of the most effective projects for fire prevention
include smoke alarm installation projects, sprinkler awareness, public
education on the reduction of injury, code enforcement/awareness and
arson prevention programs. These same assessments, also show that the
effective delivery of these strategies includes the partnering of
community/neighborhood organizations with fire departments, the use of
education plans and techniques, and intervention programs with juvenile
fire setters.
Q5. If the cap for individual SAFER grants were removed, how would
this change affect the implementation and management of the program?
A5. We assume that you are referring to the cap on an individual
firefighter's salary and benefits, since there is no cap on the amount
that can be awarded for an individual SAFER grant such as there is
under the AFG. Aside from the long-term federal liability involved in
the decision to fully fund local fire departments' personnel costs,
removal of the salary cap would not necessarily affect the
implementation or management of the program. Applications would still
be evaluated based on the merits of each application based on
established criteria, the grants would still be awarded to the
applications that demonstrate the grant funds will have the highest
impact, and the grants would still be monitored to assure that all the
conditions of award were followed. However, there would be fewer
grants, since on average each grant award would be higher.
Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith
Q1. Aside from the AFG and SAFER programs, what other DHS grant
programs support fire department preparedness, and in what form and for
what types of departments and activities is such funding used for?
Specifically, approximately how much of the combined $1.6 billion Urban
Area Security Initiative and the State Homeland Security Grant Program
supports fire departments?
A1. In addition to the AFG and SAFER programs, the following DHS grant
programs since FY 2004 support fire department preparedness:
Homeland Security Grant Program, including the
State Homeland Security Program (SHSP)
Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), and
Citizen Corps Program (CCP)
State Homeland Security Program--Tribal (SHSP-Tribal)
Inter-operable Emergency Communications Grant Program
(IECGP)
Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG)
Emergency Operations Center (EOC) grant program
Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program
(RCPGP)
Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP)
Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP)
Transit Security Program (TSP)
Port Security Grant Program (PSGP)
Funding from these programs is used to support all fire department
response activities, especially those associated with non-fire response
requirements. Hence the kinds of purchases being supported will include
specialty response vehicles, hazardous materials equipment and
monitors, biological and chemical response equipment and monitors,
specialty rescue equipment, such as that used in urban heavy rescue,
and so forth. The departments most often receiving this support are
fire departments in threat areas, hence most often urban and large
suburban communities.
Since FY 2004, 15.24 percent of SHSP funds have been used for fire-
related activities, and 15.63 percent of UASI funds have been used for
fire-related activities.
In FY 2008, approximately 8.65 percent of the total expended funds
for SHSP and 13.14 percent of the UASI expended funds have been
expended for fire departments uses. However, there is no data at
present that have been reported on the expenditures of the FY 2009
appropriated funds to UASI and SHSP of $1.6B.
A chart reflecting these and all of the historical data on fire
department expenditures since FY 2004 is attached.
Questions submitted by Representative Donna F. Edwards
Q1. Since the beginning of the 1990's, the number of people dying in
fires each year has remained around 3,400. A disproportionate number of
those people are poor and minority citizens. Why is this the case?
A1. There is not a definitive study on this aspect of fire incidences,
but there are several contributing factors that taken together would
begin to explain why a disproportionate number of fire deaths are poor
and minority citizens:
According to the National Fire Protection
Association, under-education is one of the top three factors
most strongly related to fire death rates (NFPA Journal,
January/February 1996);
Lack of financial resources may prevent some
individuals and families from purchasing fire prevention and
safety tools, such as smoke alarms, because other necessities
take precedence;
Poorer households may use portable heating devices in
place of central heating, which increases the risk of fire; and
Those living below the poverty line in urban areas
have a greater risk of arson because some live in high crime
areas. Additionally, in the urban areas, greater security
measures may jeopardize egress routes.
Q2. What types of programs do the Fire Prevention and Safety Grants
support to reduce the number of fatal fires? Can the circumstances that
cause these fires be addressed with more education or is some other
type of intervention needed?
A2. With respect to Fire Prevention programs, we support and place
priority on the most effective projects, which include smoke alarm
installation projects, sprinkler awareness, code enforcement/awareness
and arson prevention programs. The effective delivery of these
strategies often has been shown to rely on the partnering of community/
neighborhood organizations with fire departments, the use of education
plans and techniques, and intervention programs with juvenile fire
setters.
Additional education on fire prevention and safety will continue to
prove to be effective strategies in reducing fires, as well as death
and injury from fire and related hazards. As for other interventions,
the most notable would be the adoption of a change in the International
Residential Code that would require fire sprinkler systems in all new
construction. Recently, the Acting United States Fire Administrator
released a statement on this change, stating:
``It is the position of the U.S. Fire Administration that all
Americans should be protected from death, injury, and property
loss resulting from fire in their residence. All homes should
be equipped with both smoke alarms and residential fire
sprinklers, and all families should have and practice an
emergency escape plan. The U.S. Fire Administration supports
all efforts to reduce the tragic toll of fire losses in this
nation, including the recently adopted changes to the
International Residential Code that require residential fire
sprinklers in all new residential construction.''
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Chief Jeffrey D. Johnson, First Vice President, The
International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC); Chief,
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue
Questions submitted by Chairman David Wu
Q1. What criteria would IAFC recommend be used to waive the matching
requirement for AFG and SAFER? Should the criteria be the same for
waiving other program requirements? How should these criteria be
developed?
A1. The IAFC recommends that the waivers to the local matching
requirements for FIRE grants be based on a two-step process to ensure
both transparency and accountability. The first step would require that
the jurisdiction applying for a waiver fall below a specified threshold
within an index using U.S. Census data, such as the State poverty level
or median household income. Then, if a jurisdiction met this
requirement, the AFG program office would make a final determination on
the fire department's request based on financial information provided
with the application. This process would ensure that fire departments
that receive waivers both meet a clear economic benchmark, and that the
AFG office has made a positive, accountable determination to grant the
waiver.
The AFG office should establish the criteria for the waiver system
by consulting the major fire service organizations and other
stakeholders. The current, annual AFG criteria development meeting may
provide a relevant forum for this consultation.
Q2. The proposal to raise the maximum allowable grant for the AFG
program to $10 million would more than triple the current maximum. Why
is such a large increase needed? If the cap were significantly
increased, would departments be able to provide a 15 percent match? 20
percent?
