GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

FIRE GRANTS 

FEMA Has Met Most 

Requirements for 

Awarding Fire Grants, 

but Additional Actions 

Would Improve Its 

Grant Process 

October 2009 

GAO-10-64 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

October 2009

FIRE GRANTS

FEMA Has Met Most Requirements for Awarding Fire 

Grants, but Additional Actions Would Improve Its

Highlights of GAO-10-64, a report to Grant Process

congressional committees 

The Department of Homeland 

Security, through the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), awards grants to fire 

departments and other 

organizations for equipment, 

staffing, and other needs. As of July 

2009, FEMA had received about 

25,000 and 22,000 applications for 

its fiscal years 2007 and 2008 fire 

grant programs, respectively, and 

had awarded more than 5,000 

grants in both years. GAO was 

congressionally directed to review 

the application and award process 

for these grants. This report 

addresses the (1) extent to which 

FEMA has met statutory and 

program requirements for 

distributing the grant funds; 

(2) actions FEMA has taken to 

provide assistance to grant 

applicants and involve the fire 

service community in the grant 

process; and (3) extent to which 

FEMA has ensured that its grant 

process is accessible, clear, and 

consistent with requirements, 

including its grant guidance. GAO 

analyzed relevant laws and 

interviewed 36 randomly selected 

grant applicants to obtain their 

views, but the results are not 

generalizable. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that FEMA, 

among other things, establish a 

procedure to track Emergency 

Medical Service (EMS) awards, 

ensure that grant priorities are 

aligned with application questions 

and scoring values, and provide 

specific feedback to rejected 

applicants. DHS agreed with GAO’s 

recommendations. 

FEMA met seven of eight statutory requirements and two of three FEMA 

established program requirements for distributing fiscal years 2007 and 2008 

grant funds. (GAO used fiscal year 2007 data for two requirements because 

not all fiscal year 2008 funds had been awarded by July 2009.) For example, 

FEMA met the statutory requirement that volunteer and combination fire 

departments (which have both paid and volunteer firefighters) collectively 

receive at least a minimum of 55 percent of fiscal year 2008 grant funds, and 

also met the program requirement that volunteer departments receive at least 

22 percent. GAO was unable to determine whether FEMA met the statutory 

requirement that at least 3.5 percent of fiscal year 2008 grant funds be 

awarded for EMS. FEMA reported that its system is not designed to separately 

track grants awarded to fire departments for EMS purposes and, therefore, it 

could not determine if it met this requirement. FEMA reported that while it 

conducted research to determine that it met this requirement for 1 year, doing 

so was laborious. Establishing procedures to track awards for EMS purposes 

would allow FEMA to readily determine if it met statutory requirements. 

FEMA assists grant applicants by sponsoring workshops and involves 

representatives of the fire service community in establishing criteria and 

reviewing applications. Each year, FEMA convenes leaders of nine major fire 

service organizations to conduct a criteria development meeting to develop 

the program’s criteria and funding priorities. FEMA’s peer review process—in 

which members of the fire service organizations assess grant applications—

also helps ensure that the fire service community is involved in the grant 

process. FEMA officials stated that they strive to provide an even chance for 

as many fire departments and other organizations as possible to serve on peer 

review panels. They also stated that they are considering conducting outreach 

efforts to expand peer review participation, such as announcing opportunities 

to serve on an upcoming peer review panel at workshops. 

FEMA has taken actions to ensure that its fire grants award process is 

accessible and clear to grant applicants—28 of 36 applicants GAO interviewed 

found the guidance to be clear—but GAO also identified inconsistencies 

between the stated grant application priorities and the application questions 

and scoring values. For example, the fiscal year 2008 guidance for the grant 

that funds the recruitment and retention of firefighters states that continuity—

maintaining recruitment and retention efforts beyond the life of the grant—

was a priority for grant awards. However, no grant application question 

addressed this priority and the scoring values did not include it. Thus, it is 

difficult for FEMA to ensure that grant funds are awarded in accordance with 

the agency’s funding priorities. Further, four of the nine major fire service 

organizations voiced concerns about feedback FEMA provided to rejected 

applicants, and 22 of the 36 applicants stated that the feedback was helpful to 

little or no extent. FEMA officials stated that they could strengthen efforts to 

improve feedback. Providing specific feedback to rejected applicants could 

help FEMA strengthen future grant application processes. 

View GAO-10-64 or key components.

For more information, contact William O. 

Jenkins, Jr. at (202) 512-8777 or 

jenkinswo@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-64 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 6 

FEMA Met Most Statutory and Program Requirements for 

Distributing Grants, but Did Not Fully Track Compliance with 

One Statutory Requirement and Had Not Fully Met One Program 

Requirement for Fiscal Year 2007 14 

FEMA Has Taken Actions to Assist Grant Applicants and Involves 

the Fire Service Community in Establishing Grant Criteria and 

Reviewing Grant Applications 24 

While FEMA Has Taken Actions to Help Make Its Grant Process 

More Accessible, FEMA Could Benefit from Improved Clarity 

and Consistency of Grant Guidance and Better Controls over the 

Process for Reviewing and Approving Grant Guidance 29 

Conclusions 41 

Recommendations for Executive Action 41 

Agency Comments 42 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 44 

Appendix II Statutory Requirements for Fire Grants 50 

Appendix III Mission, Membership, and Description of Fire Service 

Organizations 54 

Appendix IV Application and Award Process for Fire Grants 57 

Appendix V AFG, SAFER, and FP&S Applicants and Award 

Distribution by State 63 

Appendix VI Distribution of AFG, SAFER, and FP&S Awards by 

Department Type, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 69 

 Fire Grants 
Appendix VII Distribution of AFG, SAFER, and FP&S Awards by 

Community Service Area, Fiscal Years 2002 through 

2008 71 

Appendix VIII Distribution of AFG Awards by Activity, Fiscal Years 

2002 through 2008 73 

Appendix IX Distribution of AFG, SAFER, and FP&S Awards and 

Funding by Department Type 74 

Appendix X Distribution of AFG, SAFER, and FP&S Awards and 

Funding by Community Service Area 76 

Appendix XI Fire Grant Applicants in Nonprobability Sample 78 

Appendix XII Time Frames for the Fiscal Year 2008 Fire Grants 

Process 80 

Appendix XIII Unsuccessful AFG, SAFER, and FP&S Applicants by 

Department Type and Community Service Area 81 

Appendix XIV Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 84 

Appendix XV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 86 

Page ii GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Tables 

Table 1: Appropriations for AFG and SAFER, Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2009 9 

Table 2: Total Number of Fire Grant Applications and Awards by 

Activity 13 

Table 3: GAO Assessment of Whether FEMA Met Statutory and 

Program Requirements for Distributing Fire Grant Funds, 

Fiscal Year 2008 15 

Table 4: GAO Assessment of Whether FEMA Requested That AFG 

and FP&S Applicants Submit Statutorily Required 

Information with Their Grant Applications, Fiscal Year 

2008 31 

Table 5: GAO Assessment of Whether FEMA Requested That 

SAFER Applicants Submit Statutorily Required 

Information with Their Grant Applications, Fiscal Year 

2008 33 

Table 6: AFG, FP&S, and SAFER Statutory Requirements 50 

Table 7: Mission, Membership, and Description of Fire Service 

Organizations 54 

Table 8: AFG Applicants and Award Breakdown by State for Fiscal 

Year 2008 63 

Table 9: SAFER Applicants and Awards Breakdown by State for 

Fiscal Year 2008 65 

Table 10: FP&S Applicants and Awards Breakdown by State for 

Fiscal Year 2007 67 

Table 11: Distribution of AFG Awards by Department Type for 

Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 69 

Table 12: Distribution of SAFER Awards by Department Type for 

Fiscal Years 2005 through 2008 70 

Table 13: Distribution of FP&S Awards by Department Type for 

Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007 70 

Table 14: Distribution of AFG Awards by Community Service Area 

for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 71 

Table 15: Distribution of SAFER Awards by Community Service 

Area for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2008 72 

Table 16: Distribution of FP&S Awards by Community Service Area 

for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007 72 

Table 17: Distribution of AFG Awards by Activity for Fiscal Years 

2002 through 2008 73 

Table 18: Distribution of AFG Awards and Funding by Department 

Type for Fiscal Year 2008 74 

Page iii GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Table 19: Distribution of SAFER Grant Awards and Funding by 

Department Type for Fiscal Year 2008 74 

Table 20: Distribution of FP&S Awards and Funding by Department 

Type for Fiscal Year 2007 75 

Table 21: Distribution of AFG Grant Awards and Funding by 

Community Service Area for Fiscal Year 2008 76 

Table 22: Distribution of SAFER Awards and Funding by 

Community Service Area for Fiscal Year 2008 76 

Table 23: Distribution of FP&S Awards and Funding by Community 

Service Area for Fiscal Year 2007 77 

Table 24: Fire Grant Applicants in Nonprobability Sample 78 

Table 25: Breakdown of Unsuccessful AFG Applicants by 

Department Type and Community Service Area for Fiscal 

Year 2008 81 

Table 26: Breakdown of Unsuccessful SAFER Applicants by 

Department Type and Community Service Area for Fiscal 

Year 2008 82 

Table 27: Breakdown of Unsuccessful FP&S Applicants by 

Department Type and Community Service Area for Fiscal 

Year 2007 83 

Figures 

Figure 1: Application and Award Process for Fire Grants 11 

Figure 2: National Distribution of Federal Funds for Fire Grant 

Programs, Fiscal Year 2008 12 

Figure 3: Minimum Statutory Award Distribution Requirements and 

Actual Amounts FEMA Awarded to Volunteer and 

Combination Fire Departments under the AFG Program 

from Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 17 

Figure 4: Maximum AFG Program Award Distribution 

Requirements and Actual Awards by Career Departments 

from Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 19 

Figure 5: AFG Guidance Requirements and Actual Awards for 

Volunteer and Combination Departments, Fiscal Years 

2007 through 2008 21 

Figure 6: SAFER Statutory Requirements and Awards by Activity, 

Fiscal Year 2008 23 

Figure 7: Grant Guidance Review and Approval Process 37 

Figure 8: Time Frames for Fiscal Year 2008 Fire Grants Process 80 

Page iv GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Abbreviations 

AFG Assistance to Firefighters Grant 

CFSI Congressional Fire Services Institute 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

EMS emergency medical services 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FP&S Fire Prevention and Safety 

GPD Grant Programs Directorate 

IAAI International Association of Arson Investigators 

IAFC International Association of Fire Chiefs 

IAFF International Association of Fire Fighters 

ISFSI International Society of Fire Services Instructors 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

NAFTD North American Fire Training Directors 

NASFM National Association of State Fire Marshals 

NFPA National Fire Protection Association 

NVFC National Volunteer Fire Council 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

R&D research and development 

R&R recruitment and retention 

SAFER Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response 

USFA United States Fire Administration 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page v GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Page 1 GAO-10-64 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

October 30, 2009 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

Chairman 

The Honorable George Voinovich 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable David E. Price 

Chairman 

The Honorable Harold Rogers 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

In recent decades, the U.S. fire service community has experienced 

changes in the responsibilities of firefighters and in local budget 

allocations for fire departments. While firefighting has traditionally been 

the responsibility of states and local communities, the Congressional 

Research Service and others have reported1

 that an increase in emergency 

medical services (EMS) provided by firefighters combined with state and 

local budget shortfalls in the 1990s led the fire service community to 

request financial assistance from the federal government in areas such as 

equipment, training, and hiring and recruiting and retaining firefighters. 

