Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program Report FY 2017 · Prevention & Safety (FP&S) grants to...
Transcript of Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program Report FY 2017 · Prevention & Safety (FP&S) grants to...
Assistance to Firefighters
Grant Program Performance Assessment System Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report to Congress
March 2018
Federal Emergency Management Agency
i
Message from the Administrator
March 30, 2018
I am pleased to submit the Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Program Performance Assessment System Fiscal Year (FY) 2017
Annual Report to Congress. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) prepares this report, pursuant to the requirement
in the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (FFPCA)
(Pub. L. No. 93-498), as amended by the Fire Grants
Reauthorization Act of 2012 (FGRA). Congress enacted the
FGRA as Title XVIII of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. No. 112-239).
Section 1803 of the FGRA amended Section 33 of the FFPCA by
including a requirement that the Administrator of FEMA develop and implement a performance
assessment system and annually evaluate and report the effectiveness of the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant (AFG) program. This report summarizes the development and ongoing
refinement of the AFG performance assessment system, which is based on quantifiable
programmatic effectiveness and priority metrics.
Pursuant to congressional requirements, FEMA provides this report to the following Members of
Congress:
The Honorable Ron Johnson
Chairman, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
The Honorable Claire McCaskill
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
The Honorable Lamar Smith
Chairman, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson
Ranking Member, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
The Honorable Bill Shuster
The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio
Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Inquiries relating to this report may be directed to me at (202) 646-3900.
Sincerely,
Brock Long
Administrator
ii
Executive Summary
FEMA submits the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program Performance Assessment System
FY 2017 report (AFG Report) pursuant to Section 33(p)(4) of the FFPCA (Pub. L. No. 93-498)
as amended by Section 1803 of the FGRA (Pub. L. No. 112-239). This fifth iteration of the AFG
Report summarizes the FEMA AFG program performance assessment system and evaluates
program effectiveness in achieving congressionally established goals.
Purpose of the AFG Program
The purpose of the AFG program is to enhance the health and safety of the public and firefighting
personnel and to provide a continuum of support for emergency responders supporting fire, medical,
and all-hazards events. FEMA awards AFG program funds to fire departments, nonaffiliated
emergency medical services (EMS) organizations, and state fire training academies to improve
firefighter and public safety. The AFG program awards funds for the purchase of personal protective
equipment (PPE), vehicles, and other operational equipment for firefighters. It funds projects to
modernize facilities, deliver training, and develop wellness and fitness programs. It also awards Fire
Prevention & Safety (FP&S) grants to support firefighters and public safety through research and
community initiatives, with the primary goal of reaching high-risk target groups and reducing the
incidences of death and injury caused by fire and fire-related hazards. From FY 2002 to FY 2016,
FEMA awarded nearly $6.9 billion to 67,412 AFG and FP&S recipients.
AFG Performance Assessment System
In 2014, FEMA developed a performance assessment system to measure AFG program
effectiveness. The performance assessment system includes two types of quantitative
performance metrics:
Programmatic effectiveness metrics that are based on meeting national and state safety
standards, and
Programmatic priority metrics that are based on the national level strategic goals of the
AFG program.
The AFG Performance Assessment System section discusses the methodology behind the AFG
performance evaluation metrics and the development and refinement of these metrics. FEMA
has made a number of improvements to the performance assessment system metrics since the
system’s establishment, which are discussed in the Refinements to the AFG Performance
Assessment System section. The AFG Program Evaluation section summarizes the results of the
programmatic effectiveness metrics and the programmatic priority metrics.
Programmatic effectiveness metrics: FEMA measures AFG program effectiveness by assessing
the extent to which recipients achieve compliance with industry safety standards. The
programmatic effectiveness metrics are based on standards from the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), state
governments, and local regulatory agencies. This iteration of the AFG Report is the first to
iii
feature analysis comparing metric results to the metric targets that FEMA has established to
assess grant effectiveness. The programmatic effectiveness metrics findings include:
AFG awards for FY 2008 to FY 2013 enabled 93.8 percent of PPE recipients to equip all
of their on-duty members with PPE that is in compliance with NFPA and OSHA
standards;
AFG awards helped 90.1 percent of FY 2008 to FY 2013 vehicle recipients replace and
remove a vehicle that was 25 years old or older; and
AFG awards for FY 2008 to FY 2013 assisted 84.6 percent of operational equipment
recipients to achieve compliance with state, local, NFPA, or OSHA standards.
Programmatic priority metrics: FEMA measures AFG program effectiveness by assessing the
program’s success in advancing national program priorities to promote fire safety and national
preparedness, including (1) supporting departments that protect critical infrastructure; (2)
encouraging mutual and automatic aid capabilities; and (3) helping fire departments provide
sharable regional resources. The programmatic priority metrics findings include:
Of all AFG recipients from FY 2008 to FY 2013, 78.9 percent reported that they are
responsible for protecting local critical infrastructure;
One hundred percent of FY 2008 to FY 2013 vehicle recipients support either automatic
or mutual aid agreements; and
Ninety-two percent of FY 2008 to FY 2013 vehicle recipients support both automatic
and mutual aid agreements.
iv
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program
Performance Assessment System
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report to Congress
Table of Contents
Message from the Administrator ..................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ ii
I. Legislative Language ......................................................................................................... 5
II. Background ........................................................................................................................ 6
AFG Program Overview ............................................................................................................. 6
AFG Program Over The Years .................................................................................................... 8
III. AFG Performance Assessment System ........................................................................... 10
Programmatic Effectiveness Metrics ........................................................................................ 11
Programmatic Priority Metrics .................................................................................................. 12
Annual AFG Assessment Methodology .................................................................................... 12
Refinements to the AFG Performance Assessment System ...................................................... 12
IV. AFG Program Evaluation ................................................................................................. 13
Programmatic Effectiveness Metrics ........................................................................................ 13
Programmatic Priority Metrics .................................................................................................. 23
V. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 30
Appendix A: Industry Standards ............................................................................................. A-1
Appendix B: Acronym List ..................................................................................................... B-1
v
I. Legislative Language
This report, titled Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program Performance Assessment
System FY 2017 Annual Report to Congress, is submitted pursuant to Section 33 of the
FFPCA which reads in pertinent part:
***
(p) ENSURING EFFECTIVE USE OF GRANTS –
***
(2) PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator of FEMA shall develop and
implement a performance assessment system, including quantifiable
performance metrics, to evaluate the extent to which grant awards
awarded under this section are furthering the purposes of this section,
including protecting the health and safety of the public and firefighting
personnel against fire and fire-related hazards.
(B) Consultation.—The Administrator of FEMA shall consult with the fire
service representatives and with the Comptroller General of the United
States in developing the assessment system required by subparagraph (A).
***
(4) ANNUAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than September 30, 2013 and each year
thereafter through 2017, the Administrator of FEMA shall submit to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate
and the Committee on Science and Technology and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report
that provides—
(i) information on the performance assessment system developed
under paragraph (2); and
(ii) using the performance metrics developed under such
paragraph, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the grants awarded
under this section.