A2. There are a number of good reasons for supporting an increase in
the cap for FIRE grants. To ensure economies of scale, local fire
departments in many Western states are consolidating into larger fire
departments. For example, my fire department, Tualatin Valley Fire and
Rescue, is composed of what were historically 12 departments, and now
covers more than 432,500 people in nine cities and portions of three
counties in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. My department is
limited to a $1 million grant, but if these 12 departments had applied
separately for FIRE grant funding, they could have applied for a much
larger amount. My department faces many of the same equipment and
training needs as the 12 departments would, because we cover the same
area. A larger maximum allowable grant would allow my department to
better handle our equipment and training needs, while also rewarding
fire departments that promote economies of scale and more effective use
of taxpayer money by consolidating into larger departments.
In addition, the $2.75 million limit can be a challenge for larger
departments. For example, the Fire Department of New York has over
11,000 firefighters covering over eight million people and the Los
Angeles County Fire Department has over 2,500 firefighters covering
over four million residents. The current $2.75 million cap does not go
very far in helping these larger departments meet their needs.
The IAFC would like to work with the Committee to set an
appropriate larger amount to be the maximum allowable grant for larger
fire departments.
Q2a. Is the current structure of basing award sizes on jurisdictional
population still appropriate today? If so, why?
A2a. The IAFC believes that it is important to base award sizes on the
population of the jurisdiction. The population of a jurisdiction is an
important factor in determining the staffing and equipment needs for
protecting it. For example, in areas with large populations, a fire
department needs more firefighters and equipment to perform its
lifesaving mission. In jurisdictions with smaller populations, a fire
department may require a smaller number of firefighters or equipment.
The IAFC also supports the proposal to use a 30-30-30 percent floor
to distribute FIRE grants to career, combination and volunteer fire
departments (with the remaining 10 percent available for open
competition). The current statute (15 U.S.C. 2229( (b)(11) ) requires
that all-volunteer and combination departments must receive ``a
proportion of the total grant funding that is not less than the
proportion of the United States population that those firefighting
departments protect.'' The IAFC supported this set-aside in the past,
because we were originally concerned that volunteer fire departments
might not receive as much funding from the FIRE grant program as larger
all-career departments. In fact, volunteer fire departments have
received over 60 percent of the funds from the FIRE grant program and
all-career fire departments have received about 10 percent of the
funding. The IAFC supports a fair and equitable distribution of AFG
grant funds. Based on our discussions with some of the other national
fire service organizations, we believe that the 30 percent floor for
each type of department was the best method to achieve this goal.
Q3. In your testimony you offered the example of fire sprinklers as
one area where a coordinated research program would be useful in
advancing public safety. What other types of large research questions
would Centers of Excellence address? How many Centers of Excellence are
needed? How effectively is current fire research put into practice and
how can this technology transfer be improved? Why would Centers of
Excellence be more effective than simply increasing the amount of R&D
funds available overall?
A3. The IAFC would recommend the creation of 2 or 3 centers of
excellence. The purpose of these centers would be to reduce the fire-
related death and injury rate of firefighters and the general public by
examining the behavioral, engineering, social science and technological
causes. The centers would use tools and methods developed from the
behavioral, clinical and social science fields; the computer,
engineering and physical sciences; and injury surveillance studies to
examine issues such as:
Overexertion and stress due to cardiac or
cerebrovascular illness
Motor vehicle crashes
Accidental injury on the fireground
Exposure to toxic substances
Situational leadership
Development of personal protective equipment.
During my testimony, I described how the centers could be used to
address cost calculations related to residential fire sprinklers. Water
purveyors are implementing system development charges that are
oftentimes between $6,000 and $10,000, because they assume a larger
waterline requirement for the sprinkler. However, the water load for a
sprinkler is much less than that caused by a fire department's
operations in trying to put out a fully involved house fire. However, a
homeowner will only see the $3,000 cost to install a sprinkler and
$10,000 cost for the water line to supply that sprinkler. The centers
of excellence can perform an important service to homeowners by
providing a cost analysis comparing the water requirements and costs
associated with the preventive installation of fire sprinklers versus
the costs and water use associated with putting out a fire in a single-
family dwelling.
The AFG office does a good job of overseeing the research that is
funded by the Fire Prevention and Safety grants. However, there is not
a direct pipeline for transmitting most of this research to the public.
Research findings and technological developments can be transmitted
through conferences; web, news and magazine articles; and ``word of
mouth,'' but there is no systematic way for this information to be
released.
We envision that the Centers of Excellence in Fire Safety Research
would be partnerships between major fire service organizations and
major research universities. The major fire service organization would
give the center credibility within the fire service and a clear
pipeline to distribute information to the fire service. The major
research institution would provide the academic discipline, research
infrastructure, and rigorous scientific testing required to provide
world-class research. In addition, the centers would develop the
infrastructure required to support long-term fire safety research
programs, such as the continued involvement between the fire service
and major academic research institutions, stable funding for fire
safety research, and the systematic involvement of junior faculty and
students.
Q4. In his testimony, Chief Jack Carriger of the National Volunteer
Fire Council stated that between 2005 and 2007 applications for the
Fire Prevention and Safety grants have dropped from $394 million to
$191 million. What might account for the drop? What are the most
effective activities for preventing fires and how can those activities
be encouraged?
A4. The matching requirement is one of the major obstacles to fire
departments applying for the Fire Prevention and Safety grants. Fire
departments must meet the same 20-10-5 percent matching requirement
based on population that they must meet for the FIRE grant program. As
fire departments face budget cuts, the IAFC is being told that fire
prevention funding is the first to be cut to meet lower budget
projections and still maintain staffing and operational capability. If
the matching requirement were eliminated for the fire prevention grants
(as it currently is for national, State, local or community
organizations), you may see an increase in fire prevention grant
applications.
On behalf of the nearly 13,000 chief fire and emergency officers of
the IAFC, I would like to thank you for leading the effort to
reauthorize the FIRE and SAFER grant programs. The IAFC is dedicated to
working with you to reauthorize these programs this year.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Chief Jack Carriger, Stayton Fire Department, Stayton,
Oregon; First Vice-Chairman of the National Volunteer Fire
Council (NVFC)
Questions submitted by Chairman David Wu
Q1. You recommended in your testimony that State fire training
academies be able to apply for more types of activities under the AFG
program. What types of activities may they apply for now, and what
other activities would you recommend Including?
A1. State training academies are not currently eligible to apply for
funds through AFG, although several have received funds for research
through the FP&S program. State training programs train over one
million students each year and provide the majority of courses
resulting in national certifications. Allowing State fire training
academies to compete for AFG funs would result in improvements in
firefighter training and safety and allow greater access to important
fire service training programs.
Q2. You noted in your testimony that between 2005 and 2007
applications for the FP&S grants have dropped from $394 million to $191
million. What might account for this drop? What are the most effective
types of activities in preventing fires and how can those activities be
encouraged?
