U.S. Fire Administration

Matching Assistance to Firefighters 

Grants to the Reported Needs of 

the U.S. Fire Service

A Cooperative Study Authorized by U.S. Public Law 

108-767, Title XXXVI

FA-304/October 2006

Homeland

Security
A cooperative study between: 

US Fire Administration (USFA) 

Directorate for Preparedness 

Department of Homeland Security 

and 

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

NFPA Project Manager: John R. Hall, Jr., Ph.D. 

NFPA Senior Statistician: Michael J. Karter, Jr. 

USFA Project Officer: Mark A. Whitney 

This second needs assessment of the U.S. fire service used the unaltered survey 

instrument developed in the first needs assessment, with the aim of supporting valid 

timelines on all questions. Once again, America’s fire departments rose to the challenge, 

carefully reviewed their departments’ capabilities and described those capabilities in 

forms submitted to us for use in this study. 

We received essential comments at several stages from colleagues at NFPA and from the 

staff at USFA, and we greatly appreciate their insights. 

Lastly, we want to thank the administrative personnel at NFPA, whose painstaking 

attention to detail and extended hours of work were instrumental in transforming a set of 

questions and a stack of forms into a unique database and this analysis report: 

• John Baldi 

• John Conlon 

• Frank Deely 

• Norma Candeloro 

• Helen Columbo 

i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

As part of the second needs assessment of the U.S. fire service, a rough comparison was 

made between needs reported in the first needs assessment survey and resources 

requested and granted to the same fire departments in 2001-2004 under the Assistance to 

Firefighters Grant program. 

Separately, each category of need was examined to see whether needs identified in the 

first needs assessment survey had been reduced in the second needs assessment survey. 

The criterion for a reduction sufficient to justify recognition in the text was set at 5 

percent or 5 percentage points (e.g., 20 percent vs. 15 percent), as appropriate. This 

analysis was not limited to departments that received grants but was based on all 

reporting departments. Note that a difference of 5 percentage points may not be 

statistically significant when all sources of error (e.g., sampling, non-response) are 

included. These comparisons are useful as indicators but should not be treated as 

definitive. 

The following considerations should be kept in mind when examining statistics based on 

the 2001 and 2005 needs assessment surveys: 

• These are fire department self-assessment surveys. They define needs by 

comparing self-reported resources to available standards or other guidance (which 

are identified where they are used) on what is needed to do a safe and effective 

job. These estimates may not be the same as would be produced by using DHS 

hazard/risk assessment methods or asking local authorities for their judgments of 

priority local needs. 

• The 2005 survey was sent out shortly after Hurricane Katrina, which probably 

affected response rates from those areas involved. 

• The response rates varied by stratum with departments protecting smaller 

communities responding at lower rates than those protecting larger communities. 

Lower response rates increase the risk for nonresponse bias in estimates. 

Weighting factors based on response rates and sampling fractions are used to 

combine results across strata. 

• Results are subject to both sampling and non-sampling error. When a sample, 

rather than the entire population, is surveyed, there is a chance that the sample 

estimates may differ from the “true” population values they represent. This 

“sampling error” varies depending on the particular sample selected and is 

reflected in the “Margin of Error”. In addition, the survey data are also affected 

by non-sampling errors, which can occur for many reasons including failure to 

sample a segment of the population, inability to obtain information for all 

respondents in the sample, the inability or unwillingness of respondents to provide 

correct information, and errors made in the collection or processing of the data. 

iii 
The matching part of the analysis was designed to see whether the grants were effectively 

targeting needs. The needs trend part of the analysis was designed to see whether the 

grants or other actions had achieved progress in reducing needs. 

 

The matching process is very rough and offers numerous opportunities to overstate or 

understate relevant needs, such as the following: 

• A department could have reported a need of the general type but requested a 

resource of that type that is designed for a different need. 

• A department could have requested and received a grant for a need of a different 

type than any addressed by the needs assessment report. 

• A department’s grant could have covered a different specific type or level of 

resource than what they reported having. 

• Age of equipment is used to define need in some of the matching described 

above, but old equipment does not necessarily need replacing, and some 

equipment may need replacing before it reaches the age used as the threshold. 

• Some needs may have arisen after the survey report was submitted or may have 

arisen as a result of the acquisition of other resources. 

• A department may have had far more critical needs than the one(s) addressed by 

its grant. 

For all these reasons and, no doubt, other reasons as well, this analysis can only be taken 

as a rough indicator of the match between needs and resources. The analysis may be 

useful as a basis for directing priorities in a more substantial audit or review, but it should 

not be used by itself as a basis for drawing conclusions. 

 Firefighting or EMS equipment 

One-third of the matched awards and one-fourth of the granted funds for those awards 

went to firefighting equipment. 

Overall, there was a 98 percent match for awards and a 97 percent match for award funds 

to some type of firefighting equipment need for this category. All six types of need 

showed up with high match percentages, and no one type of need dominated the others. 

In the second needs assessment, the percentage of departments where there were not 

enough portable radios to equip everyone on a shift declined by 13 percentage points 

(from 77 percent to 64 percent) compared to the first survey. 

iv 
None of the homeland security related needs (i.e., ability to handle any of four unusually 

challenging situations with local specialized equipment) showed marked improvement, 

nor did any of the personnel needs related to those situations. 

However, there was improvement in the existence of written agreements to coordinate the 

use of outside personnel and equipment in a response. This is the most important step to 

take to improve national preparedness. The overall percentage of departments with such 

written agreements increased by 7 percentage points (from 19 percent to 26 percent) for 

the reference building collapse scenario, by 9 percentage points (from 21 percent to 30 

percent) for the reference biological/chemical agent scenario, by 7 percentage points 

(from 33 percent to 40 percent) for the reference wildland/urban interface fire scenario, 

and by 5 percentage points (from 13 percent to 18 percent) for the reference flood 

scenario. 

Lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina have a bearing on the adequacy of these 

agreements. “Across the emergency response community there is no common doctrine 

for how multiple jurisdictions should interact and respond to a single incident, or to 

numerous simultaneous incidents which span multiple jurisdictions. This is a critical 

failing.” * 

The continued gap in usage of a universal map reference system (the US National Grid), 

as documented in FA-303, Four Years Later – A Second Needs Assessment of the U.S. 

Fire Service, pp. 83-84 and Table 45, is a part of what is missing in most agreements. 

* Hicks and Associates, Inc., A Project Responder Report: Technology Opportunities for Implementing the 

National Incident Management System (NIMS), for the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of 

Terrorism and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, October 2005. 

v 
Usage of thermal imaging cameras increased (and the need therefore decreased) by 31 

percentage points (from 24 percent to 55 percent). 

 Personal protective equipment 

More than one-third of the matched awards and granted funds for those awards went to 

personal protective equipment. 

Overall, there was a 68 percent match for awards and a 53 percent match for award funds 

to some type of need for this category. The needs checked were self-contained breathing 

apparatus (SCBA), personal alert safety system (PASS) devices, and personal protective 

clothing. 