Consequently, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program is in its 

ninth year, with appropriations totaling over $4.8 billion since 2001. 

According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA),2

 in 2007 an 

estimated 1.1 million firefighters from more than 30,000 fire departments 

protected communities in the United States; of these firefighters, 72 

1

 See also National Academy of Public Administration, Assistance to Firefighters Grant 

Program: Assessing Performance (Washington, D.C., April 2007), National Fire Protection 

Association, “The United States Fire Service,” (2007), 

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/Research/FireServiceFactSheet.pdf (accessed Oct. 8, 

2009). 

2

 NFPA is an international nonprofit membership association that develops and publishes 

consensus codes and standards and offers statistical and data services through its Fire 

Analysis and Research Division. 

 Fire Grants 
 

percent were volunteers. In 2006, an NFPA assessment of the United 

States fire service stated that it is likely that in communities with a 

population of less than 2,500, 21 percent of fire departments would most 

often fail to deliver the national standard of at least four firefighters to 

respond to fire calls. In addition, the assessment recorded that an 

estimated 60 percent of fire departments did not have enough selfcontained breathing apparatuses to equip all firefighters on a shift, and 49 

percent of all fire engines were at least 15 years old, which is indicative of 

a potential need for replacements. Fire departments are also increasingly 

responsible for responding to calls unrelated to fire, such as medical 

emergencies. NFPA found that medical aid responses tripled from 1980 to 

2007, with 6 percent of calls to fire departments in 2007 due to actual fires. 

Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Grant Programs Directorate’s 

(GPD) AFG Program Office, in consultation with the U.S. Fire 

Administration (USFA), administers the AFG program and two other 

competitive fire grant programs designed to provide assistance to 

firefighters—the Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) grant program and the 

Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant 

program. The purpose of the AFG program is to promote the health and 

safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire-related 

hazards. Funding is available for a variety of activities, such as certifying 

fire inspectors, acquiring firefighting or personal protective equipment, 

modifying firefighter facilities, acquiring firefighting vehicles, and funding 

EMS. The FP&S program, which is funded through the appropriation for 

the AFG program, is intended to support both fire prevention and safety 

activities and firefighter safety research and development (R&D) activities. 

The purpose of the SAFER program, which includes grants for hiring 

career firefighters and recruiting and retaining volunteer firefighters, is to 

increase the number of firefighters to help communities meet industry 

minimum standards and attain 24-hour staffing. 

This report responds to the accompanying explanatory statement to the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008,3

 which mandates that we review 

the application and award process for AFG and SAFER grants. Although 

FEMA implements the AFG and FP&S grant programs separately, the two 

 

3

 Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844 (2007). The statute’s explanatory statement was 

published in the December 17, 2007, daily edition of the Congressional Record, and the 

congressional direction for this GAO study appears on page H16096. 

Page 2 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

programs are authorized by the same legislation. Consequently, we also 

examined the FP&S grant program in this report. We did not assess the 

results achieved by those applicants receiving grants, as this was beyond 

the scope of our review. Accordingly, this report addresses the following 

questions: 

(1) To what extent has FEMA met statutory and program requirements for 

distributing the grant funds to a variety of applicants and activities? 

(2) What actions has FEMA taken to provide assistance to grant applicants 

and involve the fire service community in the grant process? 

(3) To what extent has FEMA taken actions to help ensure the fire grant 

process and related guidance are accessible, clear, and consistent with 

applicable statutory and program requirements? 

To address the first question, we identified relevant statutory requirements 

from sections 33 and 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 

1974 (called the Fire Act and the SAFER Act, respectively, for purposes of 

this report). We also identified relevant program requirements established 

in FEMA’s grant guidance for the AFG, SAFER, and FP&S grant programs, 

which related to distributing grant funds among different categories of 

activities and applicants.4

 We then compared these statutory and program 

requirements to FEMA grant award data that stratified awards based on 

the type of fire department—volunteer, career, or combination5

—and 

based on the type of activity, such as awards for vehicle acquisitions. We 

reviewed FEMA data from fiscal year 2002, which was when FEMA began 

 

4

 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and 

Application Guidance (Washington, D.C., February 2008); Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program 2008 Fire Prevention 

and Safety Grants (Washington, D.C., February 2009); and Department of Homeland 

Security, Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Program and Application 

Guidance (Washington, D.C., May 2008). 

5

 FEMA defines a volunteer fire department as one in which no members receive any 

compensation other than a length of service retirement program and insurance, whereas a 

career department is one in which all members are compensated for their services. A 

combination department is defined as having any number of both volunteer and career 

firefighters regardless of their proportion to one another. According to a FEMA program 

specialist responsible for administering the AFG and SAFER grant programs, combination 

departments also include paid on call/stipend departments. If a volunteer fire department 

provides stipends to its members or provides “pay-on-call” for its members, the department 

is considered to be combination. 

Page 3 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

maintaining electronic fire grant award data.6 At the time of our review, 

FEMA’s fire grant award data were current as of July 2009, at which time 

the agency was in the process of awarding fiscal year 2007 FP&S grants 

and fiscal year 2008 AFG and SAFER grants. These years were the latest 

for which grants had been awarded at the time of our review and for 

which we were able to determine FEMA’s compliance with statutory and 

program funding distribution requirements. We analyzed FEMA’s annual 

listings of applications and awards for the AFG and FP&S grant programs 

from fiscal years 2002 through 2008 and SAFER grant program from fiscal 

years 20057

 through 2008 to provide descriptive information on a number 

of other characteristics, such as the type of community served by the 

applicant—urban, suburban, or rural. We also determined the number of 

times that departments have applied for and been awarded grants. To 

assess the reliability of data provided by FEMA, we reviewed and 

discussed the sources of data with agency officials. We determined that 

the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

To address the second question, we collected and reviewed pertinent 

FEMA documents, such as program guidance, as well as observed FEMA’s 

fiscal year 2010 criteria development panel process and the fiscal year 

2008 FP&S peer review panel process. We analyzed the procedures that 

FEMA uses to inform applicants about the fire grant programs, including 

the various forms of outreach and the types of assistance that FEMA 

provides to applicants. We obtained and reviewed information pertaining 

to the selection procedures for peer reviewers, who are to independently 

evaluate applications according to established criteria, and analyzed the 

training that they receive. We conducted structured interviews with a 

nonprobability sample of 36 randomly selected grant applicants that 

applied for fiscal year 2008 funding from the AFG and SAFER grant 

programs or fiscal year 2007 funding from the FP&S grant program. 

Although the results of the interviews are not generalizable, they provided 

insights on the perspective of grant applicants. We also conducted 

 

6

 Although the first appropriation for the AFG grant program was made in fiscal year 2001, 

a program specialist responsible for administering the AFG and SAFER grant programs 

informed us that electronic data were not available until fiscal year 2002. 

7

 The first appropriation for the SAFER grant program was made in fiscal year 2005. 

Page 4 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

interviews with officials of FEMA, USFA, and nine fire service 

organizations.8

To address the third question, we reviewed FEMA’s methods of making its 

grant guidance and the application accessible to potential applicants. We 

also identified statutory requirements pertaining to fire grant applications 

and analyzed FEMA’s fiscal year 2008 grant guidance and application 

forms to determine whether they consistently instructed applicants to 

submit statutorily required information. In addition, we compared the 

grant guidance to the application questions and scoring matrix to 

determine the extent to which they were consistent. To determine whether 

FEMA’s process for issuing grant guidance had adequate controls, we 

obtained and analyzed information regarding approval and issuance of 

fiscal years 2007 and 2008 program and application guidance. We 

compared the agency’s process for documenting and monitoring the 

program guidance approval process with criteria in Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government.

9

 We conducted interviews with 

officials from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), DHS, and 

FEMA to obtain information about the approval and issuance of the 

program and application guidance as well as how grant decisions are 

announced. We analyzed the type of feedback provided to unsuccessful 

grant applicants and determined the circumstances under which they may 

appeal FEMA’s grant decisions. During our structured interviews with a 

nonprobability sample of 36 randomly selected fire grant applicants, we 

obtained their views regarding feedback that FEMA provided. To assess 

the reliability of data provided by DHS and FEMA on the fire grant 

applicants, review criteria, and award procedures, we reviewed and 

 

8

 In its grant guidance, FEMA identified the following nine major fire service organizations: 

the Congressional Fire Service Institute, the International Association of Arson 

Investigators, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of 

Firefighters, the International Society of Fire Service Instructors, the North American Fire 

Training Directors, the National Association of State Fire Marshals, the National Fire 

Protection Association, and the National Volunteer Fire Council. 

9

 GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). These standards, issued pursuant to the requirements 

of the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982, provide the overall framework for 

establishing and maintaining internal control in the federal government. Also pursuant to 

the act, the Office of Management and Budget issued Circular A-123, revised December 21, 

2004, to provide the specific requirements for assessing the reporting on internal controls. 

Internal control standards and the definition of internal control in Circular A-123 are based 

on GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. 

Page 5 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

discussed the sources of data with agency officials. We determined that 

the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

We conducted this performance audit from January 2009 through October 

2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Additional details on our 

scope and methodology are contained in appendix I. 

Background 

Statutory and Program 

Requirements of the Fire 

Grant Programs 

FEMA’s fire grant programs are available to a variety of fire departments—

those composed of volunteer firefighters, career firefighters, or a 

combination thereof. In the case of the AFG program, grants also extend 

to nonaffiliated EMS organizations.10 In the case of the FP&S program, 

grants also extend to local, state, national, or community organizations 

that are not fire departments, such as research universities and fire service 

organizations. The statutes authorizing FEMA’s fire grant programs specify 

how funds are to be distributed among certain eligible applicants and 

activities. 

Authority for the AFG and FP&S programs derives from section 33 of the 

Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (Fire Act).11 The Fire Act 

requires FEMA to convene an annual meeting of individuals who are 

members of national fire service organizations for the purpose of 

recommending criteria for awarding grants for the next fiscal year.12 The 

act also requires FEMA, in consultation with national fire service 

organizations, to appoint fire service personnel to conduct a peer review 

of the grant applications, the results of which FEMA is to consider in 

 

10 Nonaffiliated EMS organizations are defined as public or private nonprofit EMS 

organizations that are not affiliated with a hospital and do not serve a geographic area with 

adequate EMS services already provided by a fire department. 15 U.S.C. § 2229(d)(2). 

11 This report shall refer to section 33 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 

1974 as the Fire Act, which is codified, as amended, at 15 U.S.C. § 2229. 

12 15 U.S.C. § 2229(b)(13). 

Page 6 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

awarding the grants.13 The Fire Act also contains specific grant application 

requirements. In particular, AFG and FP&S grant applicants are statutorily 

required to provide information demonstrating financial need; an analysis 

of costs and benefits resulting from the assistance; a list of other sources 

of federal funding received by the applicant to avoid duplicative funding; 

and an agreement by the applicant to provide information during the grant 

period to the National Fire Incident Reporting System, which represents 

the world’s largest national, annual database of fire incident information.14

AFG grant applicants are subject to an additional evaluation 

requirement—the extent to which the grant would enhance the applicant’s 

daily operations and the grant’s impact on the protection of lives and 

property.15

Section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (SAFER 

Act) provides the authority for the third fire grant program administered 

by FEMA.16 There are two types of SAFER grants: hiring grants, which are 

open to career, volunteer, and combination fire departments, and 

recruitment and retention grants, which are open to volunteer and 

combination fire departments, or to state or local organizations that 

represent the interests of volunteer firefighters.17 Hiring grants are subject 

to specific cost-sharing requirements between the federal government and 

the grantee, with the federal share decreasing over the 4-year grant 

period.18 Furthermore, the grantee is required to commit to retaining any 

firefighter hired through grant funds for at least 1 year after federal 

 

13 15 U.S.C. § 2229(b)(15). 