A2. Funds requested by career, combination, volunteer and paid-on-call
fire departments through FP&S went down between 2005 and 2007, but the
steepest drop came from the volunteers. In 2005, 938 volunteer fire
departments applied for $194.2 million. In 2007, 711 volunteer fire
departments applied for $31 million.
It is difficult to say exactly what caused such a precipitous drop
in funds requested, but it is worth noting that even in 2005, less than
five percent of volunteer fire departments applied for FP&S funds. Fire
departments that apply for funds through AFG may not have additional
resources available to cover the local matching funds requirement
through FP&S. AFG/FP&S appropriations have declined since 2005, leaving
a smaller pool of funds available for fire departments that do apply,
and the number of applications from non-fire departments has increased
significantly since matching funds requirements from those entities
were eliminated in the last reauthorization. Ail of these factors
likely have contributed to the low application rate through FP&S.
Different communities face different challenges in preventing
fires. For instance, steps taken by communities located in the
wildland/urban interface (WUI) to reduce their exposure to wildland
fire would have little to no impact in communities outside of the WUI.
Fire prevention strategies should be tailored to address the unique
challenges facing each community. The competitive grant process ensures
that funds are allocated to the most effective projects. Eliminating
the local matching requirement for fire departments through FP&S would
encourage more applications making the grant process even more
competitive.
Q3. How successful have SAFER recruitment and retention grants been in
increasing the number of volunteer firefighters? What are the most
successful recruitment and retention activities? How should we
encourage more types of these activities?
A3. Since SAFER was created, a little less than $50 million have been
made available in the form of recruitment and retention grants and to
this point, there hasn't been any comprehensive study performed to
assess the effectiveness of these grants collectively. As I mentioned
in my testimony, the Oregon Volunteer Firefighters Association (OVFA)
received a grant in 2006 to conduct a statewide recruitment campaign.
200 volunteer fire departments have benefited directly from the
campaign, reporting an increase in volunteers and general community
interest in the volunteer fire department.
We estimate that statewide we have directly or indirectly impacted
340 volunteer fire departments through the campaign.
Communities face different challenges when it comes to recruitment
and retention. Providing modest monetary awards to volunteers is an
effective tactic for boosting retention rates, but many communities
cannot afford to offer financial incentives. Marketing campaigns like
the OVFA's have been very successful at generating interest in the
volunteer fire service and drawing potential recruits to volunteer fire
departments, but relatively little is known about the retention rates
of those recruits over time. More data collection and analysis would be
extremely useful in determining the effectiveness of recruitment and
retention grants.
Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith
Q1. What is NVFC's position on the specific provisions in the United
Fire Service proposal, particularly the recommendations related to the
``30/30/30'' set-aside, increased matching requirements and increased
allowable grant size?
A1. The United Fire Service Proposal was developed and submitted to
Congress without input from the NVFC.
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program
Provides all career, all volunteer and combination departments each
with a minimum 30 percent guarantee of total grant funding to better
distribute funds among departments according to population served. If
not enough applications are received to meet this floor for a specific
category, then the remaining funds would be given to the other two
categories.
Volunteer fire departments have historically received significant
levels of funding through the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG)
program to purchase equipment, training and apparatus for a variety of
reasons, including:
-- Volunteer departments submit more applications for a
collectively higher level of funding than their combination or
career counterparts;
-- One of the main focuses of AFG is bringing fire departments
up to a baseline level of readiness. Fire service needs
assessments consistently show that by a wide margin, volunteer
departments need far more assistance to achieve baseline
readiness as defined by compliance with national consensus
standards.
-- Larger fire departments, which tend to utilize career
staffing, receive substantially more financial support from
local government sources and other Department of Homeland
Security grant programs to address equipment, training and
apparatus needs.
Applications and Awards
Looking at the statistics for FY 2007 applications and awards
through AFG, volunteer fire departments submitted close to five times
as many applications for more than three times the amount of funding.
Applications from volunteer fire departments had a success rate of 24
percent, compared with 20.6 percent for career departments. Overall, 15
percent of funding requests from volunteer departments were met
compared with 14.2 percent from career departments.
Applying the 30/30/30 standard to the FY 2007 grant cycle gives us
an idea of what would happen if that proposal were adopted:
Since the proposal doesn't account for Paid On-Call/Stipend
departments, it is difficult to say with certainty where they would fit
in. Paid On-Call/Stipend departments pay their personnel cash awards
for each call they respond to or on an annual or monthly basis. It is
likely that these departments would either be classified as volunteer
departments or left out of the 30/30/30 classification altogether. In
the chart I simply eliminated Paid On-Call/Stipend departments.
As the chart above shows, if the 30/30/30 standard had been applied
to the FY 2007 grant cycle, 31.7 percent of funds requested by career
departments would have been funded compared with 19.7 percent of funds
requested by combination departments and 10 percent of funds requested
by volunteer departments.
Assessing Need
Congress authorized a needs assessment of the U.S. fire service
when it created AFG in 2000, and authorized another needs assessment
when the program was reauthorized in 2004. The latest needs assessment,
``Four Years Later--A Second Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire
Service'' was published by DHS in 2006.
Both of these needs assessments consistently show that smaller
communities tend to be protected by volunteers and that those volunteer
departments are far less likely to meet national consensus standards.
On average, volunteers tend to have less training and older equipment
and apparatus. This is primarily due to a lack of resources, which is
hardly surprising since one of the main reasons that communities have
volunteer staffing in the first place is because they can't afford to
hire full-time personnel. Most volunteer departments rely on private
fundraising just to meet their operating budgets.
The following three charts are from the 2006 needs assessment and
demonstrate the difference in equipment, training and apparatus need in
large and small departments:
The charts above are a snapshot of a trend that is demonstrated
consistently throughout the needs assessment--that shortfalls in
equipment, training and apparatus tend to be more significant in
smaller communities. Because need is a component of the AFG criteria,
applications from departments that have the greatest shortfalls tend to
score higher.
Other Sources of Federal Funding
Volunteer and mostly-volunteer departments collectively receive a
lower percentage of funding through the SAFER grant program than the
percentage of the population that they protect, and virtually no
funding through numerous other DHS grant programs that tend to direct
money toward densely populated areas served by large career
departments. Through the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) alone,
60 of the most populated areas in the country were awarded differing
amounts of $781.6 million in FY 2008, almost twice as much as was
available for equipment, training and apparatus through AFG.
In 2007, volunteer fire departments and State and local interest
organizations collectively received approximately 11 percent of SAFER
funds to implement recruitment and retention plans. Mostly volunteer
fire departments received 24 percent of SAFER funds to hire
firefighters while 65 percent of SAFER funds were distributed to career
and mostly-career departments for additional hiring.