Many estimated needs showed lower measures in 2005 than in 2001 in this category. The 

percentage of departments without enough SCBA to equip all emergency responders on a 

shift declined by 10 percentage points (from 70 percent to 60 percent). The percentage 

without enough PASS devices to equip all emergency responders on a shift declined by 

14 percentage points (from 62 percent to 48 percent). 

 Vehicles and facility modification 

Vehicles (typically engines or pumpers) represented only 8 percent of matched grants but 

20 percent of grant funds for matched grants. Facility modification represented only 5 

percent of matched grants and 7 percent of grant funds for matched grants. 

Overall, there was an 83 percent match for vehicle awards and an 80 percent match for 

vehicle award funds to some type of need for this category. The sufficiency check, which 

showed a high need for all communities in the Needs Assessment report, accounted for 

most of the matching for vehicle grants. 

None of the needs related to vehicles showed substantial improvement in the second 

needs assessment survey, and this was true for the age profile of the fleet, regardless of 

where the cut-off was set. 

Overall, there was a 73 percent match for facility modification awards and a 70 percent 

match for facility modification award funds to the only type of need included in the 

survey for this category, namely, exhaust emission control. However, the percentage of 

stations not equipped for exhaust emission control did not change much, and the change 

varied considerably by size of community. 

 Training 

Only 9 percent of the matched awards and only 4 percent of the granted funds for those 

awards went to training. This illustrates the general point that grants were sought and 

awarded far more for objects than for knowledge and skills. Training represented a larger 

share of awards and funds for larger communities than for smaller communities. 

vi 
Overall, there was an 88 percent match for awards and an 80 percent match for award 

funds to some type of training need for this category. 

 Wellness and fitness programs 

Only 4 percent of the matched awards and only 4 percent of the granted funds for those 

awards went to wellness and fitness programs. 

Overall, there was a 64 percent match for awards and a 62 percent match for award funds 

to the need defined by not having any program of this type. 

 Prevention 

Only 3 percent of the matched awards (Table 9) and only 2 percent of the granted funds 

for those awards (Table 10) went to prevention programs. This excludes the dedicated 

funds for national organizations and their prevention programs. 

No matching with need was attempted for this category, because “prevention” covers 

such a broad and heterogeneous collection of programs, and the needs assessment 

responses are so broad and general in this area. 

 

Prevention program usage improved in every category except arguably the two most 

important ones – public fire safety school education programs based on a national model 

and conducting fire-code inspections. The size of the population protected by 

departments with no plans review declined by 6 percentage points (from 29 percent to 23 

percent), with no permit approval by 5 percentage points (from 45 percent to 40 percent), 

with no routine testing of active systems by 5 percentage points (from 49 percent to 44 

percent), with no free smoke alarm distribution program by 7 percentage points (from 42 

percent to 35 percent), and with no juvenile firesetter programs by 7 percentage points 

(from 48 percent to 41 percent). 

vii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Acknowledgements i 

Executive Summary iii 

Table of Contents ix 

List of Tables and Figures xi 

Introduction 1 

Analysis Results by Category of Need 9 

ix 

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 

Table 1. Reported Needs vs. Awarded Grants – Firefighting Equipment 13 

Table 2. Reported Needs vs. Grant Amounts – Firefighting Equipment 15 

Table 3. Reported Needs vs. Awarded Grants – Personal Protective 

Equipment 

17 

Table 4. Reported Needs vs. Grant Amounts – Personal Protective 

Equipment 

18 

Table 5. Reported Needs vs. Awarded Grants – Vehicles and Facility 

Modification 

19 

Table 6. Reported Needs vs. Grant Amounts – Vehicles and Facility 

Modification 

21 

Table 7. Reported Needs vs. Awarded Grants – Training 23 

Table 8. Reported Needs vs. Grant Amounts – Training 25 

Table 9. Reported Needs vs. Awarded Grants – Wellness/Fitness and 

Fire Prevention Programs 

27 

Table 10. Reported Needs vs. Grant Amounts – Wellness/Fitness and 

Fire Prevention Programs 

28 

xi 
Introduction 

As part of the second needs assessment of the U.S. fire service, a rough comparison was 

made between needs reported in the first needs assessment survey and resources 

requested and granted to the same fire departments in 2001-2004 under the Assistance to 

Firefighters Grant program. 

Separately, each category of need was examined to see whether needs identified in the 

first needs assessment survey had been reduced in the second needs assessment survey. 

The criterion for a reduction sufficient to justify recognition in the text was set at 5 

percent or 5 percentage points (e.g., 20 percent vs. 15 percent), as appropriate. This 

analysis was not limited to departments that received grants but was based on all 

reporting departments. 

The following considerations should be kept in mind when examining statistics based on 

the 2001 and 2005 needs assessment surveys: 

• These are fire department self-assessment surveys. They define needs by 

comparing self-reported resources to available standards or other guidance (which 

are identified where they are used) on what is needed to do a safe and effective 

job. These estimates may not be the same as would be produced by using DHS 

hazard/risk assessment methods or asking local authorities for their judgments of 

priority local needs. 

• The 2005 survey was sent out shortly after Hurricane Katrina, which probably 

affected response rates from those areas involved. 

• The response rates varied by stratum with departments protecting smaller 

communities responding at lower rates than those protecting larger communities. 

Lower response rates increase the risk for nonresponse bias in estimates. 

Weighting factors based on response rates and sampling fractions are used to 

combine results across strata. 

• Results are subject to both sampling and non-sampling error. When a sample, 

rather than the entire population, is surveyed, there is a chance that the sample 

estimates may differ from the “true” population values they represent. This 

“sampling error” varies depending on the particular sample selected and is 

reflected in the “Margin of Error”. In addition, the survey data are also affected 

by non-sampling errors, which can occur for many reasons including failure to 

sample a segment of the population, inability to obtain information for all 

respondents in the sample, the inability or unwillingness of respondents to provide 

correct information, and errors made in the collection or processing of the data. 

1 
The matching part of the analysis was designed to see whether the grants were effectively 

targeting needs. The needs trend part of the analysis was designed to see whether the 

grants or other actions had achieved progress in reducing needs. 

 Matching process 

The first step was matching the needs-assessment database with the grantee database to 

develop combined records on needs and grants received for a group of fire departments. 

The matching of fire department identifiers was done by and under the auspices of staff 

of the U.S. Fire Administration. NFPA staff then completed the process of creating 

combined records. 

This combined database was then slightly reduced to only those departments that reported 

their population coverage in their needs assessment response. That restriction permitted 

analysis of the database by community size. 

The result was 753 fire department matches for 2001 grants, 2,415 for 2002 grants, 3,713 

for 2003 grants, and 3,276 for 2004 grants. This meant a combined total of 10,157 

departments receiving grants, with some departments receiving multiple grants in 

multiple years. 