6
II. Background
AFG Program Overview
In 2000, Congress amended the FFPCA to establish the AFG program to “[protect] the health and
safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire-related hazards…”1 Congress
reauthorized the AFG program in January 2013 with the enactment of the FGRA, enacted as Title
XVIII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. No. 112-239).
After the September 11th attacks and the creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
in 2002, FEMA expanded the scope of AFG to include national preparedness and regional
disaster response considerations. The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), a division within
FEMA, provides national leadership to improve fire service capabilities in nationwide
prevention, preparedness, and response and reduces fire and life safety risk through
preparedness, prevention, and mitigation. USFA provides firefighter training and education as
well as fire-related research, data collection and analysis, and acts as a consultant for the AFG
program. In December 2016, FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate (GPD), which administers
the AFG program, and USFA signed a formal memorandum of understanding to define their
roles and responsibilities in managing the AFG program and to increase coordination and
collaboration efforts. While GPD is responsible for grant administration, USFA provides
subject-matter expertise related to evolving missions and requirements of the fire and non-
affiliated EMS departments, national priorities for fire prevention and control, and programmatic
updates. FEMA’s National Preparedness Assessment Division is responsible for evaluating the
effectiveness of this program and developing this report.
1 See section 1701 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. No. 106-
398).
Case Study: Underwriters Laboratories Test Positive Pressure Ventilation Practices
The Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
received a $1 million FP&S R&D grant
in FY 2012 to conduct a study to
explore how to improve ventilation and
suppression techniques used by
firefighters. Examining and refining
the techniques that firefighters use to
release heat, smoke, and gases from
burning structures can extend the time
they have to ma nage structural fires and
reach trapped civilians. Researchers
used full-scale house fire experiments
to better understand and record fire
behavior during the execution of
positive pressure ventilation on the Figure 1. Firefighters test the impact of positive pressure fireground.2 In April 2016, the UL
ventilation in structure fires. Firefighter Safety Research Institute
released the full scientific report and fire service summary report for the Study of Effectiveness of Fire
Service Positive Pressure Ventilation During Fire Attack in Single Family Homes Incorporating
Modern Construction Practices. The report includes an outline of the entire project, a detailed
description of the results from two compartment burns, 24 positive pressure ventilation3 experiments,
25 full-scale fire experiments, and two smoke exhaust experiments along with tactical considerations.
The tactical considerations provide concepts to enhance the understanding of how positive pressure
attack and positive pressure ventilation affect the fire dynamics in a residential structure. In addition,
the AFG program also helped UL launch seven courses that increase firefighter safety and
effectiveness by providing th e fire service with scientific knowledge. Over 130,000 users from all 50
states have signed up for the courses, with an additional 1,000 new users every month.
Each year, FEMA establishes funding priorities and criteria for evaluating AFG applications based
on the recommendations from the Criteria Development Panel.4 FEMA convenes a panel of fire
service professionals to develop funding priorities for the AFG grant program. The panel makes
recommendations about funding priorities and develops criteria for awarding grants. AFG reviews
applications through a multi-phase process and designates awards in the following categories:
Operations and Safety:
Equipment: Equipment grants include items such as flashlights, hoses, and ladders.
2 Fireground: an area in which fire-fighting operations are carried on (source: https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/fireground).
3 Positive pressure ventilation is a tactic used by firefighters to control air flow, which prevents fire from spreading
rapidly (source: http://www.firerescuemagazine.com/articles/print/volume-9/issue-1/strategy-and-tactics/positive-
pressure-ventilation-basics.html).
4 The Criteria Development Panel consists of nine major fire service organizations: International Association of Fire
Chiefs, International Association of Firefighters, National Volunteer Fire Council, NFPA, National Association of
State Fire Marshals, International Association of Arson Investigations, International Society of Fire Service
Instructors, North American Fire Training Directors, and Congressional Fire Service Institute.
7
8
PPE: PPE refers to items such as coats, boots, gloves, and self-contained breathing
apparatus (SCBA) to protect firefighters and/or EMS personnel against external hazards
such as extreme heat, airborne particulates, and chemical hazards.
Training
Facility modification
Wellness and fitness programs
Vehicle Acquisition:
AFG funds the acquisition of new fire service and EMS vehicles to replace obsolete or unsafe
vehicles or to augment existing fleets due to increased need.5
Fire Prevention and Safety:
AFG FP&S grants are awarded through a separate Notice of Funding Opportunity to
nonprofit organizations recognized for their experience and expertise with respect to fire
prevention, fire safety programs and activities, or firefighter research and development
programs.
FP&S grants, introduced in 2002, fund fire safety community initiatives for high-
risk groups more likely to sustain fire-related injuries—such as children and
individuals with access and functional needs—as well as geographic areas with
above-average fire risks.
FP&S R&D grants, introduced in 2005, are awarded as an eligible project under
the FP&S program emphasizing research that will yield results that can be readily
applied to improve firefighter safety, health, and wellness.
From FY 2002 through FY 2016, FEMA awarded approximately $6.9 billion in AFG funding to
67,4126 AFG recipients.7
AFG Program Over The Years
AFG tracks grant awards according to the type of community the department serves: rural,
suburban, or urban. Figure 2 provides a breakdown of FEMA award amount according to
5 In FY 2016, the AFG program limited funding for vehicles to 25 percent of the total FY 2016 appropriation. In
addition, funding for EMS equipment and training grants was limited to 3.5 percent of appropriated funds.
6 The total number of AFG recipients and amount awarded was reported in the 2016 Assistance to Firefighter Grant
Program Performance Assessment System’s Annual Report to Congress and included recipients of Staffing for
Adequate Fire & Emergency Response (SAFER) Grants, a separate grant program not included in the reporting
requirement at section 33 of the FFPCA. FEMA did not include the SAFER recipients in reporting this data point in
this year’s report.
7 Consistent with prior years, the FY 2016 AFG Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) also allows for regional
projects in which a fire department or nonaffiliated EMS organization acts as a host and applies on behalf of itself
and any number of other AFG-eligible organizations. State fire training academies are not eligible to apply under
the Regional activity. Regional applicants are eligible only to apply for training, equipment, PPE, and/or vehicle
acquisition.
9
community type from FY 2002 through FY 2016. AFG receives significantly more applications
from rural departments than either suburban or urban departments.
Figure 2. FEMA awarded the majority of AFG funding to departments serving rural communities8
Figure 3 shows a map of FY 2008 to FY 2015 AFG recipients (with the exception of state fire
training academies) across the Nation in every state.
Figure 3. Map of FY 2008 to FY 2015 AFG recipients across the Nation9
8 Some funding data does not align to any community type and are not included in Figure 2.
9 Figure 3 does not include state fire training academies.
10
Figure 4 illustrates AFG project cost across major funding lines. The values in Figure 4 include
both the Federal and recipient cost share. The recipient cost share varies depending on the
community type applying to the AFG program.
10Figure 4. FY 2002 to FY 2016 AFG Federal and recipient cost share
FEMA also included a demographic chart for each metric that shows the types of departments
that have met the metric, as well as the kinds of communities they serve. The largest
demographic group of AFG recipients across all metrics is all-volunteer departments that serve
rural populations.