14 15 U.S.C. § 2229(b)(5). 

15 15 U.S.C. § 2229(b)(14)(B). 

16 This report shall refer to section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 

1974 as the SAFER Act, which was enacted on November 24, 2003 and is set forth at 15 

U.S.C. § 2229a. 

17 15 U.S.C. § 2229a(a)(1)-(2). According to the Director of Government Affairs for the 

International Society of Fire Service Instructors, volunteer fire departments use the hiring 

grants to start the transition process to becoming career departments, but typically retain 

their volunteer status until over 50 percent of their personnel are full-time employees. 

18 15 U.S.C. § 2229a(a)(1)(E). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. 

L. No. 111-5, Div. A., Title VI, § 603, 123 Stat. 115, 165 (2009), waived the SAFER Act’s local 

cost-sharing requirement for grant funds appropriated in fiscal years 2009 or 2010. 

Page 7 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

funding ends, amounting to a 5-year service commitment.19 The statutory 

cost-share and service commitment requirements applicable to SAFER 

hiring grants do not apply to SAFER recruitment and retention grants.20

SAFER grants, like AFG and FP&S grants, are awarded on a competitive 

basis through a peer review process.21 The SAFER Act is also similar to the 

Fire Act in requiring grant applications to include certain types of 

information. In addition to any information FEMA may require applicants 

to submit, the statute requires applicants to provide assurances regarding 

diversity in hiring; to explain their inability to address the need without 

federal assistance; and to specify long-term retention plans after federal 

funding ends, including, for hiring grants, how the applicant plans to meet 

the statute’s 5-year service commitment.22 A hiring grant applicant is also 

required to discuss what it will do to ensure that its department does not 

discriminate against firefighters who engage in volunteer activities in 

another jurisdiction during off-duty hours.23 The SAFER Act has a 

statutory sunset of 10 years from the date of enactment, such that the 

agency’s authority to make SAFER grants will elapse on November 24, 

2013.24 (See app. II for a table that sets forth the statutory requirements 

applicable to the AFG, FP&S, and SAFER grant programs). 

 

Each appropriations act enacted after January 2002 has made fire grant 

appropriations available for 2 fiscal years, after which any unobligated 

funds expire. The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and 

19 15 U.S.C. § 2229a(a)(1)(B)(ii). The Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 

111-32, 123 Stat. 1859, 1882 (2009), authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant 

waivers from various SAFER Act requirements in awarding grants during fiscal years 2009 

or 2010, including the requirement for a 4-year grant term followed by a 1-year unfunded 

service commitment. 

20 Following the enactment of legislative changes to the SAFER program applicable to fiscal 

years 2009 and 2010, the fiscal year 2010 Criteria Development Panel, which met in July 

2009, recommended various changes in the program, such as shortening the performance 

period of the grants. Any changes that result from this panel's recommendations will apply 

to grant awards made using fiscal year 2010 funds. 

21 15 U.S.C. § 2229a(a)(1)(G). The statutory requirement for a competitive peer review 

process specifically applies to hiring grants, but FEMA uses the same process for 

recruitment and retention grants. 

22 15 U.S.C. § 2229a(b)(2)-(3). 

23 15 U.S.C. § 2229a(b)(3)(B). 

24 15 U.S.C. § 2229a(e). Unlike SAFER grants, AFG and FP&S grants do not have a sunset 

provision. 

Page 8 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009—which contains the fiscal year 2009 

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act—provided 

$775 million for firefighter assistance, including $565 million for fire grants 

and $210 million for SAFER grants. Table 1 shows the AFG and SAFER 

appropriations beginning with their first funded years, fiscal year 2001 and 

fiscal year 2005, respectively. (The FP&S funds are included in the AFG 

appropriation.) 

Table 1: Appropriations for AFG and SAFER, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2009 

(Dollars in millions) 

Fiscal year AFGaSAFERb

2001 $100 N/A

2002 360 N/A

2003 745cN/A

2004 746cN/A

2005 650 $65

2006 540c 109c

2007 547 115

2008 560 190

2009 565 210

Total $4,813 $689

Source: Appropriations acts. 

Legend: N/A = not applicable. 

Note: For fiscal year 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 

Stat. 115, 164 (2009), appropriated an additional $210 million for the purpose of awarding competitive 

grants to modify, upgrade, or construct nonfederal fire stations, up to $15 million per grant. 

a

FP&S fire grant funding is included in the AFG column and is required to be at least 5 percent of the 

AFG appropriation. 

b

The SAFER Act was enacted on November 24, 2003. Although the SAFER Act authorized 

appropriations for fiscal year 2004, the first appropriation was made in fiscal year 2005. 

c

This is a rounded figure that we calculated by applying an enacted rescission to the appropriation. In 

fiscal year 2003, a 0.65 percent rescission applied to a $750 million AFG appropriation. In fiscal year 

2004, a 0.59 percent rescission applied to a $750 million AFG appropriation. In fiscal year 2006, a 1 

percent rescission applied to a $545 million appropriation for AFG and a $110 million appropriation for 

SAFER. 

Development of Grant 

Criteria and Funding 

Priorities 

FEMA describes annual funding priorities for the grant programs in its 

grant guidance document, which incorporates recommendations from the 

programs’ criteria development panel. The criteria development panel is 

composed of subject matter experts who meet annually for 3 days to 

review and modify the previous year’s funding priorities and award criteria 

Page 9 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

for all three fire grant programs, and whose recommendations are 

summarized in a report to FEMA.25 Detailed information about the mission 

and purpose of each fire service organization is contained in appendix III. 

The review process for all three grant programs includes three evaluation 

stages: an automated scoring or prescreening process to determine 

eligibility and alignment with the grant programs’ funding priorities; a peer 

review panel, in which practitioners within the fire service community 

evaluate and score the applications; and a final technical review by subject 

matter specialists, FEMA officials in the AFG Program Office and the 

Grants Management Division, as well as officials in state homeland 

security offices, if applicable. 

The criteria development panel also updates the previous year’s scoring 

matrix, which is a confidential, weighted numerical scoring methodology 

that reflects the identified funding priorities.26 The scoring matrix is used 

to rate AFG and SAFER applications by scoring the answers to the 

application questions that are weighted to reflect the funding priorities. If 

applicants request funding for multiple activities, each activity is scored 

independently of the others. The activities’ scores are then weighted based 

on the dollar amount and combined to determine the application’s overall 

score. 

Following review and discussion of the previous year’s information, the 

criteria development panel submits its recommendations on the grant 

criteria and funding priorities—including those on which participants do 

not reach consensus—to the AFG Program Office in the form of a report. 

After incorporating the panel’s recommendations and developing the grant 

guidance for the three grant programs, the AFG Program Office submits 

the guidance to other offices within FEMA for internal review. 

Subsequently, it sends the guidance to DHS and OMB for approval. The 

grant review and award process is represented in figure 1. (See app. IV for 

 

25 FEMA brings together a panel of fire service professionals representing the leadership of 

the nine major fire service organizations: the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the 

International Association of Firefighters, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the National 

Fire Protection Association, the National Association of State Fire Marshals, the 

International Association of Arson Investigators, the North American Fire Training 

Directors, the International Society of Fire Service Instructors, and the Congressional Fire 

Service Institute. 

26 Under the FP&S grants program, a scoring matrix is not used to rank applications 

relative to funding priorities. 

Page 10 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

more detailed information about each of the steps involved in the 

application and award process.) 

Figure 1: Application and Award Process for Fire Grants 

Sources:: GAO analysis and ArtExplosion (clip art).

Grant guidance and application

are available online 

Guidance development 

and approval

AFG Program Office develops

guidance and submits to

other offices within FEMA, DHS,

and OMB for approval

2

Criteria development panel

Makes recommendations for 

funding priorities and criteria

for awarding grants

1

Application period

3

Automated scoring and 

prescreening

AFG and SAFER applications

are electronically scored; 

FP&S applications are 

prescreened for eligibility

4

Peer review panel

Panelists evaluate each 

application according to 

established criteria

5

Technical review 

Highly scored applications

are reviewed by subject 

matter experts and others

6

Grants awarded Grants rejected

Rejection letters are 

sent to unsuccessful 

applicants

Awards are announced 

over several months

$$

REJECTED

Figure 2 shows the distribution of federal funds for the three fire grant 

programs by state for fiscal year 2008. 

Page 11 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

Figure 2: National Distribution of Federal Funds for Fire Grant Programs, Fiscal Year 2008 

Sources: GAO analysis of FEMA data and Art Explosion (map).

m. = millions

• AFG (Assistance to firefighter grants)

• SAFER (Staffing for adequate fire and emergency response grants)

• FP&S (Fire prevention and safety grants)

b

Pa.

Ore.

Nev.

Idaho

Mont.

Wyo.

Utah

Ariz.

N.Mex.

Colo.

N.Dak.

S.Dak.

Nebr.

Tex.

Kans.

Okla.

Minn.

Iowa

Mo.

Ark.

La.

Ill.

Miss.

Ind.

Ky.

Tenn.

Ala.

Fla.

Ga.

S.C.

N.C.

Va.

Ohio

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Mich.

Calif.

Wash.

Wis.

N.Y.

Maine

Vt.

W.Va.

Alaska

Hawaii

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

D.C. Md.

P.R.

• 22.3(m.)

• 6.4(m.)

• 227,665

• 990.051

• 1.4(m.)

• 13,500

• 4.3(m.)

• 4(m.)

• 1.5(m.)

• 6.7(m.)

• 1.9(m.)

• 27,345

• 18.4(m.)

• 12.6(m.)

• 1.3(m.)

• 909,108

• 3.3(m.)

• 11,697 • 24.2(m.)

• 3.7(m.)

• 2.3(m.)

• 2.3(m.)

• 1.6(m.)

• 289,975

• 2.4(m.)

• 309,121

• 17,6 40

• 20(m.)

• 1.3(m.)

• 3(m.)

• 12(m.)

• 3(m.)

• 920,017

• 24.7(m.)

• 3.5(m.)

• 1.3(m.)

• 6.3(m.)

• 622,624

• • 30,660 966,542

• 108,380

• 0

• 8(m.)

• 2(m.)

• 859,015

• 11.4(m.)

• 6.4(m.)

• 97,859

• 37. 3(m.)

• 2.2(m.)

• 683,422

• 3.6(m.)

• 1.5(m.)

• 42,583

• 6(m.)

• 3.7(m.)

• 859,596

• 4.5(m.)

• 535,040

• 152,356

• 14(m.)

• 461,120

• 350,949

• 11.8(m.)

• 491,000

• 171,669

• 7.5(m.)

• 875,408

• 1.3(m.)

• 10.7(m.)

• 1.6(m.)

• 1.5(m.) 

• 4(m.)

• 2.8(m.)

• 0 

• 4(m.)

• 2(m.)

• 64,852 

• 686,657

• 0

• 142,320 

• 16.4(m.)

• 1.3(m.)

• 204,859

• 15.5(m.)