The focus of SAFER on hiring as opposed to recruitment and
retention is a product of the significant cost paying salaries and
benefits to career firefighters. Additionally, while staffing
shortfalls in smaller communities tend to be greater than those in
larger communities, the disparity is not as significant as the
corresponding equipment, training and apparatus shortfalls.
The bulk of DHS grant dollars flow to large densely populated
communities to pay for a wide range of preparedness activities,
including local fire department functions, through programs like UASI
and the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSP). Fire departments'
access to assistance through UASI and SHSP is difficult to track
because funds are distributed to State and local governments rather
than directly to first responder agencies. Still, there is evidence
that hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on metro fire
departments through UASI in particular: In 2006, five of the 15 of
projects proposed to be funded by New York City through UASI were for
FDNY. New York City received $124.5 million through UASI in 2006--three
times as much as any state received through AFG that year.
By contrast, states that do not have major metropolitan areas tend
to receive considerably less preparedness funding through DHS. In 2008,
AFG was the largest single source of DHS funding distributed to
Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Wisconsin. In many other
states with smaller populations and population densities, AFG was the
largest single source of DHS funding in 2006 outside of SHSP, which
provided a minimum of $6.2 million per state.
Summary
Volunteer fire departments have historically applied for far more
funding through AFG than career fire departments. DHS needs assessments
consistently show that equipment, training and apparatus needs tend to
be more severe in volunteer departments. Career departments receive a
higher percentage of SAFER grants than volunteer departments, and the
largest career departments have access to significant levels of
additional assistance through other DHS grant programs.
The fire services' involvement in criteria development and ranking
grant applications already ensures that funds are directed to the
departments that need it most. Applying the 30/30/30 standard would
result in fire departments with lower-scoring applications receiving
grants simply because they employ full-time paid personnel and
departments with higher scoring applications being denied funding
simply because they utilize volunteer personnel. The NVFC opposes
applying the 30/30/30 standard to the AFG program.
Increases the funding cap for all categories of grantees:
Jurisdictions of more than one million: $10 million
cap
Jurisdictions between 500,000--one million: $5
million cap
Jurisdictions between 100,000-500,000: $2 million cap
Jurisdictions of less than 100,000: $1 million cap
In FY 2004, there were 12 awards made to departments protecting
500,000 or more people that were at or within $100,000 of $750,000, the
grant cap at that time. During the FY 2004 reauthorization of AFG,
Congress increased the grant caps for all departments to $1 million.
Additionally, the grant cap for fire departments protecting communities
with a population of 500,000--one million was increased to $1.75
million and the cap for fire departments protecting one million or more
people was increased to $2.75 million.
Under current law, no single grant can constitute more than .5
percent of the funds appropriated for AFG in any year. For FY 2010, the
House--and Senate-passed DHS appropriations bills include $390 million
for AFG--a decrease of $175 million from FY 2009. If the grant caps
were increased to the levels recommended in the United Fire Service
Proposal, each fire department serving one million or more people would
be eligible for more than three percent of the funds appropriated in FY
2010.
From FY 2005-2008 (since the grant caps were raised) a total of
four awards have been made to fire departments protecting more than
500,000 people that were within $100,000 of the grant cap (none have
been made for the full amount allowed under the cap). During that same
time period, AFG awards were made to fire departments in Baltimore
(twice), Boston, Charlotte, Cleveland, Columbus (OH), Dallas, El Paso
(twice), Fort Worth, Hartford, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles,
Louisville, Memphis, Montgomery County (MD), Nashville, New York
(twice), Oklahoma City, Orange County (FL), Pittsburgh, Prince Georges
County (MD), and San Francisco.
Fire departments protecting 500,000 or more people are receiving
awards through AFG, just not at or near the maximum amount allowable
under the law. There is no evidence from the award statistics that
large fire departments would take advantage of the inflated grant caps
contained in the United Fire Service Proposal--at least as long as
local units of government have to put up matching funds and safeguards
are kept in place to ensure that AFG funds are used to supplement
rather than supplant local spending.
Provides priority to applicants that protect large populations and have
high call volume
Population protected and call volume were incorporated into the AFG
criteria in FY 2008. As a result, departments that protect large
communities and/or have a high call volume score higher on their grant
applications.
Because of the changes made in FY 2008, the overall percentage of
AFG funds directed to career fire departments as well as urban and
suburban areas increased slightly from FY 2007. The primary impact on
the smallest fire departments has been that they are less likely to
receive high scores on applications for expensive items, such as new
apparatus.
The NVFC does not oppose the inclusion of population protected and
call volume as a component of the AFG criteria matrix as it is
currently being applied. Other components of the matrix, including an
assessment of the need of fire departments based on their ability to
meet national consensus standards, have ensured that the smallest fire
departments still have reasonable access funds through AFG,
particularly for purchases of equipment and training. The current
scoring matrix is carefully calibrated by DHS with input from the fire
service on an annual basis to ensure that funding is directed where it
is needed most.
It is not clear from the United Fire Service Proposal whether this
recommendation is meant to merely codify existing practice or expand
the influence of population protected and call volume within the AFG
criteria matrix. If the aim is the former, the NVFC would like to see
language clarifying that in the committee report. If the aim is the
latter, the NVFC would oppose this recommendation.
Reduces the local match from 20 percent to 15 percent, enabling
economically challenged communities to take advantage of the program
and allow DHS to grant a waiver to fire departments facing economic
hardship.
Under current law, the matching requirement for fire departments
serving communities of 50,000 or more is 20 percent. Fire departments
serving between 49,999 and 20,000 have a 10 percent match and
departments serving communities of less than 19,999 have a match of
five percent. Smaller departments have a reduced local match because
they tend to have fewer financial resources at their disposal than
their larger counterparts.
As discussed in the section of this document that dealt with the
30/30/30 proposal, fire departments in smaller communities are far more
likely to utilize older equipment and apparatus and far less likely to
have ail personnel trained to the level recommended by national
consensus standards. This disparity is primarily due to the fact that
most small fire departments are located in communities that are
sparsely populated and/or have high poverty rates. As the following
charts from the 2006 Needs Assessment
demonstrate, many small fire departments do not have a budget for
equipment and apparatus replacement and most rely on private donations
simply to maintain operations.
The United Fire Service Proposal's draft bill would increase the
local match for all fire departments protecting communities of 50,000
or less to 15 percent. That represents a 50-300 percent increase in the
matching requirement for 97 percent of fire departments in the United
States, including for the smallest departments that have the most
financial need. The NVFC vigorously opposes any increase in the
matching requirement for communities of any size, but does not oppose
reducing the matching requirement for communities serving 50,000 or
more from 20 percent to 15 percent.
