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