III. AFG Performance Assessment System
The AFG program’s main purpose is to enhance the health and safety of the public and
firefighting personnel and to provide a continuum of support for emergency responders
supporting fire, medical, and all-hazards events. Since 2001, AFG has helped firefighters and
other first responders obtain equipment, protective gear, emergency vehicles, training, and other
resources needed to protect the public and emergency personnel from fire and fire-related hazards.
The AFG performance assessment system measures the effectiveness of the program through
two components: (1) programmatic effectiveness metrics based on applicable safety standards,
and (2) metrics based on the AFG program’s priorities. FEMA analyzes the most recent data
available from AFG recipient closeout reports to calculate results and develop key findings. For
10 Figure 4 represents the total AFG project cost of $7.6 billion as of October 2017, including both the Federal cost
share and recipients' cost share. As a result, the total amount reflected in Figure 4 is higher than the total AFG award
amount of $6.9 billion.
11
this report, FEMA analyzed AFG grant applications from FY 2008 to FY 2015 and closeout
reports from FY 2008 to FY 2013.11 FY 2013 is the latest year with closeout reports.12
Programmatic Effectiveness Metrics
FEMA uses programmatic effectiveness metrics to assess AFG program success in increasing
recipient compliance with industry safety standards. Measuring compliance with these standards
enables the AFG program to assess the level to which it is achieving its goal of providing
recipients with PPE, equipment, and vehicles that increase the safety of firefighters and the
public. Effective AFG projects achieve compliance with standards from NFPA, OSHA, state
governments, and local regulatory agencies. Appendix A: Industry Standards includes a list
of the NFPA and OSHA standards that are most relevant to the AFG performance assessment
system.
NFPA Standards: The NFPA is an international nonprofit organization of subject-
matter experts that develops codes and standards for fire, electrical, and construction
trades with the goal of reducing the worldwide burden of fire—including fire-related
injuries, property damage, and other effects. Increased departmental compliance with
NFPA standards demonstrates progress in advancing firefighter and public safety.
Several AFG funding categories—including PPE, vehicles, and certain types of
equipment—correspond to specific NFPA standards that define minimum safe
operational requirements.
OSHA Standards: OSHA maintains several standards applicable to AFG recipients,
primarily in the area of firefighter safety. While OSHA standards are only applicable to
private-sector employers, 28 states and territories have adopted federally-approved
occupational health and safety programs.13 These states and territories apply OSHA
standards to all state and local government agencies, including fire departments.
State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Governments Regulatory Standards: In non-
OSHA states, the local, tribal, territorial, or state regulatory agencies develop and enforce
standards for fire service personnel. These standards, however, vary across jurisdictions.
For example, Florida Government Code § 69A-62.021 requires that each firefighter
employer develop and implement a written safety and health training program.14
11 The Report begins with data from 2008 because the AFG program made significant changes to the application and
closeout module questions that year.
12 The availability of data from the closeout reports depends on when the AFG program office makes closeout
modules available for recipients to complete, which fluctuates from year to year. For FY 2013 grants, AFG made
awards between May 2014 and September 2014. With a 12-month period of performance, FY 2013 grant
expenditures should have been completed by September 2015. FEMA released the FY 2013 closeout module to
recipients in August 2016. Thus, the FY 2013 closeout data is the most recently available.
13 Occupational Safety & Health Administration, “Office of State Programs: State Plans,” last accessed April 11,
2017, https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/. 14 Florida Government Code §69A-62.021, last accessed April 11, 2017,
https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?title=FIREFIGHTER%20EMPLOYMENT%20STANDARDS&ID=6
9A-62.021.
12
Programmatic Priority Metrics
FEMA also assesses the AFG program’s effectiveness in advancing the following programmatic
priorities: (1) supporting departments that protect critical infrastructure; (2) encouraging mutual
and automatic aid capabilities; and (3) helping fire departments provide sharable regional
resources (e.g., through mutual aid agreements). Each of these programmatic priority metrics
focus on elements of firefighter and EMS contributions to national preparedness and regional
response capacity, including critical infrastructure protection and mutual aid agreement support.
AFG pursues these priorities in order to improve national preparedness—both by helping local
communities become better able to address the potential impact of damage or disruption to
critical infrastructure, and by supporting communities’ ability to deploy resources to neighboring
jurisdictions per mutual aid agreements.
Annual AFG Assessment Methodology
FEMA analyzes available data from recipient applications and closeout reports to conduct an
annual performance assessment of the AFG program. Upon grant closeout, recipients submit
closeout reports to FEMA explaining how they spent the AFG award and the grant’s actual effect
on increased compliance with industry standards, department inventory and operations, and
personnel training.
Because FEMA receives new closeout reports on a staggered basis, closeout datasets change from
year to year. To ensure that the actuals presented in this report—which are based on closeout
reports—show the most updated percentages as of FY 2017, FEMA recalculated all actual
numbers from FY 2008 to FY 2013 using the most recent closeout reports. Consequently, the
actuals presented in this report may differ from the actuals presented in earlier reports.
In addition to analyzing trends over time in actual impacts for each metric, FEMA evaluates grant
outcomes against established performance targets for some metrics. For those metrics, FEMA has
set targets for FY 2008 through FY 2013.
Refinements to the AFG Performance Assessment System
As part of its continual efforts to improve the rigor of the AFG performance assessment system,
FEMA partnered with NFPA through the Matching Assistance to Firefighter Grants to the
Reported Needs of the U.S. Fire Service report.15 NFPA matched fire departments who
responded to NFPA’s 2010 Third Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Survey to the 2010 to 2014
AFG grant datasets to show how Federal funds have been directly attributed to address fire
departments’ capability gaps nationwide.16 FEMA also developed performance targets for some
of the programmatic effectiveness metrics. This iteration of the AFG Report is the first to
feature a comparison of these new targets against actual results from closeout reports, which
enables FEMA to better measure outcomes and assess trends in program performance over time.
15 National Fire Protection Association, “Matching Assistance to Firefighters Grants to the Reported Needs of the
U.S. Fire Service,” last accessed July 11, 2017, http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/news-and-research/fire-
statistics/fire-service/2011needsassessment.pdf.
16 The time period 2010-2014 was used because this period best fits the effective grant awards that have occurred
between the third needs assessment survey in 2010 and the fourth needs assessment survey in 2015.
13
Although FEMA reports actual percentages ranging from the 90s to 100 for most metrics, AFG
receives applications from a different applicant pool each year, which helps to explain why some
measures do not demonstrate consistent progress toward their targets. Moreover, AFG
encounters a lag in closeout reporting that may also influence the actual figures for each metric.
In this year’s report, FEMA improved the methodology for calculating metrics 4 and 5 (both of
which concern removal of outdated vehicles). While FEMA uses only closeout data to
determine the results of metrics 1, 2 and 3, FEMA now compares recipients’ application data to
the recipients’ closeout data to calculate results for metrics 4 and 5. This enables FEMA to
check whether recipients who said they would replace their vehicle actually replaced and
removed the vehicle from service.