The United Fire Service Proposal would also allow DHS to waive the
local matching requirement for ``fire departments facing economic
hardship.'' The NVFC does not oppose the concept of waivers but is
concerned about how such a system would be implemented. How ,would
``economic hardship'' be defined, and who would define it? How many
waivers per year would be granted? A waiver system has the potential to
create significant controversy and draw negative attention to AFG if it
is not implemented properly.
Reduces the requirement that grantees maintain their budget at 100
percent of the average budget over the previous two years to 80 percent
with a waiver on this requirement for departments facing an economic
hardship.
Requiring departments to at least maintain past years' operating
budgets ensures that AFG funds are being used to supplement rather than
supplant local spending. Without this safeguard, AFG funds could be
used to plug holes in local government budgets rather than improving
the capabilities of local fire departments.
There may be justification for allowing some fire departments that
have reduced their budgets to receive AFG funds. Many departments that
have been forced by the recent economic downturn to reduce their
budgets have significant equipment, training and apparatus needs.
Additionally, departments that experience a budget spike in a year when
they make a sizable one-time purchase or expenditure should not be
penalized.
What is being proposed here, however, would essentially give
permission to fire departments to replace local spending with AFG
funds. Furthermore, it would become a permanent feature of AFG. The
NVFC would prefer to see the requirement that fire departments maintain
their budgets at 100 percent of the average over the previous two years
maintained, but permit the Secretary to waive this requirement at the
request of an applicant. Applicants would have to justify the budget
reduction based on criteria established by DHS in conjunction with the
criteria development panels.
Adds State fire training academies as eligible grantees for vehicles
and equipment, and limits grants to such entities to $1 million
The NVFC supports making State fire training academies eligible
applicants through AFG. Some of the major challenges facing volunteer
departments in training their personnel include a lack of resources,
time constraints on the individual volunteers and a lack of locally-
available training opportunities. State training agencies play a
critical role in delivering training to fire departments in remote
areas by producing and disseminating training materials, funding
training offerings at local colleges and other institutions and through
regional training facilities.
Adds a new category of prevention grant for joint research programs
between universities and national fire service organizations focused on
reducing injuries and LODDs among firefighters; limits such grants to
$2 million in the first year and $5 million annually thereafter.
The NVFC believes that joint research programs could be a valuable
addition to AFG's Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) program. The
existing $1 million cap and one-year limit on FP&S grants severely
restricts the scope of research that can be performed.
The NVFC is concerned, however, that allocating as much as $5
million in one grant could significantly reduce the total number of
grants and grant recipients, particularly during down appropriations
years. By statute, five percent of AFG funds are set aside to fund the
FP&S program. It appears likely that Congress will appropriate $390
million for AFG in FY 2010, a reduction of $175 million from FY 2009.
Assuming that approximately $20 million is made available through FP&S
in FY 2010, under this proposal as much as 25 percent of the entire
program's funding could be devoted to one joint research program grant.
The NVFC is also concerned that this proposal could exacerbate the
recent trend of FP&S funds being directed to universities and non-
profit fire service organizations rather than fire departments. In FY
2006, fire departments received less than 34 percent of FP&S funds,
despite requesting nearly twice as much funding than non-fire
departments.
Clarifies that training purchased with FIRE Grant dollars must comply
with applicable national voluntary consensus standards, and allows for
a waiver of this requirement by the Administrator.
The NVFC is supportive of this recommendation.
Staffing for Adequate Fire And Emergency Response Program
The United Fire Service Proposal recommends several changes to the
manner in which hiring grants through SAFER are administered,
including: lowering the local matching requirement and reducing the
length of the grant; eliminating the cap on grant funds that can be
used to pay for firefighters' salaries and benefits; allows the
Administrator to waive local matching requirements altogether, waive
the requirement that firefighters hired under SAFER be retained after
the grant expires and waive the requirement that fire departments not
reduce past years' budgets in order to receive a SAFER hiring grant;
and grants the administrator the authority to allow departments to use
SAFER hiring grant funds to avoid layoffs rather than hiring new
personnel.
The NVFC does not oppose any of these recommendations.
Q2. You cite in your testimony that recruitment and retention of
volunteer firefighters is being hindered in part due to ``pressure from
career fire departments/union locals to prevent career firefighters
from volunteering during off-duty hours.'' Please elaborate on this
issue. In what form does the ``pressure'' occur, how widespread is it,
and how does it impact fire department preparedness? Are there any
actions underway--either from the NVFC or other national organizations,
or at the Department of Homeland Security--to protect firefighters'
right to volunteer during off-duty hours?
A2. The Government Accountability Office estimates that close to 30,000
career firefighters volunteer during off-duty hours. These ``two-
hatters'' tend to be individuals who got their start in the fire
service volunteering for their hometown fire department and eventually
decided to pursue firefighting as a career. They tend to be among the
most experienced, well-trained and dedicated members of the fire
service community. Because career firefighters generally work 24-hour
shifts with multiple days off in between, two-hatters are often
available to cover the daytime, weekday shifts that are the most
difficult for many volunteer fire departments to staff.
The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) prohibits its
members from volunteering as firefighters during off-duty hours. The
types of pressure brought to bear on two-hatters ranges from peer-
pressure and intimidation by fellow union members to formal charges and
in some cases expulsion from the union. Two-hatters are often told that
their prospects for career advancement will be hindered if they
continue to volunteer. In many cases, some combination of these tactics
is enough to convince a two-hatter to quit his volunteer department.
The NVFC's Maryland Alternate Director, Jim Seavey, is a career
firefighter in Washington, DC, and a volunteer fire chief in Montgomery
County, MD. Several years ago, Jim and a number of other two-hatters in
the metropolitan Washington area were brought up on charges by the IAFF
for volunteering during off-duty hours and threatened with expulsion
from the union. The charges were eventually dropped just before the
formal hearing was scheduled to take place, although Jim remains a
volunteer fire chief.
In 2006, New Jersey two-hatter Vincent Pereira had his IAFF
membership revoked after he joined a local volunteer fire department.
Mr. Pereira had been a member of the Colonia Volunteer Fire Company but
resigned his membership when he was hired by the Woodbridge Fire
Department as a condition of being admitted to membership in IAFF Local
290. Mr. Pereira eventually re-joined his volunteer fire department
after observing that other IAFF members that he worked with continued
to volunteer.
Last August, the IAFF amended their prohibition against
volunteering to apply only in areas where the volunteer activities of
the member in question are deemed detrimental to the ability of an IAFF
local's organizing efforts. This limits the scope of the IAFF's
prohibition against volunteering but also protects the IAFF from
charges of selective enforcement like the ones employed by Mr. Pereira.