• 1.2(m.)

• 952,790

• 8.8(m.)

• 0

• 90,130

• 6.7(m.)

• 949,124

• 191,475

• 1.3(m.)

• 0

• 147,333

• 8.7(m.)

• 1.8(m.)

• 1.5(m.)

• 2.6(m.)

• 8,350

• 23,818

• 1(m.)

• 0

• 12,454

• 28.2(m.)

• 3.6(m.)

• 1.9(m.)

• 16.8(m.)

• 12.4(m.)

• 1.4(m.)

• 7.7(m.)

• 1.4(m.)

• 1.4(m.)

• 6.6(m.)

• 0

• 101,280

• 14(m.)

• 2.3(m.)

• 13,534

• 2.8(m.)

• 1.6(m.)

• 8,873

• 219,989

• 398,400

• 362,500

• 5.4(m.)

• 3.2(m.)

• 4.4(m.)

• 6.6(m.)

• 14.7(m.)

• 1.5(m.)

• 7.7(m.)

• 8.9(m.)

• 88,543

• 10.2(m.)

• 4.4(m.)

• 23,893

• 2(m.)

• 48,000

• • 121,670 1(m.)

• 2.3(m.)

• 28,788

• 772,631

• 1.6(m.)

• 0

• 74,080

• 0

• 0

• 1.2(m.)

• N/Aa

• 2.2(m.)

• 11.7(m.)

• 3.7(m.)

• 111,343

Notes: Fire grants data for fiscal year 2008 are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 fire 

grants period closed on September 30, 2009, the end of fiscal year 2009. State category includes 

Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. 

a

No organization from the District of Columbia applied for SAFER grants in fiscal year 2008. 

b

FP&S application and award numbers are for fiscal year 2007 and reflect all fiscal year 2007 awards 

made through July 2009. No fiscal year 2008 FP&S grants had been awarded as of July 2009. 

Page 12 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

As shown in table 2, grant applicants submitted more than 22,000 

applications for the AFG and SAFER grant programs for fiscal year 2008, 

and as of July 2009, FEMA had awarded a total of 5,060 grants. As of July 

2009, applicants submitted about 2,500 applications for the fiscal year 2007 

FP&S grants and FEMA had awarded a total of 216 grants.27

Table 2: Total Number of Fire Grant Applications and Awards by Activity 

Grant Activity Number of applications submitted Number of grants awarded 

Operations and safety 12,591 4,007

Vehicle acquisition 7,910 635

Regional 521 163

AFG 

(fiscal year 2008) 

AFG total 21,022 4,805

Hiring 741 151

Recruitment and retention 493 92

Recruitment and retention/hiringa 80 12

SAFER 

(fiscal year 2008) 

SAFER total 1,314 255

Fire prevention 2,506 203

Research and development 38 10

Research and preventionc 17 3

FP&S total 2,561 216

FP&S 

(fiscal year 2007)b

All programs total 24,897 5,276

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Note: Fire grant data for fiscal year 2008 are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 fire grant 

period closed on September 30, 2009, which is the end of fiscal year 2009. 

a

Recruitment and retention/hiring applications are those of applicants that submitted requests for both 

activities in a single application. 

b

FP&S application and award numbers are for fiscal year 2007 funding and reflect all fiscal year 2007 

awards made through July 2009. No fiscal year 2008 FP&S grants had been awarded as of July 

2009. 

c

Research and prevention applications are those of applicants that submitted requests for both 

activities (i.e., R&D and fire prevention) in a single application. 

 

27 FEMA received about 25,000 applications for AFG, SAFER, and FP&S grants in fiscal 

year 2007 and awarded more than 5,000 grants. See apps. V through X for more detailed 

information about the distribution of AFG, SAFER, and FP&S program funds. 

Page 13 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

In awarding fiscal year 2008 AFG and SAFER grants and fiscal year 2007 

FP&S grants, FEMA met seven of eight statutory and two of three program 

requirements. These requirements specified how FEMA was to distribute 

appropriated grant funds between different applicants and activities. In 

July 2009, when FEMA provided fire grant award data for our review, the 

agency was in the process of awarding fiscal year 2007 FP&S grants and 

fiscal year 2008 AFG and SAFER grants. These years were the latest for 

which grants had been awarded and for which we were able to determine 

FEMA’s compliance with statutory and program funding distribution 

requirements.28 In addition, we used fiscal year 2007 data to determine 

whether FEMA met one statutory and one program requirement not yet 

satisfied for fiscal year 2008 because grant award data for fiscal year 2008 

were not complete at the time of our review. Specifically, we determined 

that in fiscal year 2007, FEMA met the statutory requirement to award at 

least 5 percent of the AFG appropriation for FP&S activities, but did not 

meet the program requirement to award at least 33 percent of the AFG 

appropriation to combination fire departments. We were unable to 

determine whether FEMA met statutorily mandated EMS funding levels 

related to AFG grants because FEMA only captures data for EMS awards 

to nonaffiliated EMS organizations, not EMS awards to fire departments. 

Table 3 lists the statutory and program funding distribution requirements 

that we evaluated and the extent to which FEMA met these requirements. 

FEMA Met Most 

Statutory and 

Program 

Requirements for 

Distributing Grants, 

but Did Not Fully 

Track Compliance 

with One Statutory 

Requirement and Had 

Not Fully Met One 

Program Requirement 

for Fiscal Year 2007 

 

28 Fire grant data for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 are current as of July 2009. 

Page 14 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

Table 3: GAO Assessment of Whether FEMA Met Statutory and Program Requirements for Distributing Fire Grant Funds, 

Fiscal Year 2008 

Grant 

program Requirement Source Status 

Volunteer and combination fire departments are to receive a 

proportion of the total grant funding that is not less than the 

proportion of the U.S. population protected by those fire 

departments, which FEMA estimated at 55 percent.a

Statute Met 

Awards to nonaffiliated EMS organizations shall account for 

not more than 2 percent of appropriation. 

Statute Metb

Grants to acquire firefighting vehicles are not to exceed 25 

percent of appropriation. 

Statute Metb

A total of $3 million is to be made available for foam firefighting 

equipment. 

Statute Met 

EMS awards must account for at least 3.5 percent of 

appropriation. 

Statute Status undetermined; EMS 

awards not fully tracked 

Career fire departments are to receive a proportion of the total 

grant funding that is no more than the proportion of the U.S. 

population they protect, which FEMA estimated at 45 percent.c

Program guidance Met 

Volunteer fire departments are to receive a proportion of the 

total grant funding that is not less than the proportion of the 

U.S. population they protect, which FEMA estimated at 22 

percent.d

Program guidance Met 

AFG 

Combination fire departments are to receive a proportion of the 

total grant funding that is not less than the proportion of the 

U.S. population they protect, which FEMA estimated at 33 

percent.d

 

Program guidance Not met in fiscal year 2007 

Not met for fiscal year 2008, as 

of July 2009e

 

FP&S FP&S grants must account for at least 5 percent of the AFG 

appropriation. 

Statute Met for fiscal year 2007 

Not met for fiscal year 2008, as 

of July 2009f

FEMA is to set aside 10 percent of appropriation for volunteer 

fire departments (whole or majority) to compete for SAFER 

hiring grants. FEMA is to transfer any unused funds for the 

award of SAFER recruitment and retention grants. 

SAFER Statute Met 

FEMA is to direct at least 10 percent of appropriation for 

volunteer and combination fire departments (and state or local 

organizations representing them) to compete for recruitment 

and retention grants. 

Statute Met 

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Note: Fire grant data for fiscal year 2008 are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 fire grant 

period closed on September 30, 2009, which is the end of fiscal year 2009. 

a

According to AFG program guidance, NFPA reported that combination departments protect 33 

percent of the nation’s population and volunteer departments protect 22 percent. We did not verify 

FEMA’s estimates. 

b

Because we do not have complete data for the final quarter of fiscal year 2009, it is possible that 

FEMA could exceed the statutory cap as a result of fourth quarter awards. However, as of July 2009, 

FEMA was within the cap. 

Page 15 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

c

According to AFG program guidance, NFPA reported that combination departments protect 33 

percent of the nation’s population and volunteer departments protect 22 percent, and no more than 

45 percent of the grant funds may be awarded to career departments. We did not verify FEMA’s 

estimates. 

d

According to AFG program guidance, NFPA reported that combination departments protect 33 

percent of the nation’s population and volunteer departments protect 22 percent. We did not verify 

FEMA’s estimates. 

e

Because we do not have complete data for the final quarter of fiscal year 2009, it is possible that 

FEMA could satisfy the program minimum as a result of fourth quarter awards. However, FEMA was 

unable to reach the same program minimum during the fiscal year 2007 AFG grant cycle. 

f

No fiscal year 2008 FP&S grants had been awarded as of July 2009. However, FEMA met the 

statutory minimum for FP&S awards in fiscal year 2007. 

As of July 2009, FEMA Had 

Met Four of Five AFG 

Statutory Requirements for 

Distributing Fiscal Year 

2008 Grants, but Had Not 

Fully Met One of Three 

Fiscal Year 2008 Program 

Requirements 

FEMA met four of five statutory requirements related to AFG grants for 

fiscal year 2008. First, as shown in figure 3, FEMA has consistently met the 

population-based statutory requirement for awarding fire grants to 

volunteer and combination fire departments from fiscal year 2002 through 

July of fiscal year 2008.29

Although FEMA Met Most AFG 

Statutory Requirements, It Did 

Not Fully Track EMS Data to 

Ensure That It Met One 

Statutory Requirement for 

Fiscal Year 2008 

 

29 Fiscal year 2002 is the first year FEMA began maintaining electronic data for the 

program. 

Page 16 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

Figure 3: Minimum Statutory Award Distribution Requirements and Actual Amounts 

FEMA Awarded to Volunteer and Combination Fire Departments under the AFG 

Program from Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data.

Guidance minimum

Grant awards

$198 $402 $410 $358 $297 $301 $308

72.51 77.98 75.26 75.14 79.06 76.22 65.33

55 54 55 55 55 55 55

$360 $745 $746 $650 $540 $547 $560

261

581 561

488

426 417

366

0

200

400

600

800

Awards (in millions of dollars)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Guidance minimum (in millions of dollars)

Actual percentagea

Target percentageb

Total AFG appropriation 

Note: Fire grant data for fiscal year 2008 are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 fire grant 

period closed on September 30, 2009, which is the end of fiscal year 2009. 

a

Actual percentage refers to actual awards as a percentage of the AFG appropriation. 

b

Target percentage refers to targeted awards as a percentage of the AFG appropriation. 

Based on our review of fiscal year 2008 grant data, FEMA also met three 

other statutory funding distribution requirements for the AFG program, as 

identified in table 3.30 Specifically, in fiscal year 2008, FEMA awarded 

about $7.3 million (about 1.3 percent) of its $560 million AFG 

appropriation to nonaffiliated EMS organizations and about $132 million 

(about 23.5 percent) for vehicle grants, both of which fell below the 

 

30 Fire grant data for fiscal year 2008 are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 fire 

grant period closed on September 30, 2009, which is the end of fiscal year 2009. 

Page 17 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

maximum ceilings established by the Fire Act. In addition, FEMA a

about $378,560 of its fiscal year 2008 AFG appropriation for foam 

firefighting equipment. According to a program specialist responsible f

administering the AFG and SAFER grant programs, FEMA granted all 

requests that were submitted for foam firefighting equipment, since the 

total amount requested was below the $3 million FEMA was required to

make available for this purpose. Thus, in meeting these requirements, 

FEMA ensured that its grant award

warded 

or 

s were consistent with the funding 

percentages mandated by statute. 

re 

g. 