For the first time, FEMA includes in this report an analysis to provide demographic context for
performance metric results. FEMA prioritizes the awards based on the merits of the application
and the needs of the community. The type of department, geographic location, and type of
community served are also considered. From the results, the volume of grants are awarded
overwhelmingly to rural fire departments. Awarding rural fire departments allows the
departments the opportunity to meet industry safety standards where they otherwise would not be
able. For the departments that are compliant with each metric, FEMA now includes details on
the size of community the departments serve (urban, suburban, or rural), and the type of
department (all volunteer, all paid/career, a combination of the two, or paid on call/stipend).
This additional information helps FEMA and external audiences better understand what types of
recipients are meeting compliance for each metric.
IV. AFG Program Evaluation
This section evaluates the effectiveness of the AFG program against the programmatic
effectiveness and priority metrics in the program’s performance assessment system. The
analysis is based on data from closeout reports between FY 2008 and FY 2013.17
Programmatic Effectiveness Metrics
AFG grants strongly support compliance with accepted safety standards for PPE, vehicles, and
equipment. From FY 2008 to FY 2013:
AFG awards enabled 93.8 percent of PPE recipients to equip 100 percent of their on-duty
members with PPE that is in compliance with NFPA and OSHA standards;
AFG awards helped 90.1 percent of vehicle recipients with vehicle 25 years old or older
replace that vehicle and permanently remove it from service; and
17 The closeout module for FY 2013 grants was released to recipients in August 2016. Once the closeout module is
deployed, the recipient has 90 days to complete the report. If the recipient does not provide a closeout report, FEMA
initiates the administrative closeout process. FEMA sends notifications to the recipient every 30 days until the third
and final outreach is sent. After the third outreach is made, FEMA waits 30 days before it finalizes the
administrative closeout.
14
AFG awards supported bringing nearly 85 percent of equipment recipients into
compliance with state, local, NFPA, or OSHA standards.
The following tables include a detailed analysis of each programmatic effectiveness metric.
Metrics are organized according to overarching category under either Operations and Safety or
Vehicle Acquisition, and each metric also includes performance targets. The results for each
metric vary depending on the applicant pool each year.
Operations and Safety
The AFG program has continued to focus on helping departments better protect their firefighters
against response-related injuries. AFG recently revised its scoring methodology to place more
emphasis on PPE compliance in the pre-scoring process, resulting in more awards to recipients
who achieve compliance with these standards. AFG prioritizes funding for departments that
have the oldest non-compliant PPE.
The target for these metrics reflect that not every grant recipient can reach a target of 100 percent
for a variety of reasons. The cost-share requirement for the grant or microgrants (which are
limited to $25,000) limit the ability of some recipients to fund equipment and PPE for 100
percent of on-duty active members. In addition, PPE and equipment can wear out relatively
quickly, and departments retire their gear at the end of its useful life, making it difficult for
recipients to achieve 100 percent compliance. For example, the applicant may damage current
gear between time of award and grant closeout. Additionally, a department may gain new
members from time of award to grant closeout. NFPA also issues new standards every few
years, and a new equipment or PPE standard renders existing gear non-compliant. Thus,
FEMA’s target for the following metrics is 95 percent for each year.
Metric 1
Percentage of AFG PPE recipients who equipped 100 percent of on-duty active members with PPE in
compliance with applicable NFPA and OSHA standards
Year FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
Targets 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%
Actuals 90.8% 95.2% 96.7% 94.1% 95.2% 95.9%
Explanation: FEMA tracks this metric to evaluate the percentage of PPE recipients enabled to equip all
of their on-duty, active members with PPE in compliance with applicable NFPA and OSHA standards.
Results: In FY 2013, 95.9 percent of AFG PPE recipients invested their awards to equip 100 percent of
their firefighters with PPE that is compliant with NFPA and OSHA standards, exceeding FEMA’s target
by 0.9 percentage points. From FY 2008 through FY 2013, an average of 93.8 percent of departments
achieved 100 percent compliance. Compliant PPE helps departments protect their first responders from
dangerously high temperatures, as well as incidents that involve environmental or chemical hazards.
Relevant Industry Standards: NFPA 1971, NFPA 1981, NFPA 1999, 29 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) § 1910.120, 29 CFR § 1910.134, 29 CFR § 1910.156
- Average percentage of on duty members from AFG PPE recipient departments who received PPE in
compliance with applicable NFPA and OSHA standards
Year FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
Target 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%
Actuals 95.6% 97.6% 98.5% 97.2% 97.9% 98.1%
Explanation: FEMA tracks this metric to determine if AFG grants assist PPE recipients to equip more
of their on-duty members with PPE in compliance with applicable NFPA and OSHA standards. All
PPE recipients report in their closeout modules the percentage of their members who received standards-
compliant PPE as a result of their AFG award—to calculate this metric, FEMA takes the average of
those percentages for each year.
Results: Between FY 2008 and FY 2013, AFG PPE grant recipients in 53 states and territories across
the Nation increased the average percentage of on-duty members equipped with NFPA- and OSHA-
compliant PPE from 95.6 percent to 98.1 percent.
Relevant Safety Standards: NFPA 1971, NFPA 1981, NFPA 1999, 29 CFR § 1910.120, 29 CFR §
1910.134, 29 CFR § 1910.156
Case Study: Alaska Fire Training Academy Acquires Improved PPE for First Responders
The Alaska Department of Public Safety’s State Fire Training Academy received over $1.1 million in
AFG funds between FY 2013 and FY 2015 to replace old and obsolete PPE and SCBA, as well as to
enhance first responder training courses. These investments helped Alaska’s training centers provide
students with training equipment that is compliant with NFPA and OSHA standards (i.e. Firefighting I
and Firefighting II). Between 2010 and 2012, the State’s Southern Fire Training Office provided training
to 4,907 students using SCBA and PPE. In addition, AFG funding enabled the Academy to double its
offerings of all-hazards training, including technical rescue, hazardous materials, and rapid intervention
team trainings.
Metric 2
Case Study: Girard Hose Company Replaces Outdated PPE
Girard Hose Company #1 with the Girardville Volunteer Fire Department in Girardville, Pennsylvania,
received $13,000 in AFG funding in FY 2013 to replace seven full sets of PPE that were more than 16
years old. The gear was torn, burnt, and contaminated with hydrocarbons after years of use. NFPA
1851 recommends that all protective elements be retired after a 10-year service period—replacing the
PPE is essential to reducing firefighters’ risk of injury or death during incident response. The
firefighters who received the gear can now safely operate on the scene of the fire with less exposure to
heat and a lower risk of burns and injuries.
15
16
Figure 7. Metric 1 and 2: Demographic characteristics of FY 2008 to FY 2013 PPE recipients in compliance
with applicable NFPA and OSHA standards
Metric 3
Percentage of AFG equipment recipients who reported that the AFG grant brought them into
compliance with either state, local, NFPA, or OSHA standards
Year FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
Target 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0%
Actuals 98.7% 69.4% 74.7% 77.6% 97.9% 99.0%
Explanation: FEMA tracks this metric to determine if AFG funding increases recipients’ compliance
with state, local, NFPA, or OSHA standards. For example, NFPA 1963 lays out the requirements for
what temperatures a fire hose must be able to withstand. Acquiring up-to-date equipment enables
departments to increase the efficiency and speed of incident responses, as well as improve firefighter
safety.