Since the IAFF amended their volunteer prohibition, union locals in
Albany and Jamestown, NY, have publicly forbade their members from
volunteering during off-duty hours, claiming that they were enforcing
the recent bylaws change.
Collective bargaining agreements in a handful of fire departments
around the country stipulate that as a term of employment, career
firefighters will not volunteer as firefighters during off-duty hours.
These provisions are generally justified as being a health and safety
measure, but the collective bargaining agreements in question do not
prohibit career firefighters from engaging in other types of
potentially dangerous activities. Many of these collective bargaining
agreements exist in municipalities in Connecticut, which recently
passed a statewide law allowing local units of government to enter into
agreements allowing career firefighters to volunteer during off-duty
hours.
One problem that exists in trying to track instances of two-hatters
quitting the volunteer fire service under pressure from the IAFF is
that the individuals who do so are often not willing to come forward
publicly. The NVFC is developing a web-based resource for two-hatters
to report instances of formal or informal attempts by the IAFF to
dissuade them from volunteering. The web site will allow for anonymous
reporting, although we hope to encourage individuals to come forward
publicly as well.
Last year, the International Association of Fire Chiefs issued a
statement expressing their support for the right of individuals to
volunteer as firefighters, whether or not they are career firefighters.
I am not aware of any efforts by other national organizations to
address this issue.
By statute, firefighters that are hired through the SAFER program
cannot be discriminated against because they volunteer during off-duty
hours. I am not aware of any other programs or initiatives through DHS
or any other federal agency that address the problem of the targeting
of two-hatters by the IAFF or local units of government.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Kevin B. O'Connor, Assistant to the General President,
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF)
Questions submitted by Chairman David Wu
Q1. What criteria would IAFF recommend be used to waive the matching
requirement for AFG and SAFER? Should the criteria be the same for
waiving other program requirements? How should these criteria be
developed?
A1. The Secretary of Homeland Security should be provided with the
authority to waive the local match requirement for AFG and SAFER. In
determining such waivers, the following criteria should be considered:
Financial Need: Three consecutive years of budget
data (including the current year) for both the department and
the jurisdiction should be required as part of the application
process. Changes in revenue projections/collection, change in
bond rating, general fund balances and operational costs of
providing fire, rescue and EMS services should also be
considered. Applicants should also be required to disclose any
major events, such as missing bond payments, which have
impacted the jurisdiction and budget within the past 12 months.
The overall financial health of the jurisdiction should also be
taken into account including unemployment rates, foreclosure
rates, percentage of the population in poverty and whether or
not significant cuts have been made in staffing or the budgets
of other agencies within the jurisdiction.
Remedies: What steps have the jurisdiction and the
fire department undertaken to deal with the exigency.
Impact on the Community: Departments should provide
information regarding response unit call volume and individual
apparatus response time, impact on firefighter health and
safety, and impact on the health and safety of the public.
Other waivers, including waivers for the maintenance of effort
provisions, should be granted in accordance with these recommendations
as well.
The authority to waive provisions limiting grants to the hiring of
new firefighters under SAFER will require additional criteria, namely:
Jurisdictions seeking waivers to bring employees back
to duty should provide documentation of layoffs, including
dates and the percentage of the department laid-off.
Jurisdictions seeking waivers to reverse a reduction-
in-force should provide documentation of the staffing
complements at the time of application and the staffing
complements prior to the RIF. Information on official policies
within the past 12 months, such as a hiring freeze, that have
impacted the ability of departments to hire or maintain
positions should also be included.
The waiver criteria should be developed via the criteria-setting
process as described under current law, through which the national fire
service organizations currently determine criteria for awarding AFG and
SAFER grants. Additionally, such criteria should be published in the
Federal Register prior to making any grants, as is required for AFG and
SAFER application and award guidelines under current law.
Q2. The proposal to raise the maximum allowable grant for the AFG
program to $10 million would more than triple the current maximum. Why
is such a large increase needed? If the cap were significantly
increased, would departments be able to provide a 15 percent match? 20
percent?
A2. Current funding caps under AFG are too low to prove effective.
Under current law, the largest jurisdictions, those of one million
population or more, can receive no more than $2.75 million. All
metropolitan areas in the United States of one million or more are
professional departments, which means that, for example, the City of
New York, with hundreds of fire stations and nearly fifteen thousand
firefighters and emergency medical personnel, is limited to $2.75
million in FIRE grant awards. While we do know that very large
departments are making relatively small purchases, such as the purchase
of a new engine, through AFG, the current caps preclude such
departments from making purchases that would measurably improve the
fire department's preparedness and safety.
For example, a relatively inexpensive self-contained breathing
apparatus (SCBA) costs approximately $2000. Under the current cap, a
very large jurisdiction such as New York City could only afford to
purchase SCBA for 1,700 individuals. Raising the cap to $10 million for
the largest jurisdictions would permit the city to purchase new
equipment for a much larger percentage of the force, and consequently
make a much larger impact on firefighter health and safety.
We anticipate that, in healthy economic times, most departments
would be able to meet the 15 or 20 percent match for a large grant.
Q2a. Is the current structure of basing award sizes on jurisdictional
population still appropriate today? If so, why?
A2a. Yes. Jurisdictions with larger populations require proportionately
larger fire departments, which have proportionately larger equipment,
vehicle and training needs.
Q3. In Chief Jeffrey Johnson's testimony, he offered the example of
fire sprinklers as one area where a coordinated research program would
be useful in improving public safety. What other types of large
research questions would the Centers of Excellence address? How many
Centers of Excellence are needed? How effectively is current fire
research put into practice and how can this technology transfer be
improved? Why would Centers of Excellence be more effective than simply
increasing the amount of R&D funds available overall?
A3. There is a great and continuing need for additional fire service
research. Considering the continued persistence of firefighter
fatalities and injuries, there is an especially urgent need for
research to support advances in firefighter health and safety. Some
research areas which could be explored include research on how crew
size impacts response time, injury data collection and analysis, and
the impact of performance-based codes, to name a few.
Much of this research requires ongoing study for a longer period,
and additional expense, than is currently permitted. Under current
restrictions, Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) grantees are limited to
$1 million in funding over a period of up to three years. In addition
to allowing long-term research through the Centers of Excellence, the
Department should permit FP&S grantees to receive continuing funding
for successful and necessary research.
Q4. In his testimony, Chief Jack Carriger of the National Volunteer
Fire Council stated that between 2005 and 2007 applications for the
Fire Prevention and Safety grants have dropped from $394 million to
$191 million. What might account for this drop? What are the most
effective activities in preventing fires and how can those activities
be encouraged?