Some grants were also multi-part (e.g., with a part for firefighting equipment and a part 

for training). These parts were treated as distinct grants for purposes of analysis, so that 

there were a total of 14,925 grants to departments in form suitable for comparison to 

reported needs. 

The comparison required a positive match. Therefore, if a fire department submitted a 

needs assessment response but left all the questions related to a particular need blank, that 

department was counted as not having reported that type of need. 

The results of the matching part of the analysis are based directly on the above database 

of awards and survey responses; they were not constructed to be nationally representative 

or representative of different size communities. It is likely that there were variations 

across the population strata in terms of percentage of departments that received grants, 

percentage of departments that responded to the needs assessment survey in 2001, and 

percentage of departments that qualified for the matching database because they received 

a grant, responded to the needs assessment survey, reported their population protected, 

and were successfully matched between the grant and needs assessment survey databases. 

No attempt has been made to weight responses in different strata to reflect these 

differences, when constructing statistics for all departments combined. 

 Limits of the grant-need matching 

The matching process is very rough and offers numerous opportunities to overstate or 

understate relevant needs, such as the following: 

2 
• A department could have reported a need of the general type but requested a 

resource of that type that is designed for a different need. For example, a 

department might have reported a need for EMS training but have requested and 

received a grant for structural firefighting training while not having reported a 

need for that type of training. 

• A department could have requested and received a grant for a need of a different 

type than any addressed by the needs assessment report. For example, a 

department might have reported a need for vehicle firefighting training, which is 

not one of the types of training asked about in the survey. 

• A department’s grant could have covered a different specific type or level of 

resource than what they reported having. For example, a department might have 

everyone trained in technical rescue – hence, no reported need at the threshold 

used for reporting – but not have everyone trained in technical rescue to the level 

required for a very challenging building-collapse situation, and that might have 

been the training they sought in their grant application. 

• Age of equipment is used to define need in some of the matching described 

above, but old equipment does not necessarily need replacing, and some 

equipment may need replacing before it reaches the age used as the threshold. 

• Some needs may have arisen after the survey report was submitted (e.g., engines 

reached the 30-year threshold) or may have arisen as a result of the acquisition of 

other resources (e.g., training is needed in the use of equipment acquired in 

another part of the grant or through other means). 

• A department may have had far more critical needs than the one(s) addressed by 

its grant. For example, replacement of an old but serviceable engine might have 

been sought ahead of training and equipment that the department did not have at 

all. 

For all these reasons and, no doubt, other reasons as well, this analysis can only be taken 

as a rough indicator of the match between needs and resources. The analysis may be 

useful as a basis for directing priorities in a more substantial audit, but it should not be 

used by itself as a basis for drawing adverse conclusions. 

 Parts of needs assessment survey used to identify needs by category 

Here are the questions and answers used to define needs for each category of grants: 

Firefighting equipment (combined with grants labeled for “EMS equipment” 

or “Equipment”) 

There were three distinguishable types of need in this category. 

3 
The first was equipment required by NFPA standards (specifically, portable radios): 

Q. 27a: How many of your emergency responders on-duty on a single shift can be 

equipped with portable radios? Need existed if the answer was Most, Some, or None, 

and therefore not All. (Other needs that could have been derived from survey responses 

but were not included in this analysis were that (a) not all radios were water-resistant and 

intrinsically safe in an explosive atmosphere, and (b) there were not reserve portable 

radios equal to at least 10 percent of in-service radios.)

The second was equipment deemed necessary by the departments to respond to unusually 

challenging incidents that fell within their responsibility. These were the homelandsecurity related needs: 

Q. 36a: Is technical rescue and EMS for a building with 50 occupants after structural 

collapse within your department’s responsibility? 

Q. 36c: If [technical rescue and EMS for a building with 50 occupants after structural 

collapse is within your department’s responsibility], how far would you have to go to 

obtain enough specialized equipment to handle this incident? 

Need is defined if the answer to Q. 36a is Yes and the answer to Q. 36c is Regional, 

State, or National and not Local Would Be Enough. 

Q. 37a: Is hazmat and EMS for an incident involving chemical/biological agents and 10 

injuries within your department’s responsibility? 

Q. 37c: If [hazmat and EMS for an incident involving chemical/biological agents and 10 

injuries is within your department’s responsibility], how far would you have to go to 

obtain enough specialized equipment to handle this incident? 

Need is defined if the answer to Q. 37a is Yes and the answer to Q. 37c is Regional, 

State, or National and not Local Would Be Enough. 

Q. 38a: Is a wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres within your department’s 

responsibility? 

Q. 38c: If [wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres is within your department’s 

responsibility], how far would you have to go to obtain enough specialized equipment to 

handle this incident? 

Need is defined if the answer to Q. 38a is Yes and the answer to Q. 38c is Regional, 

State, or National and not Local Would Be Enough. 

Q. 39a: Is mitigation (confining, slowing, etc.) of a developing major flood within your 

department’s responsibility? 

4 
Q. 39c: If [mitigation (confining, slowing, etc.) of a developing major flood is within 

your department’s responsibility], how far would you have to go to obtain enough 

specialized equipment to handle this incident? 

Need is defined if the answer to Q. 39a is Yes and the answer to Q. 39c is Regional, 

State, or National and not Local Would Be Enough. 

The last was equipment deemed useful but not required by any standard (specifically, 

thermal imaging cameras): 

Q. 40: Do you have any [thermal imaging cameras] now or plan to acquire any? Need is 

defined if any answer is given other than Now Own. 

 Personal protective equipment 

Q. 28a: How many emergency responders on-duty on a single shift can be equipped with 

self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)? Need was defined if the answer was Most, 

Some, None, and therefore not All. (Other needs that could have been derived from 

survey responses but were not included in this analysis were that any SCBA were 10 

years old or older.)

Q. 29: How many of your emergency responders on-duty on a single shift 

are equipped with Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) devices? Need 

was defined if the answer was Most, Some, None, and therefore not All. 

Q. 30a: How many of your emergency responders are equipped with personal protective 

clothing? Need was defined if the answer was Most, Some, None, and therefore not All. 

(Other needs that could have been derived from survey responses but were not included 

in this analysis were that (a) any clothing is at least 10 years old, or (b) there were not 

reserve clothing to equip 10 percent of emergency responders.)

 Vehicles (combined with grants for “Firefighting vehicles”) 

Q. 6: What share (%) of your apparatus was [each of the listed alternatives]? Need was defined 

if a percentage greater than zero was entered under Converted Vehicles Not Designed as FD 

Apparatus. 

Q24e. Number of engines/pumpers in service [that are] 30 or more years old. Need was 

defined if a number greater than zero was entered in this blank. (Other needs that could 

have been derived from survey responses but were not included in this analysis were 

lower age thresholds of 20 or 15 years old.) 