Results: The percentage of AFG equipment recipients reporting that their AFG awards enabled them
to purchase equipment that brought them into compliance with state, local, NFPA, or OSHA standards
increased to 99.0 percent in FY 2013 from 98.7 percent in FY 2008. Overall, from FY 2008 through
FY 2013, an average of 84.6 percent of recipients used their AFG grant to purchase equipment that
brought them into compliance with established standards.
Relevant Industry Standards: NFPA 1801, NFPA 1936, NFPA 1963, NFPA 1964, 29 CFR
§ 1910.156, and state and local standards
Case Study: Massachusetts Firefighting Academy Receives Funding for Training Equipment
Figure 8. Stow, Massachusetts firefighters deploy hoses as they
participate in training at the Massachusetts Firefighting Academy.
From FY 2013 to FY 2016, the Massachusetts Firefighting Academy received $1.5 million in AFG
grant funding to train first responders and emergency personnel. The Academy is using the award to
purchase four complete sets of vehicle extrication training equipment and five training props, including
two flammable liquid fire training trays, a railroad tank car, a chlorine cylinder, and a two-pressure gas
cylinder set. The Academy plans to use all of these AFG-funded training props to improve the realism
of fire and hazardous materials training, which will help students better understand how to prepare for
real-world response.
Figure 9. Metric 3: Demographic characteristics of FY 2008 to FY 2013 equipment recipients brought into
compliance with either state, local NFPA, or OSHA standards
17
18
Vehicle Acquisition
Each year, recipients use their AFG awards to purchase new emergency response vehicles that
both enhance the safety of firefighters and improve the efficiency of response operations. From
FY 2008 to FY 2013, AFG paid for a total of 2,151 vehicles. Newly purchased vehicles must be
compliant with NFPA standards, and recipients must certify that unsafe vehicles will be
permanently removed from service. Additional considerations for vehicle acquisition are given
to departments that have automatic aid agreements, mutual aid agreements, or both; that are
replacing vehicles with open cab/jump seat configurations; and that are converted vehicles not
designed or intended for use in the fire service. AFG prioritizes awards for recipients with the
oldest or most unsafe vehicles who replace a vehicle and permanently remove it from emergency
service. Metrics 4 and 5 track the percentage of vehicle recipients who applied for AFG funding
to replace a vehicle and then submitted a closeout report stating that they had made the
replacement and removed the vehicle from service. Therefore, the targets for each of these two
metrics are 100 percent. Table 1 shows the number of vehicles that AFG funded from FY 2008
to FY 2013, including both first-time purchases and AFG-funded vehicle replacements:
Table 1. AFG vehicle awards from FY 2008 to FY 201318
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Grand Total
Vehicles replaced19
Less than 15 years old 3 0 0 0 1 0 4
15 to 24 years old 76 67 40 30 12 10 235
25 years old or older 498 476 347 273 74 198 1,866
Total 577 543 387 303 87 208 2,105
First-time vehicle purchases20
Total 22 9 6 4 0 3 44
Additions to the fleet
Total 1 0 1 0 0 0 2
All vehicles
Grand Total 600 552 394 307 87 211 2,151
18 Totals do not include ambulances or transport units to support basic life support (EMT-B).
19 The number of vehicles replaced includes two types of recipients: (1) recipients who received an award to replace
their vehicle and subsequently replaced it and removed it from emergency response service, and (2) recipients who
received an award to replace their vehicle, but did not remove it from service.
20 First-time vehicle purchases include: (1) first-time purchase for increased risk, (2) first-time purchase for a new
mission, and (3) first-time purchase for an existing mission.
19
Metric 4
Percentage of AFG award recipients who reported having successfully replaced their fire vehicles 25 years
old or older in accordance with industry standards
Year FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
Targets 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Actuals 97.1% 83.8% 91.6% 92.7% 93.1% 80.2%
Explanation: FEMA tracks the percentage of AFG vehicle recipients who stated in their applications that
they would replace their 25 year old or older vehicle and remove it from service and subsequently reported
in their closeout module that they had successfully replaced the vehicle and removed it from service.21
FEMA calculated this measure by dividing the number of recipients who stated in their closeout report
that they did replace and remove their vehicle that is 25 years or older by the number of recipients who
stated in their application that they would replace and remove their vehicle that is 25 years old or older.
The goal of the AFG program is to help grant recipients replace 100 percent of vehicles 25 years old or
older. NFPA 1901 states “Apparatus that were not manufactured to the applicable NFPA fire apparatus
standards or that are over 25 years old should be replaced.”
Results: From FY 2008 to FY 2013, 90.1 percent (1662 of 1845) of vehicle recipients replaced their
vehicles of 25 years old or older and removed it from service.22 In FY 2013, 80.2 percent (158 of 197) of
vehicle recipients replaced their vehicle of 25 years old or older and removed it from service.
While AFG aims to achieve 100 percent in this metric for every year, the actual figures here are less than
100 percent due to either a lag in closeout reporting by recipients, or the applications were
administratively closed after three years of no update from the recipient. From 2008 to FY 2013,
approximately ten percent23 of closeout reports were either administratively closed out or are still pending
closeout.
Relevant Industry Standard: NFPA 1901
21 AFG recipients may choose to replace an old vehicle with a new AFG-funded vehicle but do not necessarily have
to remove the old vehicle from service. Recipients may also choose to permanently remove the old vehicle from
service, which means the department no longer uses the vehicle to respond to fires.
22 This metric does not include the one percent (21 of 1866) AFG applicants from FY 2008 to FY 2013 who
received funding to replace their vehicles of 25 years or older but stated in their application that they did not intend
to remove their vehicles of 25 years or older from service. Of the 21 AFG recipients, 19 reported in their closeout
module that they did not remove their vehicle of 25 years old or older from service. The remaining two recipients
have not yet submitted a closeout report.
23 Of the total of 1,866 vehicle recipients from FY 2008 to FY 2013, 1,662 reported in their closeout module that
they had replaced and removed their vehicle from service, 184 did not submit closeout reports, and 1 was designated
as “N/A” in AFG’s system. The 21 who stated in their application that they did not intend to remove their vehicles
of 25 years or older from service are not included in this metric.
20
Figure 10. Metric 4: Demographic characteristics of FY 2008 to FY 2013 recipients who successfully replaced
their fire vehicles 25 years old or older in accordance with industry standards
21
Metric 5
Percentage of AFG vehicle recipients who reported having successfully replaced their fire vehicles that are between 15 and 24 years old
Year FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Actuals 100% 87.7% 97.5% 96.6% 100% 44.4%
Explanation: Similar to Metric 4, FEMA calculates the percentage of AFG vehicle recipients who applied to replace a vehicle between 15 and 24 years old, and then submitted a closeout report saying that they had both replaced the vehicle and removed it from service. FEMA calculated this measure by taking the number of recipients who stated in their closeout report that they replaced and removed their vehicle that is between 15 and 24 years old and divided it by the number of recipients who stated in their application that they would replace and remove the vehicle that is between 15 and 24 years old.