A4. The current recession is causing many jurisdictions to make cuts to
their fire department budgets; as fire departments make do with less,
fire prevention activities are among the first activities to decline.
Under current law, fire department applicants for Fire Prevention and
Safety grants are subject to the same cost-share requirements to which
they are subject under the AFG program. It is possible that many
potential applicants have declined to apply for a FP&S grant because
they may not currently be able to afford the cost-share. Additionally,
under current law, the combined awards through AFG and FP&S may not
exceed statutorily-defined funding caps. Given this limitation, and
combined with budgets which may preclude many departments from
obtaining needed equipment, vehicles and training with local funds,
many departments may choose to apply solely for funding under AFG.
Effective fire prevention strategies may vary widely among
communities, depending on factors such as population density,
infrastructure age, poverty rate and education level. Regardless of
such factors, however, the most effective means to fire prevention and
mitigation is ensuring that a community's fire department employs
sufficient personnel at sufficiently located stations--consistent with
NFPA standards. Well-staffed departments ensure sufficient time and
personnel to conduct prevention activities including community
education and smoke detector programs.
Additionally, as referenced in my answer to the previous question,
FP&S grantees are not currently permitted to receive continuing funding
in subsequent years for ongoing research. Lifting this restriction, and
allowing grantees to receive continuing funding for successful and
necessary research will both encourage applications as well as help
advance novel fire prevention strategies.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Chief Curt Varone, Division Manager, Public Fire
Protection Division, National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA)
Questions submitted by Chairman David Wu
Q1. What criteria would NFPA recommend be used to waive the matching
requirements for AFG and SAFER? Should the criteria be the same for
waiving other program requirements? How should these criteria be
developed?
A1. Although NFPA encourages the use of waivers to allow communities in
which revenues fell five to ten percent or more to receive FIRE grants
without matching fund requirements, the details of the waiver program
criteria are best left to the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA). The
criteria to prove financial hardship will differ from those associated
with other program requirements.
Q2. The proposal to raise the maximum allowable grant for the AFG
program to $10 million would more than triple the current maximum. Why
is such a large increase needed? If the cap were significantly
increased, would departments be able to afford the 15 percent match? 20
percent? Is the current structure of basing award sizes on
jurisdictional population still appropriate today? If so, why?
A2. The proposed higher ceiling on allowable grant amount will permit
larger cities to fully address some of their needs with a single grant.
For example, as part of a costing exercise for the Council on
Foreign Relations, NFPA converted results of the first fire service
needs assessment study into costs to prepare for hazmat and EMS
services to deal with a chemical/biological agent attack, one of two
homeland security reference incidents examined in the study. GAO
studies estimated $1.3-$12.2 million (in dollars from the early 2000s,
not adjusted for inflation) in equipment costs for a specialized
response team for a city of 500,000 population. NFPA estimated
additional costs for firefighters not involved in the specialized
response team to safely deal with incidents before they are identified
as chem/bio agent attacks. Those costs amounted to $30,800 per
firefighter, and the median number of career firefighters for a city of
500,000 is 635, resulting in an additional $19.6 million. Training
costs would be additional and significant.
This is just one example of a need that is high priority--both from
the point of view of a city fire department and from the point of view
of the homeland security of the United States--where the cost of
filling the need would easily meet or exceed the new maximum grant
ceiling.
Some departments would be able to afford a 15 percent or 20 percent
match for a project of this size but could not afford the full cost
themselves. The other departments would presumably apply for smaller,
more affordable projects; there is no need for all or even most grants
to come in at or near the cap.
And as this example illustrates, many projects have costs
proportional to the number of firefighters, which tend to be
proportional to the size of the civilian population protected.
Therefore, basing award sizes on jurisdictional population makes good
sense and will continue to make good sense.
Q3. What percentage of jurisdictions have enough qualified building
and fire inspectors? In his testimony, Chief Jack Carriger of the
National Volunteer Fire Council stated that between 2005 and 2007
applications for the Fire Prevention and Safety grants have dropped
from $394 million to $191 million. What might account for this drop?
What are the most effective activities in preventing fires and how can
those activities be encouraged?
A3. According to the second fire service needs assessment, one-quarter
of fire departments have no one to conduct fire code inspections. Less
than half conduct fire code inspections using full-time fire department
inspectors, building department inspectors, or inspectors from a
separate inspection department, and even some of these departments
assign part of their inspection workload to in-service firefighters.
In recent research projects, NFPA has been told by fire marshals
from coast to coast that many communities are unable to provide annual
fire code inspections to most of their properties subject to inspection
because rising standards of certification for inspectors have forced
them to discontinue use of in-service inspectors, thereby leaving them
with too few inspectors to cover most of their properties. The use of
FIRE grant program monies to provide training may improve this
situation.
Based on these available facts, it seems clear that the answer to
the question is that the percentage of jurisdictions with ``enough''
qualified building and fire inspectors is well below half. Clearly, the
need is there and is still widespread. That does not mean that every
department with such a need will pursue any opportunity to fill that
need immediately. Some departments may be unable to use the grant funds
(e.g., inability to pay the matching portion; lack of available staff
to supervise and execute the effective spending of grant funds) and
some departments may see higher priority targets for grant funding.
There is a substantial literature on the evidence for effectiveness
and cost-effectiveness of various fire prevention and fire loss
prevention programs, much of it developed under the auspices of the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through their
Unintentional Injury programs. By far the most frequently cited
effective program is distribution and installation of smoke alarms to
needy homes (four to six million homes still have no smoke alarms).
Smoke alarm distribution and installation programs have been at the
center of the CDC's own grant programs and NFPA's outreach programs,
whether funded by the government or by NFPA from its own funds.
Successful means of encouraging effective fire prevention
activities is itself a type of program subject to evaluation. CDC is in
the forefront of those sponsoring ``translation research,'' in which
researchers evaluate the relative effectiveness of different programs
to apply interventions (e.g., smoke alarm installation) with proven
effectiveness in a large and diverse group of additional sites. Fire
prevention programs that involve technologies and products have been
the subject of evaluations by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology's Building and Fire Research Laboratory and the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission. The USFA has also conducted
evaluations of research, as have a number of private groups such as
NFPA.
All of these agencies and organizations participate in a private,
voluntary information exchange and coordination association called the
Fire Safety Council, which was founded by CDC, CPSC, and the U.S. Fire
Administration. This is only one of a number of existing or potential
forums in which knowledge can be shared on how to encourage effective
fire prevention activities. The House Committee on Science and
Technology has jurisdiction over most if not all of these U.S. science
agencies and could encourage continued close cooperation and
information sharing, as well as continued and expanded use of this
knowledge in grants decision-making.