), 

R 

t 

r EMS 

t 

d that 

 used 

, 

e 

t that EMS account for at least 3.5 percent of the 

appropriated funds. 

While FEMA has met four of the Fire Act’s requirements for distributing 

grant awards, we were not able to determine whether it complied with the 

statutory requirement of awarding at least 3.5 percent of the appropriated

AFG grant funds for EMS. Both nonaffiliated EMS organizations and fi

departments are eligible to compete for EMS equipment and trainin

Although FEMA tracks the amount awarded to nonaffiliated EMS 

organizations (which are eligible for up to 2 percent of the appropriation

a program specialist responsible for administering the AFG and SAFE

grant programs stated that FEMA does not track the amount of EMS 

equipment and training awarded to fire departments. He explained tha

FEMA’s internal data system is not currently designed to capture this 

information and that obtaining the necessary data would require that 

FEMA perform laborious tasks, such as identifying each item that would

qualify as EMS equipment and querying grant recipients to determine if 

any of this equipment funded by the AFG program was placed in thei

vehicles. He stated that FEMA performed the research necessary to 

determine that it met the required funding level one year, but he could no

provide any supporting documentation. However, he acknowledge

there may be alternatives for obtaining these data, such as asking 

applicants to estimate the percentage of grant funds that would be

for EMS during the grant application process. By developing and 

implementing a procedure for capturing the percentage of appropriated 

funds awarded to fire departments related to EMS equipment and training

FEMA would be better positioned to more readily determine if it met th

statutory requiremen

Page 18 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

The AFG guidance states that no more than 45 percent of the AFG funds 

may be awarded to career departments.31 As shown in figure 4, FEMA has 

consistently met this requirement from fiscal years 2002 through 2008. 

 FEMA has 

FEMA Met Two AFG Program 

Requirements and Fell Slightly 

Short of Meeting Another 

Figure 4: Maximum AFG Program Award Distribution Requirements and Actual 

Awards by Career Departments from Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Guidance maximum

Grant awards

0

100

200

300

400

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Awards (in millions of dollars)

Guidance maximum (in millions of dollars)

Actual percentagea

Guidance maximum percentageb

Total AFG appropriation (in millions of dollars)

$162 $343 $336 $293 $243 $246 $252

20 16 15 17 11 14 16

45 46 45 45 45 45 45

$360 $745 $746 $650 $540 $547 $560

71

118 112 108

58

76 88

Note: Fire grant data for fiscal year 2008 are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 fire grant 

period closed on September 30, 2009, which is the end of fiscal year 2009. 

a

Actual percentage refers to actual awards as a percentage of the AFG appropriation. 

b

Guidance maximum percentage refers to guidance maximum awards as a percentage of the AFG 

appropriation. 

 

31 The 45 percent estimate applied to all fiscal years in the AFG program except fiscal year 

2003. In fiscal year 2003, FEMA’s AFG program guidance stated that career departments 

would compete against other career departments for up to 46 percent of the available 

funding. Volunteer and combination departments would compete among each other for at 

least 54 percent of the available funding. 

Page 19 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

According to a program specialist responsible for administering the AFG 

and SAFER grant programs, in fiscal year 2007, OMB instructed the AFG 

Program Office to separate the percentage of funding given to volunteer 

and combination departments in proportion with the population that each 

type of department protects. Thus, FEMA incorporated this requirement in 

its program guidance. Specifically, the AFG 2008 grant guidance specified 

two requirements for FEMA to distribute grant awards: (1) volunteer 

departments are to receive at least 22 percent and (2) combination 

departments are to receive at least 33 percent of the total appropriation.32

While FEMA met the requirement to award at least 22 percent to volunteer 

fire departments in fiscal year 2008, it had not reached the minimum 

requirement of awarding at least 33 percent to combination departments 

as of July 2009. Specifically, FEMA awarded volunteer departments about 

39 percent ($217 million) of its $560 million in fiscal year 2008 

appropriated funds, but only awarded about 27 percent ($149 million) of 

its appropriation to combination departments. We also analyzed fiscal year 

2007 data to determine whether FEMA met the requirement related to 

distributing funds to combination departments since the separation 

between volunteer and combination departments occurred. FEMA fell 

slightly short of meeting this program requirement because it awarded 

combination fire departments about 32 percent ($173 million) of the total 

appropriation of fiscal year 2007 grant funds—only 1 percent less than that 

required by program guidance (see fig. 5).33 According to a program 

specialist responsible for administering the AFG and SAFER grant 

programs, FEMA attempts to comply with the guidance pertaining to 

population-based proportional grant funding, and he indicated that the 

shortfall in fiscal year 2007 awards to combination fire departments may 

have been an oversight. 

 

32 Although FEMA’s internal guidance specifies that no less than 22 percent and no less 

than 33 percent of the AFG appropriation go to volunteer and combination departments, 

respectively, the Fire Act does not require such a breakdown and only states that volunteer 

and combination departments collectively receive at least the amount proportional to the 

population they protect. 

33 FEMA awarded about 45 percent of fiscal year 2007 funds to volunteer departments. 

Page 20 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

Figure 5: AFG Guidance Requirements and Actual Awards for Volunteer and 

Combination Departments, Fiscal Years 2007 through 2008 

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Year 07 Year 08

Awards

(in millions of dollars)

Volunteer departments

0

50

100

150

200

Guidance minimum

Grant awards

Guidance minimum

Grant awards

Year 07 Year 08

Awards

(in millions of dollars)

Combination departments

Guidance minimum

(in millions of dollars)

$120

244

$123.6

Total AFG appropriation

(in millions of dollars)

$547 $560

173

149

Actual percentagea

Total AFG appropriation

(in millions of dollars)

Actual percentagea 45 39

Guidance minimum

(in millions of dollars)

$180 $184.8

$547 $560

32 27

217

Target percentageb 22 22 Target percentageb 33 33

Note: Fire grant data for fiscal year 2008 are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 fire grant 

period closed on September 30, 2009, the end of fiscal year 2009. 

a

Actual percentage refers to actual awards as a percentage of the AFG appropriation. 

b

Target percentage refers to targeted awards as a percentage of the AFG appropriation. 

Page 21 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

As of July 2009, FEMA Had 

Not Met the Statutory 

Requirement Related to 

Distributing Fiscal Year 

2008 FP&S Grants, but Met 

This Requirement for 

Fiscal Year 2007 FP&S 

Grants 

Because of delays in the approval of program guidance, no fiscal year 2008 

FP&S grants had been awarded as of July 2009. Therefore, we reviewed 

FEMA’s data related to its fiscal year 2007 FP&S grant funding 

distributions. According to these data, FEMA met the 5 percent minimum 

statutory requirement in fiscal year 2007 by awarding $33,887,071, or about 

6.2 percent, of the total AFG appropriation for FP&S grants. Thus, FEMA 

ensured that FP&S grant applicants received the percentage of funds 

mandated by statute. 

FEMA Met Statutory 

Requirements for 

Distributing Fiscal Year 

2008 SAFER Grants 

In fiscal year 2008, FEMA met statutory requirements related to 

distributing funds for SAFER grants. FEMA is required to set aside 10 

percent of the annual SAFER Act appropriation for all volunteer or 

majority volunteer fire departments to compete for hiring grants, which 

are otherwise open to all fire departments regardless of their career, 

combination or volunteer status. Recruitment and retention grants, which 

are open to volunteer and combination but not career departments, must 

also account for at least 10 percent of appropriated funding, in addition to 

the unused balance, if any, from the 10 percent hiring grant set-aside. 

FEMA complied with these requirements by awarding $21 million, or 

about 11 percent, of the $190 million in SAFER funding to volunteer and 

majority volunteer fire departments for hiring efforts. In addition, FEMA 

also awarded $20 million, or about 11 percent, of the funds to volunteer 

and combination departments for the purpose of recruitment and 

retention. Thus, FEMA ensured that SAFER grant applicants received the 

percentage of funds mandated by statute (see fig. 6). 

Page 22 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

Figure 6: SAFER Statutory Requirements and Awards by Activity, Fiscal Year 2008 

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data.

Activity

Set-aside level

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Recruitment 

 and retention 

Hiringa

20

114

10 percent

set-aside level

Awards (in millions of dollars)

Actual award total (in millions of dollars)

Actual percentageb

$134

11 60

SAFER appropriation (in millions of dollars) $190 $190

Note: According to FEMA program officials, the fire grants data for fiscal year 2008 are current as of 

July 2009, and about 90 percent of the funding had been awarded at that time. The fiscal year 2008 

fire grants period closed on September 30, 2009, the end of fiscal year 2009. 

a The $114 million includes hiring grant awards to all fire departments, whether career, combination or 

volunteer. Of this amount, FEMA awarded $21 million to volunteer and majority volunteer fire 

departments, which is the portion attributable to the 10 percent hiring grant set-aside. 

b

Actual percentage refers to actual awards as a percentage of the appropriation. 

Page 23 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

FEMA Has Taken 

Actions to Assist 

Grant Applicants and 

Involves the Fire 

Service Community in 

Establishing Grant 

Criteria and 

Reviewing Grant 

Applications 

FEMA has developed various tools to assist grant applicants with the 

application process and involves the nine major fire service organizations 

in developing criteria for annual fire grant funding priorities and in the 

peer review process. FEMA assists grant applicants by sponsoring 

workshops, publishing an online tutorial, and providing a toll-free hotline, 

among other actions. Each of the nine major fire service organizations 

sends representatives to serve on the annual criteria development panel, 

which recommends changes to the grant evaluation criteria and the 

funding priorities for the next fiscal year. During the peer review process, 

fire service practitioners independently rank the grant applications 

according to the evaluation elements recommended by the criteria 

development panel. 

FEMA Has Assisted Grant 

Applicants through 

Workshops and Online 

Tutorials, among Other 

Actions 

FEMA has developed various tools to assist fire grant applicants with the 

application process. According to a program specialist responsible for 

administering the AFG and SAFER grant programs, FEMA’s regional 

offices sponsored approximately 400 AFG and SAFER workshops 

throughout the country in 2008. While not all of the 36 randomly selected 

fire grant applicants in our nonprobability sample had attended 

workshops, 6 grant applicants that had done so explained that they 

received basic information on the grant application and award process, 

such as a review of the grant guidance and funding priorities, and how to 

write the narrative section of the application. See appendix XI for a listing 

of fire grant applicants included in our interviews. FEMA has also 

contracted with the North American Fire Training Directors to provide a 

grant-writing training class to fire departments in all 50 states throughout 

the year. The training class explains the grant opportunities available 

through the AFG program, describes the application process, and provides 

detailed information to guide applicants in drafting narratives. The course 

includes a slide presentation with an instructor’s guide and is designed to 

be about 4 to 6 hours in length. The contract allots up to $5,000 per state, 

totaling $250,000 for grant-writing technical assistance to be delivered 

from January 2009 through January 2010. 

In addition, FEMA has created an online tutorial to guide AFG, SAFER, 

and FP&S applicants through the grant application process. Of the 36 

applicants we interviewed, 20 applicants stated that they used online 

tutorials and 13 of them stated that the tutorial was helpful to a great or 

very great extent. Two of these applicants stated that the tutorials were 

useful to a great extent because they provide needed information on 

specific sections of the applications and help identify problematic areas. 