The age reflects vehicle condition, capability, and safety. Replacing older fire vehicles increases compliance with NFPA 1901, which states, “…fire departments should seriously consider the value (or risk) to fire fighters of keeping fire apparatus older than 15 years in first-line service.”
Results: From FY 2008 to FY 2013, 93.5 percent (215 of 230) of vehicle recipients replaced their vehicle between 15 and 24 years old and removed it from service. In FY 2013, only nine applicants received AFG funds to replace their vehicles between 15 and 24 years old, and four (44.4 percent) have completed a close out module and reported that they actually replaced and removed their vehicles from service. The other five are still pending closeout submissions.
While AFG aims to achieve 100 percent in this metric for every year, the actual figures here are less than 100 percent due to either a lag in closeout reporting by recipients, or the applications were administratively closed after three years of no update from the recipient. From FY 2008 to FY 2013, seven percent (16 of 235) of closeout reports were either administratively closed or are still pending closeout submissions.
Relevant Industry Standards: NFPA 1901 and NFPA 1906
22
Figure 11. Metric 5: Demographic characteristics of FY 2008 to FY 2013 vehicle recipients who reported
having successfully replaced their fire vehicles between 15 and 24 years old
Figure 12. From FY 2008 through FY 2013, AFG grants have prioritized replacing the oldest and most
unsafe vehicles
Case Study: Holly Creek Volunteer Fire Department Replaces Outdated Vehicle
The Holly Creek Volunteer Fire Department in Iron City, Tennessee received $190,000 in FY 2013 AFG
program funding to replace a 33-year-old tanker that was the sole firefighter water supply for their rural
community. The department also provides mutual aid to 10 other rural volunteer departments that also
have vehicles over 30 y ears old. Holly Creek’s AFG-funded vehicle, which is capable of providing water
on-scene, is now available to any of the jurisdictions participating in the mutual aid agreement. NFPA
recommends that any vehicle with a service life of 25 years or more be replaced and permanently retired,
especially because vehicles in that age range tend to hav e unsafe features such as open cab
configurations. Previously, only a few members of the Holly Creek Volunteer Fire Department were able
to drive the old vehicle—now, everyone in the department is able to operate the new vehicle and deliver
water to scenes as needed.
Figure 12. Holly Creek had been Figure 13. Holly Creek Volunteer Fire Department used relying on an outdated tanker for an AFG award to purchase a new, standards-compliant
fire response. vehicle.
Programmatic Priority Met rics
The AFG programmatic priority metrics assess the success of FEMA in advancing AFG program
goals, such as awarding grants to departments responsible for critical infrastructure protection, as
well as creating shareable regional resources for emergency response. FEMA’s analysis revealed the following key findings for the programmatic priority metrics:
From FY 2008 to FY 2015, 79 per cent of all AFG recipients reported that they are
responsible for protecting local critical infrastructure;
Nearly 20 percent of FY 2008 to FY 2015 fire departments and EMS recipients were
responsible for protecting critical infrastructure as defined by the DHS National Critical
Infrastructure Prioritization Program (NCIPP)24 list within a 5-mile radius of their station,
and 35 percent of recipients are responsible for protecting the critical infrastructure
within a 10-mile radius of their station;
From FY 2008 to FY 2013, AFG awards helped 100 percent of vehicle recipients support
either automatic or mutual aid agreements;25 and
From FY 2008 to FY 2013, AFG awards helped 92 percent of vehicle recipients support
both automatic and mutual aid.
The following tables include a more detailed analysis of each of these metrics.
23
24
Critical Infrastructure Protection
One of the AFG program’s goals is to help local departments that are responsible for protecting
critical infrastructure. Departments that protect critical infrastructure have a greater
responsibility for supporting national preparedness and regional response. Although AFG does
not weigh protection of local critical infrastructure in the initial scoring process for applications,
panel participants may consider critical infrastructure protection during their review.
Metric 6
Percentage of AFG recipients responsible for protecting local critical infrastructure
Year FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Actuals 69.3% 71.9% 80.3% 85.4% 85.2% 86.6% 88.6% 91.9%
Explanation: AFG asks applicants to self-identify in their applications whether their department is
responsible for protecting critical infrastructure. This metric tracks the percentage of recipients who
responded that they are responsible for protecting any critical infrastructure assets in their local
community, not limited to the NCIPP list.26
Results: The percentage of grants awarded to fire departments responsible for protecting critical
infrastructure has seen a dramatic increase since FY 2008—from 69.3 percent to 91.9 percent in FY
2014, an increase of 22.6 percentage points.
Note: Data on AFG awardees’ self-reported contributions to local critical infrastructure protection are only
included in applications. Accordingly, FEMA included in its analysis data from FY 2014 and FY 2015 applications
for this measure.
24 The National Critical Infrastructure Prioritization Program (NCIPP) provides a coordinated approach to critical
infrastructure and key resource protection roles and responsibilities for federal, state, local, tribal, and private sector
security partners. The NCIPP list consists of 16 critical infrastructure sectors, including chemical, commercial
facilities, communications, critical manufacturing, dams, defense industrial base, emergency services, energy,
financial services, food and agriculture, government facilities, healthcare and public health, information technology,
nuclear reactors, materials, and waste, transportation systems, and water and wastewater systems.
25 According to the Insurance Services Office, “automatic aid is assistance dispatched automatically by contractual
agreement between two communities or fire districts to all first alarm structural fires. That differs from mutual aid
or assistance [that is] arranged case by case” depending on response needs.
26 AFG included a specific definition of critical infrastructure in its Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs)
from FY 2004 to FY 2014. For example, the FY 2014 AFG FOA states that critical infrastructure includes: public
water, power systems, major business centers, chemical facilities, nuclear power plants, major rail and highway
bridges, petroleum and/or natural gas transmission pipelines, storage facilities (such as chemicals),
telecommunications facilities, and facilities that support large public gatherings, such as sporting events or concerts.
25
Figure 13. Metric 6: Demographic characteristics of FY 2008 to 2013 recipients responsible for protecting
local critical infrastructure
Metric 7
Firefighters not only protect their communities from local fires, they also serve as first
responders for large-scale disasters that threaten critical infrastructure in their response area.
Thus, AFG’s investments in fire departments enhance national preparedness by improving the
ability of local communities to minimalize the potential extended impact on a regional or
national scale that could result from damage or disruption to critical infrastructure. FEMA does
not ask applicants for information about proximity to critical infrastructure as defined by the
NCIPP list, nor does it consider it in application review. This metric is included to provide
context on the contribution of the grant program to national preparedness.27
27 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) published GAO-16-722 Fire Grants: FEMA Could Enhance
Program Administration and Performance Assessment, recommending that FEMA should use the National
Preparedness Goal’s definition of critical infrastructure as the basis for collecting information from applicants and
using the National Critical Infrastructure Prioritization Program (NCIPP) list to measure fire grant programs’
performance in addressing national priorities.