Sufficiency. There were not enough engines to equip enough stations (one engine per 

station), optimally located, to provide community coverage in accordance with NFPA 

standards and ISO formulas. This employed the formulas used in the Needs Assessment 

report, with different distance criteria for smaller vs. larger communities, as described in 

5 
the report. Note that this was not an assessment of whether there were enough engines 

for the community’s existing stations but rather whether there were enough engines for 

the number of stations required to appropriately cover the community’s entire area. 

 Facility modification 

Q23d. Number of fire stations/Number equipped for exhaust emission control (e.g., 

diesel exhaust extraction). Need was defined if a number greater than zero was entered in 

this blank. 

 Wellness and fitness 

Q18. Does your department have a program to maintain basic firefighter fitness and 

health (e.g., as required in NFPA 1500)? Need was defined by a No answer. 

 Training (combined with grants for “EMS training”) 

Q13a. Structural firefighting. Is this a role your department performs? 

Q13b. If yes, how many of your personnel who perform this duty have received formal 

training (not just on-the-job)? 

Need is defined if the answer to Q13a is Yes and the answer to Q13b is Most, Some, or 

None, and therefore not All. (Other needs that could have been derived from survey 

responses but were not included in this analysis are some levels of personnel 

certification.) 

Q14a. Emergency medical service (EMS). Is this a role your department performs? 

Q14b. If yes, how many of your personnel who perform this duty have received formal 

training (not just on-the-job)? 

Need is defined if the answer to Q14a is Yes and the answer to Q14b is Most, Some, or 

None, and therefore not All. (Other needs that could have been derived from survey 

responses but were not included in this analysis are some levels of personnel 

certification.) 

Q15a. Hazardous materials (Hazmat). Is this a role your department performs? 

Q15b. If yes, how many of your personnel who perform this duty have received formal 

training (not just on-the-job)? 

Need is defined if the answer to Q15a is Yes and the answer to Q15b is Most, Some, or 

None, and therefore not All. (Other needs that could have been derived from survey 

responses but were not included in this analysis are some levels of personnel 

certification.) 

6 
Q16a. Wildland firefighting. Is this a role your department performs? 

Q16b. If yes, how many of your personnel who perform this duty have received formal 

training (not just on-the-job)? 

Need is defined if the answer to Q16a is Yes and the answer to Q16b is Most, Some, or 

None, and therefore not All. 

Q17a. Technical rescue. Is this a role your department performs? 

Q17b. If yes, how many of your personnel who perform this duty have received formal 

training (not just on-the-job)? 

Need is defined if the answer to Q17a is Yes and the answer to Q17b is Most, Some, or 

None, and therefore not All. 

 Prevention 

No matching with need was attempted for this category, because “prevention” covers 

such a broad and heterogeneous collection of programs, and the needs assessment 

responses are so broad and general in this area. 

 

7 

Analysis Results by Category of Need 

Firefighting equipment 

One-third of the matched awards (Table 1) and one-fourth of the granted funds for those 

awards (Table 2) went to firefighting equipment. 

Overall, there was a 98 percent match for awards and a 97 percent match for award funds 

to some type of firefighting equipment need for this category. All six types of need 

showed up with high match percentages, and no one type of need dominated the others. 

In the second needs assessment, the percentage of departments where there were not 

enough portable radios to equip everyone on a shift declined by 13 percentage points 

(from 77 percent to 64 percent) compared to the first survey. 

None of the homeland security related needs (i.e., ability to handle any of four unusually 

challenging situations with local specialized equipment) showed marked improvement, 

nor did any of the personnel needs related to those situations. 

However, there was improvement in the existence of written agreements to coordinate the 

use of outside personnel and equipment in a response. This is the most important step to 

take to improve national preparedness. The overall percentage of departments with such 

written agreements increased by 7 percentage points (from 19 percent to 26 percent) for 

the reference building collapse scenario, by 9 percentage points (from 21 percent to 30 

percent) for the reference biological/chemical agent scenario, by 7 percentage points 

(from 33 percent to 40 percent) for the reference wildland/urban interface fire scenario, 

and by 5 percentage points (from 13 percent to 18 percent) for the reference flood 

scenario. 

Lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina have a bearing on the adequacy of these 

agreements. “Across the emergency response community there is no common doctrine 

for how multiple jurisdictions should interact and respond to a single incident, or to 

numerous simultaneous incidents which span multiple jurisdictions. This is a critical 

failing.” * 

The continued gap in usage of a universal map reference system (the US National Grid), 

as documented in FA-303, Four Years Later – A Second Needs Assessment of the U.S. 

Fire Service, pp. 83-84 and Table 45, is a part of what is missing in most agreements. 

Usage of thermal imaging cameras, which is not required by any NFPA standard, saw 

one of the largest increases in any part of the second needs assessment survey. The usage 

* Hicks and Associates, Inc., A Project Responder Report: Technology Opportunities for Implementing the 

National Incident Management System (NIMS), for the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of 

Terrorism and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, October 2005. 

9 
increased (and the need therefore decreased) by 31 percentage points (from 24 percent to 

55 percent). 

This increase in usage even outpaced expressions of intent to acquire cameras, as 

reported in the first needs assessment survey, strongly suggesting that the availability of 

grant funds made the difference in these purchases. 

Personal protective equipment 

More than one-third of the matched awards and granted funds for those awards (Tables 3-

4) went to personal protective equipment. 

Overall, there was a 68 percent match for awards and a 53 percent match for award funds 

to some type of need for this category. The needs checked were self-contained breathing 

apparatus (SCBA), personal alert safety system (PASS) devices, and personal protective 

clothing. 

Matching varied substantially by size of community as did this category’s share of grants. 

For communities of 50,000 or more population, less than 30 percent of awards were for 

this category and 10 percent or less of awards showing matching with a reported need. 

Conversely, for rural communities, 42 percent of awards were for personal protective 

equipment and there was a 93 percent matching rate with need. 

The gap in matching could represent grants to replace old equipment with equipment that 

performs better and more in compliance with NFPA standards, grants to achieve a reserve 

in compliance with NFPA standards, or grants addressed to types of equipment other than 

the three types included in the survey. 

Many estimated needs showed lower measures in 2005 than in 2001 in this category. The 

percentage of departments without enough SCBA to equip all emergency responders on a 

shift declined by 10 percentage points (from 70 percent to 60 percent). The percentage 

without enough PASS devices to equip all emergency responders on a shift declined by 

14 percentage points (from 62 percent to 48 percent). Also, the percentage of 

departments with some SCBA at least 10 years old declined by 11 percentage points 

(from 45 percent to 34 percent) and the percentage with some personal protective 

clothing at least 10 years old declined by 5 percentage points (from 37 percent to 32 

percent). 

Vehicles and facility modification 

Vehicles (typically engines or pumpers) represented only 8 percent of matched grants but 

20 percent of grant funds for matched grants (Tables 5-6). Facility modification is 

included on the same tables because the only need addressed in the survey was vehicle10 
related (i.e., exhaust emission control). Facility modification represented only 5 percent 

of matched grants and 7 percent of grant funds for matched grants. 