Q4. In Chief Jeffrey Johnson's testimony, he offered the example of
fire sprinklers as one where a coordinated research program would be
useful in improving public safety. What other types of large research
questions would Centers of Excellence address? How effectively is
current fire research put into practice and how can this technology
transfer be improved? Why would Centers of Excellence be more effective
than simply increasing the amount of R&D funds available overall?
A4. A Center of Excellence offers the opportunity to assemble and
maintain a critical mass of technical personnel empowered and directed
to provide ongoing focus on an important set of problems. In the fire
safety area, there are a number of existing agencies and organizations
with commendable histories of contributions to fire safety research,
but each arguably lacks at least one of the key elements that would be
found in a Center of Excellence, including breadth of disciplines
available to deal with all aspects of complex social-technological
problems, depth of personnel needed for large and ambitious projects
that can make transformational changes possible, and reliable long-term
support needed to permit continuing focus.
Many of the agencies and organizations involved in fire safety
research--for example, the NIST fire program, the Society of Fire
Protection Engineers, and the NFPA Fire Protection Research
Foundation--have conducted research prioritization workshops. Reviewing
the results of these workshops leaves no doubt that there are an
abundance of large research questions worthy of continuing focused
attention, including:
Materials with improved fire performance
Technologies for detection, alarm or suppression
(e.g., fire sprinklers, as cited by Chief Johnson)
Improvements for higher reliability or lower cost
Modifications for changing characteristics of society
(e.g., an aging population) or relevance to more diverse
populations (e.g., different cultures, different types of
disability)
Modifications for changing fire safety technologies
to reflect changes in related technologies (e.g., battery-
powered or hydrogen-powered automobiles)
Improvements in scientific methods and related data
to support design, engineering, review and evaluation in fire
safety
Improvements in ergonomic design, education for fire
safety, design to accommodate patterns of human behavior, and
engineering to provide better feedback to shape fire-safe
behaviors (e.g., use of voice alarms to provide more
information in emergencies, adding color to kerosene so it is
not mistaken for water or gasoline)
Ideally, organizations and coalitions of organizations would be
invited to propose Centers of Excellence, including a specification of
the particular group of large research questions they would address and
the capabilities of the proposed center with respect to such questions.
The flow of new research to revised product standards or
regulations and to revised installation standards, primarily through
voluntary consensus standards, seems to operate effectively. Each of
the agencies and organizations cited above as having conducted research
priority workshops and exercises has also studied ways to further
improve technology transfer. The CDC translation research grants cited
above have potential value as a technique to look systematically for
ways to improve technology transfer.
The value of a Center for Excellence is its ability to successfully
pursue large, ambitious, high-impact projects beyond the capabilities
of existing entities. A Center for Excellence is a way to spend money
more effectively in service to the nation's fire safety goals. It is
not an alternative to an increase in the level of available funding but
rather a different way of achieving maximum value from whatever funding
level is provided.
Additionally, the effective translation of fire research into
practice is impacted by a lack of inspectors. The American Housing
Survey data indicate that roughly one-third of homes four years old or
less had smoke alarms powered by battery only, although research has
indicated the need for a more stable power source and most codes
require hard-wired smoke alarms in new construction.
A separate challenge is the difficulty in getting newer, safer
products in the hands of lower-income, higher risk populations who may
not have the resources to buy new items. The poor may be more likely to
have household items that predate the latest and safest standards.
Their goods may also be at or beyond their useful life and consequently
less reliable or safe. Programs similar to the cash for clunkers might
help, e.g., trade in your old space heater for a major discount on one
that is safer and more energy efficient.
Questions submitted by Representative Donna F. Edwards
Q1. Since the beginning of the 1990's, the number of people dying in
fires each year has remained around 3,400. A disproportionate number of
those people are poor and minority citizens. Why is this the case?
A1. The number of people dying in fires was 5,195 in 1990 and never
fell below 4,000 until 1999. The fire death toll has only been around
or below 3,400 in three years--2002, 2006, and 2007. (Figures have not
been released yet for 2008.)
Regardless of the death toll, certain high-risk characteristics
have been consistently identified, including very low or high age,
socioeconomic deprivation (such as poverty and lack of education), use
of certain substances (including cigarettes and alcohol), and race or
ethnicity. Not all ethnic groups are high-risk; Asian Americans are
statistically low risk and Hispanic Americans are of average risk.
Blacks and American Indians have higher than average risk, but most
studies have found that their higher statistical fire risk is largely a
side effect of their correlated higher likelihood of socioeconomic
deprivation. All or nearly all fire safety agencies and organizations
devote resources to targeting high-risk groups and modifying effective
programs to fit any special needs of high-risk groups.
Q2. What types of programs do the Fire Prevention and Safety Grants
support to reduce the number of fatal fires? Can the circumstances that
cause these fires be addressed with more education or is some other
type of intervention needed?
A2. Fire prevention, broadly defined as prevention of fires or of
serious losses from fires (such as deaths), can be accomplished in a
number of ways--change products that function as heat sources, change
the burning properties of materials and products commonly ignited in
fires, change behaviors the lead to ignition or lead to worse outcomes
when fires occur, better code enforcement, better detection and alarm,
better suppression, better structural integrity and compartmentation,
and so on. The Fire Prevention and Safety Grants can and have been
devoted to programs along any of these lines. Any of these approaches
can be effective or cost-effective; the question of whether the program
will be effective or cost-effective depends on specifics and is best
assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Public education has proven to be a useful fire prevention
strategy. There are occasions, however, when we know what we should do
and do something else instead or never get around to taking the
positive steps we know we should take. The technologies that help save
us from ourselves such as automatic shutoffs on coffee makers and irons
can prevent tragic outcomes from predictable errors.
The leading cause of home fires and home fire injuries is cooking.
A typical scenario involves unattended frying. There are products on
the market that can prevent a stovetop from getting hot enough to
ignite cooking oil or that will shut off the stove if motion is not
detected within a certain period of time. Additional research is needed
to ascertain consumer acceptance, reliability and effectiveness of
these products before there is a mandate for their use. Even people who
don't plan to leave cooking unattended may be distracted by a phone
call, news story, etc. The discussions on texting while driving
strongly suggest that people often violate their own sense of safe
behavior. Effective fire prevention strategies include an understanding
of the behavioral aspects as well as educational solutions.
Few fire problems need a particular type of intervention. Education
is always an option. Engineering is not always an option, and when
used, an engineering solution will often work better when reinforced
with education in safe product use.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these questions. If you
would like additional information or clarification in this regard,
please do not hesitate to contact me.