Page 24 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

Applicants seeking further assistance can call a toll-free hotline, which is 

staffed by contract personnel who have firefighting experience, or they 

can e-mail FEMA. FEMA provides technical assistance Monday through 

Friday for each of the three grant programs and also provides such 

assistance over the weekend for AFG applicants. In 2008, FEMA received 

an estimated total of 12,000 calls to the hotline and responded to an 

estimated 10,000 e-mails. FEMA has also established a mentoring program 

designed for departments that have unsuccessfully applied for fire grants 

for at least 5 years and offers this assistance to all departments that 

qualify. About half of the departments accept FEMA’s offer to participate 

in the mentoring program, in which each participating department is 

paired with a former peer review panelist and given a tutorial to guide it 

through the process. As of May 2009, about 400 departments were being 

mentored and about 30 to 40 percent have been successful in receiving a 

subsequent grant. While FEMA allows applicants to hire a grant writer to 

assist them with the process, applicants are responsible for the accuracy 

of information provided by the grant writer. The grant writer fees included 

in the grant amount requested are reimbursable, providing that they are 

declared in the application and do not depend on award. 

FEMA Involves the Fire 

Service Community in 

Establishing Grant Criteria 

and Funding Priorities and 

in Assessing Grant 

Applications 

FEMA has taken a number of steps to involve the fire service community 

in the grant process. For example, each year, FEMA brings together a 

panel of fire service professionals representing the leadership of the nine 

major fire service organizations to conduct a criteria development meeting 

to develop the program’s priorities for the coming year.34 According to a 

program specialist responsible for administering the AFG and SAFER 

grant programs, the panel convenes for 3 days in the summer before the 

annual appropriations process and is composed of 3 representatives from 

each of the organizations, totaling roughly 50 participants, including FEMA 

staff. The panel is responsible for making recommendations to FEMA’s 

AFG Program Office regarding the creation of program priorities, 

modification of program priorities, or both for all three fire grant 

programs—AFG, FP&S, and SAFER—as well as the development of 

criteria upon which the evaluation of grant applications is based. The 

panel’s recommendations are placed in a report that panelists submit to 

 

34 The Fire Act requires FEMA to convene an annual criteria development panel composed 

of individuals who are nonfederal members of national fire service organizations. 15 U.S.C. 

§ 2229(b)(13). Although the SAFER Act does not require FEMA to convene such a criteria 

development panel, FEMA nevertheless follows this procedure for SAFER grants. 

Page 25 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

FEMA, which then incorporates the suggestions into the next fiscal year’s 

grant guidance. 

FEMA’s peer review process—in which members of the nine major fire 

service organizations participate in assessing grant applications—also 

helps ensure that the fire service community is involved in making grant 

awards.35 According to FEMA, the peer review process is a key component 

for ensuring fairness in awarding fire grants. Peer review panelists are to 

conduct an independent assessment of the merits of the applications 

based on the extent to which the proposed projects align with the grant 

year’s funding priorities and meet the program’s goals and objectives. 

Peer Review Panel Process Is 

Designed to Support 

Independent Assessment of 

Application Merits 

Before arriving at the peer review panel, participants are required to 

complete an online tutorial and test, and then submit their certification of 

a passing grade during the panel orientation. If a panelist has not 

completed the tutorial, he or she is required to do so at the panel 

orientation. When panelists arrive at orientation, they are required to sign 

and submit a statement declaring that they have no known or apparent 

conflicts of interest as well as a nondisclosure form agreeing to keep the 

results of the review confidential. The panelists are then divided into 

groups of four at different tables. FEMA instructs the panelists not to 

review applications if they know the applicant or if the applicant is from 

their state. In the event that a potential conflict of interest arises, FEMA 

replaces the entire batch of applications provided to the table of panelists 

with a new batch. FEMA also instructs the panelists not to share applicant 

information with any panelists other than those seated at their table. All 

panelists receive an evaluation sheet that lists the evaluation factors, along 

with a rubric that provides guidelines for rating grant applications against 

the evaluation factors. They also receive a copy of the grant guidance, 

which contains the funding priorities. 

New panelists receive a 2-1⁄2-hour orientation by FEMA program staff, who 

provide instruction on distinguishing between average and good 

applications, the logistics of individual scoring and table discussion, and 

the possible need to reduce the requested grant amount, among other 

things. Once the orientation is completed, the panelists individually read 

 

35 The Fire Act requires FEMA, after consulting with national fire service organizations, to 

appoint a peer review panel composed of fire service personnel to evaluate grant 

applications. 15 U.S.C. § 2229(b)(15). Similarly, the SAFER Act requires SAFER hiring 

grants to be awarded based on a “neutral peer review process,” a process that FEMA also 

follows for SAFER recruitment and retention grants. 15 U.S.C. § 2229a(a)(1)(G). 

Page 26 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

and score the narrative section of the applications as well as responses to 

other parts of the application, based on the applicable evaluation criteria. 

For example, for fiscal year 2008 AFG applications, panelists provided 

numerical scores on the basis of four evaluation factors stated in their 

score sheets, which were (1) project description, (2) cost/benefit of the 

proposed project, (3) financial need, and (4) effect of the proposed project 

on daily operations.36

After each panelist at the table scores an application, the panelists discuss 

any differences of opinion and the merits or limitations of the application. 

Orientation facilitators inform panelists that the aim of the table 

discussion is not to arrive at a consensus, but rather to discuss each 

application as it pertains to each of the evaluation elements. If panelists 

are unable to reconcile any large scoring disparity (defined as 10 points or 

greater), they bring the dispute to the attention of a panel chair member 

who is responsible for ensuring that panelists document their discussion 

and indicate the scoring disparity on their scoring sheets. Panelists may 

amend their individual scores or choose to keep them unchanged on their 

evaluation sheets. FEMA files all of the panelists’ evaluation sheets for 

each application, including the panelists’ comments and recommendations 

to reduce the funding amount, reject, or award, with the applications. 

After evaluations are entered into FEMA’s database, an average score is 

electronically generated that determines whether the application proceeds 

to the technical review process, which occurs concurrently in a separate 

room at the panel location for applications with the highest scores. 

FEMA AFG Program Office officials explained that the number of 

panelists varies from year to year and the number of nominees that they 

request from each of the nine major fire service organizations depends 

upon the amount of appropriated funding as well as the number of 

applications submitted. Typically, the organizations each nominate about 

24 to 40 people for the AFG panel, 10 for the SAFER panel, and 24 to 28 for 

the FP&S panel. FEMA also sends letters to subgroups within the 

organizations that represent minorities to receive nominations to help 

diversify the panel. According to a program specialist responsible for 

administering the AFG and SAFER grant programs, while FEMA does not 

verify whether the organizations’ nominees are qualified to attend the 

panel, it asks for the résumés of self-nominees or of those nominated by 

Fire Service Community 

Participates in Peer Review 

 

36 The score sheet factors correspond with the evaluation factors stated in the AFG grant 

guidance and application form for fiscal year 2008. 

Page 27 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

members of Congress. The official explained that in selecting the peer 

review panelists, FEMA considers availability to attend, racial diversity, 

and the ratio of new-to-repeat panelists. In fiscal year 2008, 285 people 

served on the AFG panel, 47 served on the SAFER panel, and 160 served 

on the FP&S panel. The official stated that FEMA considers panelists new 

if they have not participated in that particular grant program panel review, 

regardless of prior experience as a peer reviewer for another grant 

program. Although FEMA selects both new and returning panelists to 

review applications in any or all three grant categories, it tries to limit 

returning panelists to no more than one-third of the total panel 

composition. However, AFG Program Office officials may invite additional 

returning panelists if there are not enough confirmed attendees. Panelists 

are volunteers—although FEMA pays the entire cost of each panelist’s 

transportation, food, and lodging, it does not compensate panelists for any 

loss of income they may incur while serving on the panel. Lodging is 

typically provided at a federal training facility in Emmitsburg, Maryland, at 

no cost to the grant program. 

In interviews with a nonprobability sample of 36 fire grant applicants, 22 

applicants, or about 61 percent, stated that they had never been asked to 

serve on a panel. When asked whether they thought that the peer review 

process was fair and objective, 23 stated that it was, while 3 stated that it 

was not, and 10 did not know. In addition, 32 of the applicants stated that 

they believed that experience as a peer reviewer was beneficial to 

completing a grant application. 

Although FEMA officials attempt to ensure that new peer review panelists 

make up two-thirds of the peer review panel each year, they stated that 

they do not currently undertake additional outreach activities themselves 

to encourage nominations of new panelists, such as notifying applicants of 

opportunities to serve on peer review panels during FEMA’s workshops or 

other assistance activities they sponsor for applicants. Rather, FEMA 

relies on the nine major fire service organizations for nominations of new 

panelists. AFG Program Office officials stated that while they strive to 

provide an even chance to as many fire departments and other 

organizations as possible to serve on peer review panels, representatives 

of departments that are invited sometimes fail to appear to serve on the 

panel without informing FEMA. Therefore, officials have invited some 

departments multiple times because they have proven to be reliable and 

good reviewers. They acknowledged that although FEMA does not 

currently limit the number of times that a department can send 

representatives to serve on the panels, establishing such a limit could 

expand opportunities for other departments to participate in the peer 

Page 28 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

review process. In addition, they also stated that they are considering 

conducting outreach efforts to expand peer review participation, such as 

announcing opportunities to serve on an upcoming peer review panel at 

workshops. In addition to expanding peer review participation, such 

efforts could benefit peer review panelists by allowing them to incorporate 

firsthand knowledge of the panel process into their future grant 

applications. 

FEMA has taken actions—such as publishing grant guidance and 

applications online—to ensure that its grant process is more easily 

accessible to grant applicants, but the agency could enhance the clarity 

and consistency of its grant guidance and the controls over its review and 

approval process. While grant guidance priorities are generally perceived 

as clear by grant applicants we interviewed, we identified inconsistencies 

between the grant guidance and the grant applications and grant scoring 

matrix language. In addition, FEMA has experienced significant delays in 

issuing grant guidance, and the agency does not have controls to monitor 

the progress of the review process. Finally, the majority of fire grant 

applicants that we interviewed felt they received inadequate feedback on 

why their applications were rejected. 

While FEMA Has 

Taken Actions to Help 

Make Its Grant 

Process More 

Accessible, FEMA 

Could Benefit from 

Improved Clarity and 

Consistency of Grant 

Guidance and Better 

Controls over the 

Process for Reviewing 

and Approving Grant 

Guidance 

FEMA Publishes Annual 

Grant Guidance Online to 

Increase Accessibility 

Before each annual grant application period, FEMA publishes updated 

grant guidance on its Web site and has created an online grant application, 

which is designed to be user-friendly. Publication of the annual grant 

guidance on the FEMA Web site makes it more accessible to potential 

applicants. The grant guidance provides applicants with an explanation of 

the information that will be required in the application, as well as 

informing them of any grant priorities for the fire grants for that year, such 

as whether training will be given priority. FEMA encourages applicants to 

apply for fire grants online because of delays and mistakes associated with 

processing paper applications. The electronic application has built-in 

“Help” screens and drop-down menus. Applicants for each of the three 

grant programs are required to answer a series of questions about their 

department and the particular grant they are applying for, as well as 

provide a narrative that discusses the impact to result from the proposed 

Page 29 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

use of the grant funds, among other things. Both the answers to the 

questions and the narrative are to be reviewed and scored by the peer 

review panel. 