Overall, there was an 83 percent match for vehicle awards and an 80 percent match for 

vehicle award funds to some type of need for this category. The sufficiency check, which 

showed a high need for all communities in the Needs Assessment report, accounted for 

most of the matching for vehicle grants. 

Converted vehicles were an issue primarily for smaller communities where presumably 

they were used by volunteer firefighters. Vehicle grants also represented a larger share of 

total grants for smaller communities (e.g., 13 percent for rural communities of less than 

2,500 population compared to 4 percent or less for communities of 10,000 or more 

population). This was even more evident as a share of total grant funds (e.g., 40 percent 

for rural communities compared to 10 percent or less for communities of 25,000 or more 

population). 

The gap in vehicle matching could in part represent grants to replace old vehicles that 

were not 30 years old. 

None of the needs related to vehicles showed substantial improvement in the second 

needs assessment survey, and this was true for the age profile of the fleet, regardless of 

where the cut-off was set. 

Overall, there was a 73 percent match for facility modification awards and a 70 percent 

match for facility modification award funds to the only type of need included in the 

survey for this category, namely, exhaust emission control. There are known to be other 

well-established facility design needs related to firefighter safety and health (which were 

the only modifications these grants were intended to address), such as safety of passage 

between floors (replacing the old slide poles). Therefore, the 73 percent is actually a 

pretty high match percentage for only one type of need. 

The percentage of stations not equipped for exhaust emission control declined by 6 

percentage points (from 78 percent to 72 percent) in the second needs assessment survey. 

Training 

Only 9 percent of the matched awards (Table 7) and only 4 percent of the granted funds 

for those awards (Table 8) went to training. This illustrates the general point that grants 

were sought and awarded far more for objects than for knowledge and skills. Training 

represented a larger share of awards and funds for larger communities than for smaller 

communities. 

Overall, there was an 88 percent match for awards and an 80 percent match for award 

funds to some type of training need for this category. EMS training showed a lower 

matching rate to needs (32 percent) than did any of the other four types of training needs 

11 
12 

examined (40 percent for structural firefighting training, 52 percent for hazmat response 

training, 55 percent each for wildland firefighting training and technical rescue training). 

Matching rates were low in larger communities for every type of training other than 

technical rescue training. Matching rates for technical rescue training were higher in 

larger communities than in smaller communities, while the reverse was true for the other 

four types of training. 

So many specific elements of training are included in each of these types that one must be 

cautious in attributing too much meaning to the matching gaps. There is a major 

difference between providing all involved personnel any formal training and providing 

them will all needed training. 

Wellness and fitness programs 

Only 4 percent of the matched awards (Table 9) and only 4 percent of the granted funds 

for those awards (Table 10) went to wellness and fitness programs. Wellness and fitness 

programs represented a larger share of awards and funds for larger communities than for 

smaller communities (e.g., more than 10 percent of awards for communities of 100,000 

population or more vs. 2 percent of awards for communities of less than 5,000 

population). 

Overall, there was a 64 percent match for awards and a 62 percent match for award funds 

to the need defined by not having any program of this type. There is a major difference 

between providing any program and providing a complete program with all necessary 

elements. 

Prevention 

Only 3 percent of the matched awards (Table 9) and only 2 percent of the granted funds 

for those awards (Table 10) went to prevention programs. This excludes the dedicated 

funds for national organizations and their prevention programs. 

Prevention program usage improved in every category except arguably the two most 

important ones – public fire safety school education programs based on a national model 

and conducting fire-code inspections. The size of the population protected by 

departments with no plans review declined by 6 percentage points (from 29 percent to 23 

percent), with no permit approval by 5 percentage points (from 45 percent to 40 percent), 

with no routine testing of active systems by 5 percentage points (from 49 percent to 44 

percent), with no free smoke alarm distribution program by 7 percentage points (from 42 

percent to 35 percent), and with no juvenile firesetter programs by 7 percentage points 

(from 48 percent to 41 percent). 
Table 1 

Reported Needs vs. Awarded Grants – Firefighting Equipment 

Community 

Size 

Percent of 

Awards 

Need 

Any Question 

Need 

Q27a 

Need 

Q36a,c 

Need 

Q37a,c 

Need 

Q38a,c 

500,000 or more 32% 94% 56% 38% 16% 44% 250,000 to 499,999 28% 100% 50% 47% 33% 43% 100,000 to 249,999 39% 97% 54% 66% 40% 43% 

50,000 to 99,999 33% 96% 50% 64% 63% 38% 25,000 to 49,999 33% 94% 50% 67% 60% 35% 10,000 to 24,999 33% 96% 54% 63% 63% 42% 

5,000 to 9,999 35% 98% 73% 55% 56% 53% 2,500 to 4,999 37% 99% 78% 52% 53% 47% 

Under 2,500 34% 100% 85% 39% 42% 49% 

 Total 34% 98% 70% 53% 53% 46% Note: Reported needs defined by indicated responses to questions. Need requires positive indication of need; blank answer to question 

Percents in second column are percent of all grants to departments in that population stratum for which the grant was for the indicated r

firefighting equipment. Percents in third through ninth columns are (number of grants to departments in that population stratum for the 

the grantee department reported a need on any of the specified questions)/(number of grants to departments in that population stratum fFirefighting equipment accounted for 5,119 of the 14,925 grants in the database. 

Q. 27a: How many of your emergency responders on-duty on a single shift can be equipped with portable radios? Need existed if the aor None, and therefore not All.Q. 36a: Is technical rescue and EMS for a building with 50 occupants after structural collapse within your department’s responsibility? Q. 36c: If [technical rescue and EMS for a building with 50 occupants after structural collapse is within your department’s responsibilihave to go to obtain enough specialized equipment to handle this incident? Need is defined if the answer to Q. 36a is Yes and the answState, or National and not Local Would Be Enough. Q. 37a: Is hazmat and EMS for an incident involving chemical/biological agents and 10 injuries within your department’s responsibilitQ. 37c: If [hazmat and EMS for an incident involving chemical/biological agents and 10 injuries is within your department’s responsibhave to go to obtain enough specialized equipment to handle this incident? Need is defined if the answer to Q. 37a is Yes and the answState, or National and not Local Would Be Enough. 

13 
Table 1 

Reported Needs vs. Awarded Grants – Firefighting Equipment (Continued) 

Q. 38a: Is a wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres within your department’s responsibility? Q. 38c: If [wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres is within your department’s responsibility], how far would you have to go specialized equipment to handle this incident? Need is defined if the answer to Q. 38a is Yes and the answer to Q. 38c is Regional, StaLocal Would Be Enough. 