26
Percentage of fire departments and EMS recipients within a 5-mile and a 10-mile radius of critical
infrastructure on the NCIPP list
Year FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
5-mile
radius16% 16% 20% 24% 21% 20% 20% 20%
10-mile
radius31% 31% 35% 41% 37% 36% 37% 34%
Explanation: FEMA tracks this metric to assess the AFG program’s contribution to national
preparedness, using the NCIPP list to assess and integrate the fire grant programs’ contributions to
national preparedness. The 2017 report is the first in which FEMA used geospatial analysis to determine
the percentage of fire departments and EMS organizations within a 5- and 10-mile radius of a critical
infrastructure buffer, as defined by the NCIPP list. NFPA 1710 and 1720 address the recommended
standards for response times for career, volunteer, and combination fire departments, respectively.
FEMA determined that 5-mile and 10-mile radius distances were reasonable approximations to estimate
if critical infrastructure were located within the primary response area of AFG recipients. The RAND
Corporation conducted extensive studies and concluded that the average speed for a fire apparatus in
emergency response mode is 35 miles per hour, which is a widely accepted standard in the fire service.28
Based on NFPA benchmarks, a target response time of 9 to 15 minutes at 35 miles per hour yields29 a
distance of 5 to 10 miles.
Results: From FY 2008 to FY 2015, the percentage of recipients within a 5-mile radius of critical
infrastructure assets increased from 16 percent to 20 percent. Similarly, the percentage of recipients
within a 10-mile radius of critical infrastructure grew from 31 percent to 34 percent. The results of this
metric range from 16 to 41 percent because most critical infrastructure assets are in or near urban areas,
while most AFG recipients are located in rural areas.
Note: With the assistance of Fire-Community Assessment Response Evaluation System (FireCARES) and the DHS
National Protection and Programs Directorate, FEMA was able to identify these percentages through geospatial
analysis.
Relevant Industry Standards: NFPA 1710 and NFPA 1720
28 Fire Chiefs Online, “Response-Time Considerations,” last accessed June 13, 2017,
https://firechief.iso.com/FCWWeb/mitigation/ppc/3000/ppc3015.jsp.
29 The Practical Fireman, “NFPA 1710, 1720, and response time,” last accessed June 13, 2017,
http://brucehensler.typepad.com/the-practical-fireman/2008/07/nfpa-1710-1720-and-response-time.html.
-
-
Case Study: FireCARES using GIS to Improve Firefighter Safety and Efficacy
FireCARES is an AFG-funded analytical system that provides fire department and community with data
that enables departments to determine whether they are appropriately deploying resources to match their
community’s risk level. FireCARES provides a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based tool to
users to conduct geographic analysis of fire hazards based on the built environment, population, and
demographics. The project assists fire department leaders, city and county managers, and other public
officials in making sound decisions regarding optimal fire department resource allocation based upon
scientifically-based community risk assessment, strategic emergency response system design, and the
local government’s service commitment to the community. Since FY 2013, AFG has awarded more than
$3.4 million to support this program.
Resource Sharing
Two of the AFG program’s programmatic priorities are encouraging mutual and automatic aid
capabilities and helping fire departments provide shareable regional resources. Automatic aid is
a plan developed between two or more fire departments for immediate joint response on first
alarms. Mutual aid is a written intergovernmental agreement between agencies and/or
jurisdictions stating that they will assist one another on request by furnishing personnel,
equipment, and/or expertise in a specified manner. The AFG program prioritizes awards for
departments that use their AFG investments to support resource sharing agreements—such as
automatic and mutual aid—with neighboring jurisdictions.
Metrics 8 and 9
Percentage of AFG funded vehicles supporting either automatic or mutual aid
Year FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
Actuals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Percentage of AFG funded vehicles supporting both automatic and mutual aid
Year FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
Actuals 90.9% 92.5% 89.2% 93.4% 96.4% 96.4%
Explanation: FEMA tracks these metrics to assess the percentage of recipients who support either
automatic or mutual aid as well as recipients who support both.
Results: Since FY 2008, 100 percent of AFG vehicle grant recipients participated in either mutual- or
automatic-aid agreements. From FY 2008 to FY 2013, 92 percent of vehicle recipients supported both
automatic and mutual aid agreements. That percentage rose by nearly 6 percentage points, from 90.9
percent in FY 2008 to 96.4 percent in FY 2013. In addition, 100 percent of recipients in 49 states and
territories used AFG funds to purchase vehicles that support either mutual or automatic aid agreements.
27
28
Figure 14. Metric 8: Demographic characteristics of FY 2008 to FY 2013 recipients supporting automatic or
mutual aid
Figure 15. Metric 9: Most (64 percent) of FY 2008 to FY 2013 recipients were rural, all-volunteer
departments
29
Multi-Year Case Studies
Over the years, many fire departments have received multiple awards that have greatly strengthened
the services they can provide, as well as the health and safety of their firefighters. Receiving several
AFG awards enables departments not only to invest in necessary vehicles, equipment, and training,
but to sustain those capabilities over time. Below is a more in-depth look at how two such fire
departments have benefited from year-over-year AFG funding:
Pigeon Forge Fire Department
Pigeon Forge Fire Department AFG Awards
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
$240,000 $475,000 $112,270 $52,000
The City of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, home of Dollywood, is a regional tourist destination.
While only housing 6,000 permanent residents, the city experiences a daily population surge of
up to 150,000 people and an average of 10 million visitors a year to the area.
To accommodate the influx of visitors to Dollywood, Pigeon Forge Fire Department has invested
AFG funds to transform its operations over several years. Since 2007, Pigeon Forge has used
AFG funds to hire its first career firefighters, build a second fire station, and hire 12 additional
firefighters to support 24-hour response capability and decrease response times throughout the
area. This enabled the department to strengthen compliance with NFPA 1710, which describes
requirements for effective organization and deployment of fire suppression operations,
emergency medical operations, and special operations to the public by career fire departments to
protect citizens and the occupational safety and health of fire department employees.
AFG-funded equipment helped save thousands of lives during the Chimney Tops 2 Fire in Great
Smoky Mountains National Park.
Pigeon Forge Fire Department used
its FY 2009 AFG-funded
tanker/tender unit to combat the
blaze, better positioning firefighters
to evacuate residents and provide fire
suppression support. To maximize
efficiency and effectiveness, Pigeon
Forge also used its three-dimensional
fire simulator to project the size,
strength, and direction of the fire.
The simulator, purchased with FY
2014 AFG funding, allows Pigeon
Forge to assess local maps, terrain,
and weather conditions to predict and
prevent fire escalation.
Pigeon Forge Fire Department also invested AFG funding into promoting the safety and wellness
of its firefighters. The department purchased new SCBA and tracking devices for more rigorous
personal protection during fires and, implemented a physical wellness program for its staff. As a
result, the department has seen a reduction from four to five personnel with on-the-job injuries,
to an average of one personnel injury per year.
Figure 5. Pigeon Force firefighters combatting a car fire.
30
Oxnard Fire Department, California
City of Oxnard AFG Awards
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2015
$1,185,243 $594,000 $227,058
The City of Oxnard Fire Department is a highly active career department, with eight engine
companies and two truck companies completing over 18,000 unit responses annually. The AFG
program has provided support to all of Oxnard’s fire protection, basic life support, wildland,
urban search and rescue, hazmat, and water rescue services.
