The Fund Finder News
Public Safety Grants Consulting
The Fund Finder News
A Bi-Weekly Grants News and Information Update By Kurt Bradley
Issue 26, April 22, 2005
"The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: 2005 AFGP"
50 sets of SCBA gear. "Grant teams". $30,000 in turnouts... and a $1,500 DVD player. You name it, we saw it during the 2005 AFGP application round. Here's a roundup of the good, the bad and the ugly, and what each means to all your grant-writing efforts.
Another year for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program has come and gone. Now the waiting game begins, as those of you who applied will be standing around for the next 8 months with your fingers crossed, hoping that your application "has what it takes" to be awarded funding.
According to DHS, 20,970 departments applied for the program this year. Of those departments, 1,500 were for the new category of non-affiliated EMS/Rescue. The good news for you, is that fewer departments applied this year than in 2004. This improves your chances of winning, and for those of you who put forward some true effort and followed the guidelines, you will probably be funded.
CHIEF Grants worked with 78 departments on developing your AFGP grant applications this year. Good, bad and ugly, we saw a little bit of everything. Here are a few examples.
The Good
- Many of you have let go of the "turf wars" syndrome and started recognizing that DHS is encouraging "interagency interoperability". You addressed the triumvirate of "us, we and them" throughout your entire grant narratives. You have started to understand and work with DHS' philosophy that you must work not just for the benefit of your department, but for the common good.
- We also saw evidence that your grant applications better addressed the priorities of the program, not your own priorities. The guidelines are like the rulebook of the grants game. If they have a priority established for certain things, and if you want their money, you address their priorities first and your needs second.
The best example is the drop in departments who just asked for a fire truck. You've recognized that only 25% of the money was set aside for vehicles, and that 33% of the applicants would be applying for it – that's some tough competition. The odds of getting funded were much better when you focused on the remaining 75% of the money.
- By focusing your application on training and equipment, you also addressed AFGP's main program priority: To promote firefighter safety (not just replace trucks). You listened, and that listening will pay off for many of you.
- Lots of you formed grant teams to accomplish in a short time, what would have taken you months of research to gather on your own. Tasks were delegated, timelines were set and followed, and these teams produced some of the best applications I have ever seen. Not to toot our own horn too much, but this was especially true of the agencies who had attended our CHIEF Grants training seminars. They listened, they learned, and they produced top-notch applications. Proper training in how to construct these grants from the start is invaluable to you.
We saw improvement in the applications from many departments, and we're confident that a lot of you will be awarded AFGP funds this year. It wasn't all rosy in grant-land though...
The Bad
- Many departments made the mistake of mixing low-priority items with high-priority items. One application stated that the department needed 20 sets of turnout gear at $30,000... then turned right around and asked for $1,500 for a slide projector and a DVD-player (to play "training videos").
Remember, your peers grade these applications. They know how to read between the lines. Think your colleagues don't know that new DVD player would go in the lounge, and that Backdraft and Ladder 49 would be its most-played "training videos"? Think again!
- Requesting funds for training that was not instructor-led, that did not lead to mandatory or voluntary compliance with standards, or that did not have a final certification and testing associated with it. If the training did not include several of these, it was a low-priority item.
- The problem with requesting low-priority items is that it sabotages your grant. To go back to the turnout-gear-and-DVD-player example above, that department watered down a #10 high-priority item with a #5 low-priority item. That drops the application's average mean score to 7.5 – but to get funded, you need a 9 or above!
Now, there's nothing wrong with trying to get a DVD player. (Heck, during our day-and-night emails and phone calls, we wouldn't have minded a Ladder 49 break either!) The point is not to jeopardize $30,000 in high-priority equipment like turnouts, because you asked for a $1,500 item that the department could just as easily get by doing a local fundraiser.
- We also saw a number of departments not paying attention to what the program priorities specified in certain areas regarding equipment. For instance, we saw a number of new non-affiliated EMS agencies asking for a "rescue" truck, when if they had read the guidelines they would have seen that non-affiliated EMS could only receive funding for "transport" vehicles. In another example, agencies asked for training to get EMTs up to Paramedic level, but the grant stated that the priority was from "First Responder" to EMT-B level.
Failure to properly address the program's priorities sabotaged what could have been a great grant application.