Q. 39a: Is mitigation (confining, slowing, etc.) of a developing major flood within your department’s responsibility? Q. 39c: If [mitigation (confining, slowing, etc.) of a developing major flood is within your department’s responsibility], how far would enough specialized equipment to handle this incident? Need is defined if the answer to Q. 39a is Yes and the answer to Q. 39c is Regionot Local Would Be Enough. Q. 40: Do you have any [thermal imaging cameras] now or plan to acquire any? Need is defined if any answer is given other than Now 

Source: USFA files on Fire Act grantees for “Firefighting Equipment,” “EMS Equipment,” and “Equipment”, and matching to USFA/

2001 survey responses 

14 
Table 2 

Reported Needs vs. Grant Amounts – Firefighting Equipment 

Community 

Size 

Percent of 

Dollars Granted 

Need 

Any Question 

Need 

Q27a 

Need 

Q36a,c 

Need 

Q37a,c 

Need 

Q38a,c 

500,000 or more 28% 98% 60% 37% 17% 42% 250,000 to 499,999 20% 100% 38% 68% 34% 32% 100,000 to 249,999 42% 97% 49% 59% 37% 43% 

50,000 to 99,999 33% 94% 50% 69% 61% 48% 25,000 to 49,999 28% 93% 51% 66% 59% 36% 10,000 to 24,999 25% 97% 52% 65% 65% 45% 

5,000 to 9,999 22% 99% 72% 59% 59% 55% 2,500 to 4,999 21% 99% 76% 51% 55% 50% 

Under 2,500 18% 100% 84% 39% 43% 49% 

 Total 25% 97% 61% 58% 53% 46% Note: Reported needs defined by indicated responses to questions. Need requires positive indication of need; blank answer to question 

Percents in second column are percent of all grant dollars to departments in that population stratum for which the grant was for the indi

is firefighting equipment. Percents in third through ninth columns are (number of grant dollars to departments in that population stratum resource where the grantee department reported a need on any of the specified questions)/(number of grant dollars to departments in tha

the indicated resource). Firefighting equipment accounted for $237 million of the $960 million in grant money in the database.

Q. 27a: How many of your emergency responders on-duty on a single shift can be equipped with portable radios? Need existed if the aor None, and therefore not All.Q. 36a: Is technical rescue and EMS for a building with 50 occupants after structural collapse within your department’s responsibility? Q. 36c: If [technical rescue and EMS for a building with 50 occupants after structural collapse is within your department’s responsibilihave to go to obtain enough specialized equipment to handle this incident? Need is defined if the answer to Q. 36a is Yes and the answState, or National and not Local Would Be Enough. Q. 37a: Is hazmat and EMS for an incident involving chemical/biological agents and 10 injuries within your department’s responsibilitQ. 37c: If [hazmat and EMS for an incident involving chemical/biological agents and 10 injuries is within your department’s responsibhave to go to obtain enough specialized equipment to handle this incident? Need is defined if the answer to Q. 37a is Yes and the answState, or National and not Local Would Be Enough. 

15 
Table 2 

Reported Needs vs. Grant Amounts – Firefighting Equipment (Continued) 

Q. 38a: Is a wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres within your department’s responsibility? Q. 38c: If [wildland/urban interface fire affecting 500 acres is within your department’s responsibility], how far would you have to go specialized equipment to handle this incident? Need is defined if the answer to Q. 38a is Yes and the answer to Q. 38c is Regional, StaLocal Would Be Enough. 

Q. 39a: Is mitigation (confining, slowing, etc.) of a developing major flood within your department’s responsibility? Q. 39c: If [mitigation (confining, slowing, etc.) of a developing major flood is within your department’s responsibility], how far would enough specialized equipment to handle this incident? Need is defined if the answer to Q. 39a is Yes and the answer to Q. 39c is Regionot Local Would Be Enough. Q. 40: Do you have any [thermal imaging cameras] now or plan to acquire any? Need is defined if any answer is given other than Now 

Source: USFA files on Fire Act grantees for “Firefighting Equipment,” “EMS Equipment,” and “Equipment”, and matching to USFA/

2001 survey responses 

16 
Table 3 

Reported Needs vs. Awarded Grants – Personal Protective Equipment 

Community 

Size 

Percent of 

Awards 

Need 

Any Question 

Need 

Q28a 

Need 

Q29 

500,000 or more 28% 4% 4% 4% 250,000 to 499,999 27% 10% 0% 3% 100,000 to 249,999 20% 7% 6% 4% 

50,000 to 99,999 29% 7% 4% 6% 25,000 to 49,999 29% 22% 16% 15% 10,000 to 24,999 34% 40% 32% 29% 

5,000 to 9,999 39% 70% 62% 53% 2,500 to 4,999 41% 85% 79% 69% 

Under 2,500 42% 93% 87% 78% 

Total 37% 68% 61% 54% 

Note: Reported needs defined by indicated responses to questions. Need requires positive indication of need; blank answer to question 

Percents in second column are percent of all grants to departments in that population stratum for which the grant was for the indicated r

personal protective equipment. Percents in third through sixth columns are (number of grants to departments in that population stratum where the grantee department reported a need on any of the specified questions)/(number of grants to departments in that population strresource). Personal protective equipment accounted for 5,533 of the 14,925 grants in the database. 

Q. 28a: How many emergency responders on-duty on a single shift can be equipped with self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)? answer was Most, Some, None, and therefore not All. Q. 29: How many of your emergency responders on-duty on a single shift are equipped with Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) devNeed was defined if the answer was Most, Some, None, and therefore not All. Q. 30a: How many of your emergency responders are equipped with personal protective clothing? Need was defined if the answer watherefore not All. Source: USFA files on Fire Act grant recipients and matching to USFA/NFPA Needs Assessment 2001 survey responses 

17 
Table 4 

Reported Needs vs. Grant Amounts – Personal Protective Equipment 

Community 

Size 

Percent of 

Dollars Granted 

Need 

Any Question 

Need 

Q28a 

Need 

Q29 

500,000 or more 32% 4% 4% 4% 250,000 to 499,999 37% 9% 0% 7% 100,000 to 249,999 28% 3% 3% 1% 

50,000 to 99,999 32% 11% 6% 10% 25,000 to 49,999 36% 21% 16% 17% 10,000 to 24,999 42% 39% 30% 28% 

5,000 to 9,999 44% 68% 59% 52% 2,500 to 4,999 43% 83% 78% 66% 

Under 2,500 39% 92% 86% 77% 

 Total 39% 53% 47% 42% Note: Reported needs defined by indicated responses to questions. Need requires positive indication of need; blank answer to question 

Percents in second column are percent of all grant dollars to departments in that population stratum for which the grant was for the indi

is personal protective equipment. Percents in third through sixth columns are (number of grant dollars to departments in that population resource where the grantee department reported a need on any of the specified questions)/(number of grant dollars to departments in tha

the indicated resource). Personal protective equipment accounted for $373 million of the $960 million in grant money in the database. 