FEMA’s Grant Guidance 

and Application Forms 

Generally Reflect Statutory 

Requirements for the 

Submission of Specific 

Information by Applicants, 

but May Not Obtain All 

Statutorily Required 

Information 

The statutes authorizing the three fire grant programs contain specific 

grant application requirements, which require FEMA to collect and 

consider certain information from applicants in making grant awards; 

however, not all of these requirements are included in FEMA’s grant 

guidance and application forms. For the AFG and FP&S grant programs, 

the Fire Act requires grant applicants to include (1) information 

demonstrating financial need, (2) an analysis of costs and benefits 

resulting from the assistance, (3) a list of other sources of federal funding 

received by the applicant to avoid duplicative funding, and (4) an 

agreement by the applicant to provide information to the National Fire 

Incident Reporting System during the grant period.37 An additional 

requirement applies to the AFG program, requiring FEMA to consider the 

extent to which the grant would enhance the fire department’s daily 

operations and the grant’s impact on the protection of lives and property.38

Based on our review, the AFG and FP&S fiscal year 2008 grant guidance 

and application forms instruct applicants to provide information 

consistent with the above statutory requirements, with one exception 

relating to the FP&S R&D activity, as indicated in table 4. 

 

37 15 U.S.C. § 2229(b)(5). 

38 15 U.S.C. § 2229(b)(14)(B). 

Page 30 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

Table 4: GAO Assessment of Whether FEMA Requested That AFG and FP&S Applicants Submit Statutorily Required 

Information with Their Grant Applications, Fiscal Year 2008 

Did FEMA request information during fiscal year 2008 grant cycle? 

Statutory information requirements AFG applicantsa

FP&S applicants 

for R&D activity 

FP&S applicants 

for fire prevention 

and safety activity 

1. Information that demonstrates the financial 

need of the applicant for the grant assistance 

Yes Yes Yes 

2. An analysis of the grant’s costs and benefits 

with respect to public safety 

Yes No Yes 

3. An agreement by the applicant to report to the 

National Fire Incident Reporting System during 

the period of assistance 

Yes Yes Yes 

4. A list of other sources of federal funding 

received by the applicant to avoid duplicative 

funding 

Yes Yes Yes 

5. The extent to which the grant would enhance 

the applicant’s daily operations and the grant’s 

impact on protection of lives and property 

Yes N/A N/A 

Source: GAO. 

Legend: N/A = not applicable. 

a

We did not assess a statutory requirement regarding AFG applications submitted by nonaffiliated 

EMS organizations. In applying the grant selection criteria to nonaffiliated EMS organizations, FEMA 

is required to consider whether other sources of federal funding are available to provide EMS 

assistance. 15 U.S.C. § 2229(b)(10)(F). Unlike the requirements we assessed, this provision does not 

require the applicant to submit any information, nor does it require FEMA to establish a separate 

evaluation criterion regarding EMS funding sources. Thus, we chose not to evaluate the absence of 

this requirement in the fiscal year 2008 AFG grant guidance. 

FP&S grants cover two activities: (1) fire prevention and safety and 

(2) firefighter safety R&D.39 However, FEMA grant guidance only 

instructed applicants to provide the statutorily required cost-benefit 

analysis for projects proposed under the fire prevention and safety 

activity, not the R&D activity. Apart from this exception, the grant 

guidance and applications forms for both the AFG and FP&S programs 

incorporate the Fire Act’s information requirements. In particular, 

according to the grant guidance for both programs, fire departments that 

are awarded grants are to provide information to the National Fire 

Incident Reporting System during the grant period, as required by statute. 

In addition, the application forms for both grant programs require 

 

39 Fire departments are eligible to apply for assistance only in the fire prevention and safety 

activity. Public and private nonprofit organizations are eligible to apply for assistance in 

both activities. 

Page 31 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

applicants to identify other sources of federal funding they are receiving 

that may duplicate the purpose of their grant request. Although a program 

specialist responsible for administering the AFG and SAFER grant 

programs stated that few grant applicants receive grant awards from other 

sources, FEMA queries its internal records of all grant applicants to 

prevent making duplicate awards. The three remaining AFG statutory 

requirements—financial need information, a cost-benefit analysis, and an 

impact statement—appear as evaluation criteria in the AFG guidance that 

applicants are to address in their project narratives. The two remaining 

FP&S statutory requirements—financial need information and a costbenefit analysis—appear as evaluation criteria for the fire prevention and 

safety activity, but the evaluation criteria for the R&D activity include only 

one of these two statutory requirements, financial need. By taking steps to 

ensure that all statutorily required information is included in the grant 

guidance and application forms, FEMA is better positioned to provide 

reasonable assurance that grants are awarded in accordance with the 

statute. 

In addition, the SAFER Act also specifies certain information that 

applicants are required to submit, in addition to any other information 

required by FEMA. The statute requires each applicant to (1) provide 

assurances regarding diversity in hiring, (2) explain its inability to address 

the need without federal assistance, and (3) specify long-term retention 

plans after federal funding ends.40 With respect to the latter requirement, 

SAFER hiring grant applicants are to specifically discuss how they plan to 

meet the statute’s 5-year service commitment (i.e., 1-year of service for 

SAFER-funded firefighters after the 4-year funding period ends).41

Furthermore, SAFER hiring grant applicants are to address another 

statutory requirement, a commitment not to discriminate against 

firefighters serving as volunteers in other jurisdictions during off-duty 

hours.42

Based on our review, the fiscal year 2008 SAFER grant guidance and 

application forms instruct applicants to provide information consistent 

with the above statutory requirements, although for SAFER recruitment 

 

40 15 U.S.C. § 2229a(b)(2)-(3). 

41 15 U.S.C. § 2229a(b)(3)(B). 

42 15 U.S.C. § 2229a(b)(3)(B). 

Page 32 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

and retention grants, the guidance and application form only partially 

address one of the information requirements, as indicated in table 5. 

Table 5: GAO Assessment of Whether FEMA Requested That SAFER Applicants Submit Statutorily Required Information with 

Their Grant Applications, Fiscal Year 2008 

Did FEMA request information 

during fiscal year 2008 grant cycle? 

Statutory information requirements 

SAFER hiring 

grant applicants 

SAFER recruitment 

and retention applicants 

1. Assurances regarding diversity in hiring Yes Yes 

2. Applicant’s inability to meet the need without federal 

assistance 

Yes Yes 

3. Long-term retention plans after federal funding ends Yes Partially 

4. Ability to meet the statute’s 5-year service commitment 

(i.e., 1 year of service for SAFER-funded firefighters after the 

4-year funding period ends) 

Yes N/A 

5. Applicant’s commitment not to discriminate against 

firefighters serving as volunteers in other jurisdictions during 

off-duty hours 

Yes N/A 

Source: GAO. 

Legend: N/A = not applicable. 

FEMA’s guidance for SAFER hiring grants includes each of the statutory 

information requirements within the evaluation factors that applicants are 

to address in their project narratives. For example, each hiring grant 

applicant is to include a statement regarding how the applicant plans to 

meet the nonfederal match requirement for the 5-year service period, 

including any long-term plans to retain the new firefighter positions, as 

required by the statute.43 Although the SAFER hiring grant guidance 

instructs applicants to submit all statutorily required information, the 

statement of long-term retention plans is less specific in the SAFER 

recruitment and retention grant guidance and application questions, which 

ask applicants to include “specifics about the recruitment and/or retention 

plan.” Because this language gives applicants the option of providing 

specifics on recruitment or retention plans, FEMA may not receive 

information on applicant’s long-term retention plans after federal funding 

ends, especially from applicants seeking grants for recruitment purposes. 

Clarifying the SAFER recruitment and retention grant guidance with 

 

43 The SAFER hiring grant guidance also includes specific default provisions if the applicant 

does not meet its 5-year service commitment. 

Page 33 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

respect to applicants’ long-term retention plans could help FEMA ensure 

that it collects the information necessary to determine whether awarded 

grants used for recruitment or retention purposes will have a lasting 

impact after federal funding ends. FEMA does explicitly instruct 

applicants to address the other two statutory requirements—diversity in 

hiring and inability to meet the need without federal assistance—which 

apply to SAFER recruitment and retention grants. 

Grant Priorities Are 

Generally Perceived as 

Clear by Grant Applicants, 

but Are Not Consistently 

Aligned with the Scoring 

Matrix and Grant 

Application Questions 

Seventy-eight percent (28 of 36) of the grant applicants that we 

interviewed described the grant guidance as being clear to a great or to a 

very great extent, 7 said that it was clear to a moderate extent, and 1 

applicant said that he did not know. For example, 1 applicant stated that 

the guidance was consistently well written and another commented that it 

was simple and user-friendly. However, 10 applicants provided 

suggestions for how FEMA could further clarify its grant guidance—

including its grant priorities. For example, 1 suggested that priorities be 

more expressly stated so that he could make a more qualified decision on 

whether to apply. The fiscal year 2008 AFG program guidance does not 

summarize funding priorities for any activity other than for the vehicle 

acquisition program. Likewise, the fiscal year 2008 FP&S and SAFER 

program guidance also do not summarize funding priorities. AFG Program 

Office officials acknowledged that the fire grants program guidance could 

be made clearer, possibly by incorporating tables or charts highlighting 

program priorities. 

Moreover, while FEMA’s grant guidance and application questions for the 

AFG, FP&S, and SAFER grant programs generally incorporate statutory 

information requirements, priorities in the grant guidance are not always 

reflected in the scoring matrix and application questions. For example, the 

fiscal year 2008 SAFER guidance states that continuity—which refers to 

whether an applicant’s recruitment and retention activities are designed to 

continue beyond the grants’ period of performance—is a priority for 

recruitment and retention grants. However, there is no application 

question that addresses this priority, nor is there a scoring matrix value 

that corresponds to continuity. Further, the fiscal year 2008 AFG guidance 

for wellness and fitness grants prioritizes fitness and injury prevention 

projects over rehabilitation, but in the scoring matrix all wellness and 

fitness project categories are scored equally. Grant priorities/criteria in the 

guidance are updated every year based on the recommendations made by 

the criteria development panel. According to a program specialist 

responsible for administering the AFG and SAFER grant programs, it 

would be difficult to capture the concept of continuity in the form of a 

Page 34 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

question, and the misalignment regarding wellness and fitness priorities 

may have occurred because of insufficient oversight by FEMA. 

It is important that FEMA ensure that its grant guidance is not only clear 

but also consistently aligned with the application questions and scoring 

matrix. According to the National Procurement Fraud Task Force,44 grant 

funds are awarded to carry out goals and objectives as they are identified 

in the grant guidance. In order for there to be accurate and consistent 

alignment between the grant awards and guidance, the application 

questions and their weighted scoring values must also reflect the 

intentions of the grant program as stated in the guidance. Developing grant 

guidance and application questions that are consistent with funding 

priorities could help FEMA ensure that grant funds are awarded in 

accordance with the agency’s priorities. 

Review and Approval 

Process of Draft Fire Grant 

Guidance Is Not 

Documented and 

Monitored 

FEMA’s Section Chief for the FP&S program stated that although the 

FP&S grant guidance is to be issued in August or September at the start of 

each fiscal year, it has not been issued on time for the past 3 fiscal years—

the review and approval process for the fiscal year 2008 grant guidance 

took over 17 months, and guidance was not issued until February 2009. 