Many applications with these types of problems, also committed the sin of procrastination: They didn't present their applications to CHIEF Grants for review until one week prior to the deadline. In addition to needing to redress their narrative or requests, time was also working against getting the problem resolved.
That brings up the final bad point here: time.
- Too many departments waited until the last minute to submit their applications. If you don't think that's a big deal, then you're forgetting Murphy's Law. Guess what happened the night before the deadline? The computer that accepts the applications crashed. For 7 hours. On the final night before the deadline.
At 12 p.m., on the final day, only 12,700 applications had been filed (and when AFGP finally closed, 20,970 total had been submitted). If DHS had not extended the deadline by three hours, 8,270 departments would be out of the running for this year's funding. Would your department have been one of those 8,270? Waiting until the last minute means that last-minute problems could take you out of the running.
- Many of you also found yourself wanting assistance and unable to receive it, as the volume of requests became too large for us to deal with in the final days of the grant. We apologize for not being able to properly assist all of you, but we could only handle so many requests for assistance in a short space of time. This is another point to keep in mind next year: Start early, and get onboard with us months before the application period even opens up.
Everyone makes mistakes, and hopefully next year fewer people will make the mistakes we saw in this year's applications. You've all been improving, and hats off to you for that. There are a few folks out there, though, who have, well, a really big learning curve ahead. Some applications were just ugly...
The Ugly
Some of this year's applications were so ugly, a coyote would have chewed off its leg to get away from them! In these cases, it was quite obvious that they did not read up on the program guidelines or any other materials that could help them write a stronger application.
- "Shopping Cart:" One application asked for 55 separate items, from rakes and brooms to hoses and turnout gear. That is a classic example of a "shopping cart approach". Problem is, that grant had absolutely "0" chance of getting funded. Keep the list short and to the point: 4-5 types of items, maximum, is what is called for. Remember the old grant adage: "needy not greedy"!
- 50 SCBA: Another application asked for 50 sets of SCBA – one for each firefighter in their department. Would someone please tell me when and where you would have a fire that required all 50 of your firefighters on an interior attack crew? The program guidelines specifiy that departments request one set of SCBA per seated position on your fire apparatus.
Again, remember that these grants are graded by your peers! I bet the reviewing Chief who reads that one will be laughing so hard they'll hear him in the hotel lobby!
- No Details: Some grant application narratives consisted of a single paragraph... while asking DHS to give them a $185,000 truck. Narratives require a lot of thought, research, and good ol' hard work. If you want the "guvmint's money", it's going to take more than 4 sentences to address a project description, financial need, cost benefit and operational outcomes.
The final ugliness I saw was disheartening, not just for me, but for the poor soul who got assigned to write the grant:
From Loser to Winner to Loser Again
In this case, the guy spent hours looking at the CHIEF Grants website. He absorbed everything that we had to offer, and he poured over the guidelines to make sure he didn't miss a single detail. He consulted with me two months prior to the grant deadlines, and together we worked very hard to fashion a 2-year-rejected grant application into a fundable one. The final version was good. His homework – and early start, hint, hint – had paid off.
When we signed off on our revisions, it was two days before the grant deadline. He put the grant on his chief's desk for final review and signatures.
When he looked in his box the next morning, I can only thank God that he was not a police officer. I am sure he would have taken a service revolver and "gone postal" on his chief. Everything that had been taken out of the grant, for a variety of well-based reasons, was now back in the grant! It was, in essence, the same losing application from the past two years.
This guy's hard work went down the tubes because his chief violated the first rule of proper management: "Surround yourself with competent people, and then listen to them." After all that wasted effort, I'll be amazed if that firefighter ever tries to help his agency by writing another grant.
To that chief, take a hint here: If you assign the task to someone and they are taking all the right steps to do a good job, leave it alone when they're done!
In Conclusion
Overall, this year's applications were much better than last year's. I am convinced that many of you will have funded applications and celebration parties later this year.
Those of you reading this article, please remember: We are here to help you and we would never intentionally give any of you poor advice. It is our strongest desire to see your department equipped properly and to make sure that you have the funding needed, to continue to provide the highest levels of safe fire protection that you can.
That said, thanks for turning to CHIEF Grants. Best of luck with your AFGP and all your grant applications.
Visit the Fund Finder News Archives
Back to Grant News and Information
|
© Copyright 1998-2008, CHIEF Corp. All rights reserved.
Account
Help
Resources
Cart