Q. 28a: How many emergency responders on-duty on a single shift can be equipped with self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)? answer was Most, Some, None, and therefore not All. Q. 29: How many of your emergency responders on-duty on a single shift are equipped with Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) devNeed was defined if the answer was Most, Some, None, and therefore not All. Q. 30a: How many of your emergency responders are equipped with personal protective clothing? Need was defined if the answer watherefore not All. Source: USFA files on Fire Act grant recipients and matching to USFA/NFPA Needs Assessment 2001 survey responses 

18 
Table 5 

Reported Needs vs. Awarded Grants – Vehicles and Facility Modification 

Community 

Size 

Vehicle Percent 

of Awards 

Need 

Any Question 

Need 

Q6e 

Need 

Q24e 

Need 

Sufficiency 

Facility Perce

of Awards 

500,000 or more 1% 100% 0% 0% 100% 9% 250,000 to 499,999 0% NA NA NA NA 9% 100,000 to 249,999 3% 40% 0% 30% 40% 6% 

50,000 to 99,999 4% 71% 4% 13% 63% 7% 25,000 to 49,999 3% 48% 2% 13% 44% 9% 10,000 to 24,999 4% 76% 24% 30% 58% 8% 

5,000 to 9,999 7% 82% 33% 35% 62% 6% 2,500 to 4,999 9% 85% 35% 38% 66% 3% 

Under 2,500 13% 89% 43% 47% 68% 2% 

 Total 8% 83% 35% 39% 64% 5% NA – Not applicable because there were no such awards. Note: Reported needs defined by indicated responses to questions. Need requires positive indication of need; blank answer to question 

Percents in second and seventh column are percents of all grants to departments in that population stratum for which the grant was for twhich here is vehicles and facility modification, respectively. Percents in third through sixth and eighth columns are (number of grants 

population stratum for the indicated resource where the grantee department reported a need on any of the specified questions)/(number 

in that population stratum for the indicated resource). Vehicles and facility modification accounted for 1,147 and 767, respectively, of 

database. 

Q. 6: What share (%) of your apparatus was [each of the listed alternatives]? Need was defined if a percentage greater than zero was e

Not Designed as FD Apparatus. 

Q24e. Number of engines/pumpers in service [that are] 30 or more years old. Need was defined if a number greater than zero was enteSufficiency. There were not enough engines to equip enough stations (one engine per station), optimally located, to provide community 

with NFPA standards and ISO formulas. This employed the formulas used in the Needs Assessment report, with different distance critecommunities, as described in the report. 

19 
Table 5 

Reported Needs vs. Awarded Grants – Vehicles and Facility Modification (Continued

Q23d. Number of fire stations/Number equipped for exhaust emission control (e.g., diesel exhaust extraction). Need was defined if a n

was entered in this blank. 

Source: USFA files on Fire Act grantees for “Firefighting Vehicles” and “Vehicles”, and matching to USFA/NFPA Needs Assessment 

20 
Table 6 

Reported Needs vs. Grant Amounts – Vehicles and Facility Modification 

Community 

Size 

Vehicle Percent of 

Dollars Granted 

Need 

Any Question 

Need 

Q6e 

Need 

Q24e 

Need 

Sufficiency 

Facility Perce

of Dollars Gran

500,000 or more 1% 100% 0% 0% 100% 16% 250,000 to 499,999 0% NA NA NA NA 16% 100,000 to 249,999 4% 41% 0% 26% 41% 8% 

50,000 to 99,999 8% 65% 4% 10% 58% 8% 25,000 to 49,999 10% 42% 2% 8% 40% 10% 10,000 to 24,999 14% 70% 19% 28% 53% 9% 

5,000 to 9,999 22% 82% 31% 32% 63% 5% 2,500 to 4,999 30% 85% 36% 39% 62% 3% 

Under 2,500 40% 88% 41% 46% 66% 1% 

 Total 20% 80% 31% 36% 61% 7% NA – Not applicable because there were no such awards. Note: Reported needs defined by indicated responses to questions. Need requires positive indication of need; blank answer to question 

Percents in second and seventh columns are percent of all grant dollars to departments in that population stratum for which the grant waresource, which here is vehicles and facility modification, respectively. Percents in third through sixth and eighth columns are (number 

departments in that population stratum for the indicated resource where the grantee department reported a need on any of the specified grant dollars to departments in that population stratum for the indicated resource). Vehicles and facility modification accounted for $19

million, respectively, of the $960 million in grant money in the database. 

Q. 6: What share (%) of your apparatus was [each of the listed alternatives]? Need was defined if a percentage greater than zero was e

Not Designed as FD Apparatus. 

Q24e. Number of engines/pumpers in service [that are] 30 or more years old. Need was defined if a number greater than zero was enteSufficiency. There were not enough engines to equip enough stations (one engine per station), optimally located, to provide community 

with NFPA standards and ISO formulas. This employed the formulas used in the Needs Assessment report, with different distance critecommunities, as described in the report. 

21 
Table 6 

Reported Needs vs. Grant Amounts – Vehicles and Facility Modification (Continued) 

Q23d. Number of fire stations/Number equipped for exhaust emission control (e.g., diesel exhaust extraction). Need was defined if a n

was entered in this blank. 

Source: USFA files on Fire Act grantees for “Firefighting Vehicles” and “Vehicles”, and matching to USFA/NFPA Needs Assessment 

22 
Table 7 

Reported Needs vs. Awarded Grants – Training 

Community 

Size 

Training Percent 

of Awards 

Need 

Any Question 

Need 

Q13a,b 

Need 

Q14a,b 

Need 

Q15a,b 

Need 

Q16a,b 

500,000 or more 13% 46% 8% 8% 8% 31% 250,000 to 499,999 14% 87% 7% 20% 27% 13% 100,000 to 249,999 14% 82% 8% 16% 24% 43% 

50,000 to 99,999 12% 72% 9% 19% 23% 32% 25,000 to 49,999 11% 82% 20% 15% 40% 38% 10,000 to 24,999 11% 85% 29% 28% 51% 46% 

5,000 to 9,999 9% 88% 43% 34% 60% 61% 2,500 to 4,999 8% 93% 53% 43% 64% 65% 

Under 2,500 7% 96% 68% 42% 63% 74% 

 Total 9% 88% 40% 32% 52% 55% Note: Reported needs defined by indicated responses to questions. Need requires positive indication of need; blank answer to question 

Percents in second column are percent of all grants to departments in that population stratum for which the grant was for the indicated r

training. Percents in third through eighth columns are (number of grants to departments in that population stratum for the indicated resdepartment reported a need on any of the specified questions)/(number of grants to departments in that population stratum for the indicaaccounted for 1,335 of the 14,925 grants in the database. 

Q13a. Structural firefighting. Is this a role your department performs? Q13b. If yes, how many of your personnel who perform this duty have received formal training (not just on-the-job)? Need is defined 

Yes and the answer to Q13b is Most, Some, or None, and therefore not All. 

Q14a. Emergency medical service (EMS). Is this a role your department performs? Q14b. If yes, how many of your personnel who perform this duty have received formal training (not just on-the-job)? Need is defined 

Yes and the answer to Q14b is Most, Some, or None, and therefore not All. 