The City of Oxnard Fire Department
devoted significant AFG funding to
educating its staff and the public on
various fire- and health-related best
practices. Behavioral health issues with
personnel had cost the Department over
$500,000 over five years in medical costs
and overtime/backfill to cover employees
in injury status. Three years ago, the
department developed a rigorous
behavioral health program supported by
AFG funds. This peer support program
provides top-notch education services to
Oxnard Fire Department staff, as well as
to regional firefighters and response personnel, to ensure employees know how to identify and
address behavioral health issues. Since the program’s inception, the Oxnard Fire Department has
not seen a single workers’ compensation claim related to mental health or addiction.
Oxnard Fire Department also used FP&S funding to kick off a large-scale campaign to install
new smoke alarms in the city and educate the public on fire prevention strategies. This
campaign contributed to a 50 percent drop in fire-related fatalities in the district and saved the
life of at least one man who was woken up by his FP&S-funded smoke alarm.
Figure 16. The AFG grant allowed the Oxnard Fire
Department to provide complete interoperability between
all five fire departments in the county to respond to a train
derailment
V. Conclusion
The AFG program has enabled fire departments across the country to obtain critically needed
equipment, protective gear, emergency vehicles, training, and other resources. With over 67,412
recipients receiving grant funds from FY 2002 through FY 2016, the AFG program strengthened each
recipient’s ability to protect its community and enhance the health and safety of firefighters and
medical emergency first responders. As shown in the demographic tables in earlier sections, AFG
provides funding for a variety of department types—all-volunteer, all paid/career, a combination of the
two, and paid on-call/stipend. These departments provide service for rural, suburban, and urban
communities across the Nation. While there is no geographical formula for the distribution of
AFG grants, the majority of the funding goes to all-volunteer departments that serve rural
populations.
31
The AFG program enables recipients to fill critical gaps and promote national preparedness
capabilities around the country, ensuring that communities have the resources they need to safely
and effectively fight fires and respond to other disasters. By funding equipment, protective gear,
emergency vehicles, training, and other activities—such as installing accessible smoke alarms
for individuals and geographic areas with elevated fire risks—the AFG program has increased
firefighter and public safety. The AFG program also contributes to national preparedness by
providing vehicles, equipment and properly protected and trained firefights to serve as regional
assets when responding to large-scale disasters.
A-1
Appendix A: Industry Standards Table 1: NFPA Standards in the AFG Program Performance Assessment System30
NFPA
Standard Title
AFG
Category Description
Applicable
AFG Metric
NFPA 1710
Standard for Organization
and Deployment of Fire
Suppression Operations,
Emergency Medical
Operations, and Special
Operations to the Public by
Career Fire Departments
Operations
and Safety
Specifies requirements for effective
and efficient organization and
deployment of fire suppression
operations, emergency medical
operations, and special operations to
the public by career fire departments
to protect citizens and the
occupational safety and health of fire
department employees.
Metric 7
NFPA 1720
Standard for the
Organization and
Deployment of Fire
Suppression Operations,
Emergency Medical
Operations and Special
Operations to the Public by
Volunteer Fire Departments
Operations
and Safety
Specifies requirements for effective
and efficient organization and
deployment of fire suppression
operations, emergency medical
operations, and special operations to
the public by volunteer and
combination fire departments to
protect citizens and the occupational
safety and health of fire department
employees.
Metric 7
NFPA 1801
Standard on Thermal
Imagers for the Fire
Service
Equipment
Establishes requirements for new
thermal imagers used by fire
service personnel during
emergency incident operations.
Metric 3
NFPA 1901 Standard for Automotive
Fire Apparatus Vehicles
Defines the requirements for new
automotive fire apparatus—
including fire engines, pumpers,
and trailers—designed to transport
emergency personnel and
equipment.
Metrics 4 and 5
NFPA 1906 Standard for Wildland Fire
Apparatus Vehicles
Defines the requirements for new
automotive fire apparatus—
including apparatus equipped with
a slip-on fire-fighting module—
designed primarily to support
wildland fire suppression
operations.
Metrics 4 and 5
NFPA 1936 Standard on Powered
Rescue Tools Equipment
Specifies performance
requirements for powered rescue
tools and components that are used
by emergency services personnel
to facilitate the extrication of
victims from entrapment.
Metric 3
30 A full list of NFPA standards may be found at: http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-
standards/list-of-codes-and-standards.
A-2
NFPA
Standard Title
AFG
Category Description
Applicable
AFG Metric
NFPA 1963 Standard for Fire Hose
Connections Equipment
Establishes uniform performance
requirements for new fire hose
couplings and adapters.
Metric 3
NFPA 1964 Standard for Spray Nozzles Equipment
Provides performance
requirements for fire-fighting
spray nozzles to assure that they
nozzles are suitable, effective, and
safe for fire suppression use.
Metric 3
NFPA 1971
Standard on Protective
Ensembles for Structural
Fire Fighting and
Proximity Fire Fighting
PPE
Protects firefighters by
establishing minimum levels of
protection from thermal, physical,
environmental, and blood borne
pathogen hazards encountered
during structural and proximity
firefighting operations.
Metrics 1 and 2
NFPA 1981
Standard on Open-Circuit
SCBA for Emergency
Services
PPE
Establishes minimum levels of
respiratory protection and
functional requirements for SCBA.
Metrics 1 and 2
NFPA 1999
Standard on Protective
Clothing for Emergency
Medical Operations
PPE
Specifies requirements for EMS
protective clothing to safeguard
personnel during emergency
medical operations from contact
with blood and body fluid-borne
pathogens—as well as provide
limited protection from chemical,
biological, radiological, and
nuclear terrorism agents.
Metrics 1 and 2
Table 2: OSHA Standards in the AFG Program Performance Assessment System
OSHA
Standard Title
AFG
Category Description
Applicable
AFG Metric
29 Code of
Federal
Regulations
§ 1910.120
Hazardous Waste
Operations and
Emergency Response
PPE
Sets requirements for first-
responder training on basic hazard
and risk assessment techniques as
well as selecting and using proper
PPE.
Metrics 1 and 2
29 CFR §
1910.134 Respiratory Protection PPE
Establishes prerequisite respiratory
protection equipment, PPE, and
procedures for hazardous
occupations, including interior
structural firefighting.
Metrics 1 and 2
29 CFR §
1910.155-165 Fire Protection
PPE,
Equipment
Defines requirements for the
organization, equipment, training,
and PPE of fire departments and
fire brigades.
Metrics 1, 2,
and 3
B-1
Appendix B: Acronym List
AFG Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EMS Emergency medical services
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FFPCA Federal Fire Prevention Control Act of 1974
FGRA Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2013
FireCARES Fire-Community Assessment Response Evaluation System
FP&S Fire Prevention and Safety Grants Program
FY Fiscal Year
GAO Government Accountability Office
NCIPP National Critical Infrastructure Prioritization Program
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NOFO Notice of Funding Opportunity
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PPE Personal protective equipment
R&D Research and development
SCBA Self-contained breathing apparatus