Q15a. Hazardous materials (Hazmat). Is this a role your department performs? Q15b. If yes, how many of your personnel who perform this duty have received formal training (not just on-the-job)? Need is defined 

Yes and the answer to Q15b is Most, Some, or None, and therefore not All. 

23 
Table 7 

Reported Needs vs. Awarded Grants – Training (Continued) 

Q16a. Wildland firefighting. Is this a role your department performs? Q16b. If yes, how many of your personnel who perform this duty have received formal training (not just on-the-job)? Need is defined 

Yes and the answer to Q16b is Most, Some, or None, and therefore not All. 

Q17a. Technical rescue. Is this a role your department performs? Q17b. If yes, how many of your personnel who perform this duty have received formal training (not just on-the-job)? Need is defined 

Yes and the answer to Q17b is Most, Some, or None, and therefore not All. 

Source: USFA files on Fire Act grantees for “Training” and “EMS Training”, and matching to USFA/NFPA Needs Assessment 2001 s

24 
Table 8 

Reported Needs vs. Grant Amounts – Training 

Community 

Size 

Training Percent of 

Dollars Granted 

Need 

Any Question 

Need 

Q13a,b 

Need 

Q14a,b 

Need 

Q15a,b 

Need 

Q16a,b 

500,000 or more 6% 42% 11% 2% 11% 38% 250,000 to 499,999 4% 80% 4% 11% 18% 7% 100,000 to 249,999 5% 76% 5% 18% 23% 40% 

50,000 to 99,999 7% 71% 6% 15% 10% 25% 25,000 to 49,999 6% 82% 13% 8% 40% 29% 10,000 to 24,999 5% 82% 27% 29% 45% 45% 

5,000 to 9,999 3% 91% 41% 27% 66% 57% 2,500 to 4,999 2% 92% 43% 37% 58% 66% 

Under 2,500 2% 97% 64% 46% 72% 76% 

 Total 4% 80% 24% 21% 40% 43% Note: Reported needs defined by indicated responses to questions. Need requires positive indication of need; blank answer to question 

Percents in second column are percent of all grant dollars to departments in that population stratum for which the grant was for the indi

is training. Percents in third through eighth columns are (number of grant dollars to departments in that population stratum for the indicgrantee department reported a need on any of the specified questions)/(number of grant dollars to departments in that population stratum resource). Training accounted for $37 million of the $960 million in grant money in the database. 

Q13a. Structural firefighting. Is this a role your department performs? Q13b. If yes, how many of your personnel who perform this duty have received formal training (not just on-the-job)? Need is defined 

Yes and the answer to Q13b is Most, Some, or None, and therefore not All. 

Q14a. Emergency medical service (EMS). Is this a role your department performs? Q14b. If yes, how many of your personnel who perform this duty have received formal training (not just on-the-job)? Need is defined 

Yes and the answer to Q14b is Most, Some, or None, and therefore not All. 

Q15a. Hazardous materials (Hazmat). Is this a role your department performs? Q15b. If yes, how many of your personnel who perform this duty have received formal training (not just on-the-job)? Need is defined 

Yes and the answer to Q15b is Most, Some, or None, and therefore not All. 

25 
Table 8 

Reported Needs vs. Grant Amounts – Training (Continued) 

Q16a. Wildland firefighting. Is this a role your department performs? Q16b. If yes, how many of your personnel who perform this duty have received formal training (not just on-the-job)? Need is defined 

Yes and the answer to Q16b is Most, Some, or None, and therefore not All. 

Q17a. Technical rescue. Is this a role your department performs? Q17b. If yes, how many of your personnel who perform this duty have received formal training (not just on-the-job)? Need is defined 

Yes and the answer to Q17b is Most, Some, or None, and therefore not All. 

Source: USFA files on Fire Act grantees for “Training” and “EMS Training”, and matching to USFA/NFPA Needs Assessment 2001 s

26 
Table 9 

Reported Needs vs. Awarded Grants – 

Wellness/Fitness and Fire Prevention Programs 

Community 

Size 

Wellness/Fitness 

Percent of Awards 

Need 

Q18 

Fire Prevention 

Percent of Awards 

500,000 or more 11% 27% 7% 250,000 to 499,999 13% 57% 8% 100,000 to 249,999 13% 64% 6% 

50,000 to 99,999 8% 70% 8% 25,000 to 49,999 9% 55% 6% 10,000 to 24,999 6% 65% 4% 

5,000 to 9,999 3% 66% 2% 2,500 to 4,999 2% 77% 1% 

Under 2,500 2% 67% 1% 

 Total 4% 64% 3% Note: Reported needs defined by indicated responses to questions. Need requires positive indication of need; blank answer to question is interpreted as no need. Percents in second and fourth columns are percent of all grants to departments in that population stratum for which the grant was for the indicated resource, which here is wellness/fitness and fire prevention, respectively. Percents in third column are (number of grants to departments in that population stratum for the indicated resource where the grantee 

department reported a need on any of the specified questions)/(number of grants to departments in that population stratum for the indicated resource). Wellness/fitness and fire prevention accounted for 627 and 397, respectively, of the 14,925 grants in the database. 

Q18. Does your department have a program to maintain basic firefighter fitness and health (e.g., as required in NFPA 1500)? Need was defined by a No answer. Source: USFA files on Fire Act grant recipients and matching to USFA/NFPA Needs Assessment 2001 survey responses 

27 
Table 10

Reported Needs vs. Grant Amounts – 

Wellness/Fitness and Fire Prevention Programs 

Community 

Size 

Wellness/Fitness Percent 

of Dollars Granted 

Need 

Q18 

Fire Prevention Percent 

of Dollars Granted 

500,000 or more 12% 13% 4% 250,000 to 499,999 20% 74% 3% 100,000 to 249,999 11% 73% 2% 

50,000 to 99,999 8% 80% 5% 25,000 to 49,999 6% 50% 4% 10,000 to 24,999 4% 68% 3% 

5,000 to 9,999 1% 58% 2% 2,500 to 4,999 1% 76% 1% 

Under 2,500 0% 66% 0% 

 Total 4% 62% 2% Note: Reported needs defined by indicated responses to questions. Need requires positive indication of need; blank answer to question is interpreted as no need. Percents in second and fourth columns are percent of all grant dollars to departments in that population stratum for which the grant was for the indicated resource, which here is wellness/fitness and fire prevention, respectively. Percents in third column are (number of grant dollars to departments in that population stratum for the indicated resource where the grantee department reported a need on any of the specified questions)/(number of grant dollars to departments in that population stratum for the indicated resource). Wellness/fitness and fire prevention accounted for $38 million and $22 million, respectively, of the $960 million of grant money in the database. Q18. Does your department have a program to maintain basic firefighter fitness and health (e.g., as required in NFPA 1500)? Need was defined by a No answer. Source: USFA files on Fire Act grant recipients and matching to USFA/NFPA Needs Assessment 2001 survey responses 

28