See appendix XII for more detailed information about the time frames for 

the fiscal year 2008 fire grants process. Because of this delay, the peer 

review panel convened to assess grant applications in April 2009, and 

FEMA began awarding fiscal year 2008 FP&S awards in August 2009. 

FEMA program officials stated that because of the delays in the approval 

of the grant guidance, FEMA was unable to reserve classroom and 

dormitory space at the federal facility in Emmitsburg, Maryland, where 

prior peer review panels had met, and the panel met at a private hotel in 

Towson, Maryland, at a cost of about $90,000. As a result of this 

expenditure, there were fewer funds to award to grant applicants. 

According to FEMA’s Office of Policy and Program Analysis, there is no 

systematic method for tracking the review and approval process for fire 

grant guidance, no internal deadlines,45 and no documentation to help 

determine the cause for delays in the issuance of grant guidance. AFG 

 

44 National Procurement Fraud Task Force, A Guide to Grant Oversight and Best Practices 

for Combating Grant Fraud (Washington, D.C., February 2009). 

45 Although FEMA tries to issue its grant guidance on a regular schedule, it has not 

established official internal deadlines. 

Page 35 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

Program Office officials said that they are not fully aware of the review 

and approval process once the drafted guidance leaves the AFG Program 

Office and is sent to other offices within FEMA and DHS. They said that 

the delay in issuing the fiscal year 2008 FP&S guidance occurred when the 

FEMA Policy Coordinating Group found that the AFG Program Office did 

not possess a Paperwork Reduction Act clearance in order to collect 

information from others outside of the federal government.46 In response, 

the AFG Program Office submitted a request for an emergency clearance, 

which OMB did not approve.47 According to OMB officials, the clearance 

was denied because OMB believed that FEMA should go through proper 

channels to obtain a routine clearance for its fire grant program because 

FEMA had previously asked for other emergency clearances.48 AFG 

Program Office officials stated that after denial of the emergency 

clearance, the AFG Program Office published the FP&S guidance despite 

not possessing the clearance, and the delay in issuing the FP&S guidance 

delayed the AFG grant application cycle because peer review panels 

cannot be held concurrently. AFG Program Office officials stated that they 

anticipate receiving the clearance for all three grant programs in the near 

future. 

While neither FEMA nor DHS has documented the review and approval 

process, we analyzed information provided by interviewed officials and 

confirmed with them the guidance review and approval process shown in 

figure 7. 

 

46 According to a program specialist responsible for administering the AFG and SAFER 

grant programs, the Policy Coordinating Group is composed of officials from within 

various entities within the agency. The group meets periodically to review draft grant 

guidance. 

47 The Paperwork Reduction Act establishes the OMB review process that federal agencies 

are required to follow before collecting information from the public. See 44 U.S.C. §§ 3506-

3507. 

48 OMB officials stated that obtaining a routine clearance typically requires about 120 days. 

Page 36 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

Figure 7: Grant Guidance Review and Approval Process 

FEMA grant review activities

OMB grant review activities

DHS grant review activities

Sources: GAO analysis of FEMA data and Art Explosion (clip art).

AFG Program office develops guidance 

FEMA 

FEMA 

DHS 

DHS 

OMB

Grants Management Division review 

Chief Counsel’s Office review

Deputy assistant and assistant 

administrator review

Office of Policy and Program 

Analysis review

Chief Counsel’s Office approves guidance

Administrator approves guidance

Policy Coordinating Group review and GPD 

implementation briefing

OMB review

Office of Policy review 

Deputy secretary review

Environmental review

Counsel review

Guidance returned to FEMA program

office and published in Federal Register

Internal concurrent review by the offices

of Chief Financial Officer, Chief Counsel,

and Policy Review 

DHS review, which includes Chief 

Financial Office review and the Office of 

Grant Policy and Oversight review

GPD review 

While we did not specifically ask about this issue, 16 applicants with 

whom we spoke raised concerns regarding the uncertainty associated with 

the issuance of grant guidance and the notification of award decisions. 

These applicants explained that they often receive notifications that the 

grant period is open or receive grant awards significantly later than they 

had anticipated. In addition, nine of the 36 grant applicants suggested that 

Page 37 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

FEMA should award grants in a more timely way or provide more precise 

information on when or whether an award could be expected. Further, an 

official from one of the nine fire service organizations stated that 

uncertainties and delays could cause problems in requesting money for 

matching amounts from city governments to use for fire grant projects. In 

April 2004, we reported that timely grant awards are imperative to provide 

intended benefits.49

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that 

internal control and all transactions and other significant events need to 

be clearly documented, and that documentation should appear in 

management directives, administrative policies, or operating manuals. 

Such documentation may be in paper or electronic form and all 

documentation and records should be properly managed and maintained.50

Furthermore, standard practices for program management state that 

defining milestones or deadlines, among other factors, are essential in 

providing a road map to effectively implementing a program.51 Given that 

there are no controls to routinely monitor the review and approval of grant 

guidance by FEMA, DHS, and OMB, FEMA has no systematic method for 

determining when guidance will be issued each year. When guidance is 

delayed, the entire grant process is delayed, which could affect grant 

applicants’ ability to secure state funds for activities covered by the grant 

since they are unsure whether the grants will be awarded. In addition, 

when grant guidance is delayed, scheduling peer review panels is 

challenging for FEMA program officials and USFA and has resulted in loss 

of award funds due to increased administrative costs. 

 

49 GAO, National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve Award 

Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant Awards and Improve Data, 

GAO-04-496 (Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004). 

50 GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

51 The Project Management Institute, The Standard for Program Management© (2006). See 

also GAO, Information Sharing Environment: Definition of the Results to be Achieved in 

Improving Terrorism-Related Information Sharing Is Needed to Guide Implementation 

and Assess Progress, GAO-08-492 (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2008). 

Page 38 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

Once the grant review process is completed, unsuccessful applicants 

receive letters notifying them of the reason(s) their applications were 

turned down for grant awards, but some applicants have stated that they 

would like more information on the reasons for their rejection. According 

to AFG Program Office officials, applicants receive rejection letters at the 

same time as grant awards are being announced. The officials further 

stated that sending rejection letters to thousands of applicants is time and 

resource intensive. The AFG Program Office has developed 16 templates 

to use in sending AFG applicants letters explaining the reasons for their 

rejection. Explanations that FEMA provides to unsuccessful applicants 

include (1) discrepancies between the itemized request and the narrative 

justification for those items, (2) an applicant or the specific activity for 

which grant funding was requested is ineligible for funding, or 

(3) incomplete fulfillment of the requirements of previous grant awards 

received by the applicant. These letters inform the applicants that there 

were an extremely high number of applications and a finite amount of 

funding, which resulted in many worthy applicants not being funded. 

Grant Applicants Desire 

More Specific Feedback on 

Why Their Grant 

Applications Were Turned 

Down 

In certain cases, the information contained in these letters is more positive 

and does not provide detailed information on the reason for the rejection. 

For example, FEMA may send an applicant a letter explaining that while 

the peer review panelists’ scores indicated that its application was 

generally good, the agency does not have enough funding to offer the 

applicant an award after awarding grants to applicants with higher scores. 

However, FEMA states that if it identifies any excess funding or if some of 

the applicants that have been offered a grant decline the offers, the agency 

might be able to fund the request. According to AFG Program Office 

officials, applicants are not allowed to appeal panelists’ scores. Rather, 

they can only request reconsiderations because of processing issues. For 

example, they can argue that terminology in the grant guidance was 

unclear. 

Four of the nine major fire service organizations expressed concern about 

the level of feedback provided to rejected applicants.52 One official stated 

that FEMA’s denial letters lack specificity about why their applications 

were denied, while another official stated that rejected departments were 

frustrated with not knowing why their applications were rejected year 

 

52 Representatives we interviewed from five major national fire service organizations did 

not mention specific concerns related to the level of feedback provided to rejected 

applicants. 

Page 39 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

after year. Another official suggested that FEMA publish a list of the top 10 

reasons why grants are turned down in order to provide greater clarity to 

applicants. 

Moreover, 61 percent of the 36 grant applicants that we interviewed (22 of 

36) stated that the feedback they received from FEMA regarding why their 

applications were turned down was helpful to little or no extent. One 

applicant stated that he did not receive any feedback from FEMA and that 

his fire department had called the agency to learn the status of its 

application. In addition, 6 applicants stated that the feedback was helpful 

to some or to a moderate extent and another 6 stated that the feedback 

was helpful to a great or very great extent. However, 1 applicant reported 

not knowing the extent to which the feedback was helpful. Seventy-five 

percent (27 of 36) of grant applicants with whom we spoke suggested that 

FEMA’s feedback should include specific reasons why the grant 

application was denied. For example, 3 grant applicants suggested that it 

would be helpful if FEMA provided information regarding the specific 

stage in the application review process where an application was rejected. 

One fire department suggested that FEMA cite whether an application 

contained a poorly written narrative or was rejected for another reason, 

such as a request for equipment that was not a funding priority. Another 

applicant suggested that peer reviewers provide applicants the reasons 

why their applications scored low, and another suggested that FEMA 

include information on available assistance for future grant cycles, such as 

the online tutorial or list of workshops. 

Providing feedback to grant applicants is an important part of the fire 

grant program. In its 2007 report on the AFG program, the National 

Academy of Public Administration listed improving feedback to grant 

applicants as a strategic objective for the grant management process. The 

strategic objective is for FEMA to improve the feedback to unsuccessful 

candidates so that applicants can understand why they did not receive 

grants, thereby increasing participation and improving the quality of 

requested grants.53 AFG Program Office officials acknowledged that they 

could strengthen efforts to improve feedback to applicants who are turned 

down for grants following the peer review process. According to the 

Director of the AFG program, FEMA could modify the feedback provided 

to unsuccessful applicants to better explain the reasons why applications 

 

53 National Academy of Public Administration, Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program: 

Assessing Performance. 

Page 40 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

were rejected. We have previously reported the need to provide clear 

feedback to unsuccessful applicants on the strengths and weaknesses of 

their grant applications.54 Providing specific feedback to applicants 

regarding the reasons that they are denied grants could help FEMA 

strengthen future grant application processes and better position it to 

achieve its intended benefits of assisting fire departments that are most in 

need. 

Through the years, the U.S. fire service community has experienced 

changes in its responsibilities to the public as well as decreases in local 

budget distribution, which underscore the need for fire departments 

nationwide to have the resources necessary to protect their communities. 

Through its fire grant programs, FEMA has an opportunity to assist fire 

departments that are struggling to meet their responsibilities. While FEMA 

distributed fire grants to a variety of applicants for a variety of activities, 

developing and implementing a procedure for capturing the percentage of 

appropriated funds awarded to fire departments related to EMS equipment 

and training would better position FEMA to more readily determine if it 

met the minimum amount established by statute. FEMA could improve the 

clarity and consistency of the grant review and award process by 

collecting all statutorily required information and eliminating 

inconsistencies between the guidance, the scoring matrix, and the 

application, which may confuse applicants. Additionally, by improving its 

internal controls to document and track the grant guidance review and 

approval against established milestones, FEMA could provide applicants 

the opportunity to plan for matching funds by determining when guidance 

will be issued each year. Finally, by providing more specific feedback and 

information on assistance, FEMA could help ensure that applicants have 

the opportunity to prepare better applications, and thus have a greater 

chance of being awarded grants in the future. 

To ensure compliance with all AFG statutory requirements, we 

recommend that the Administrator of FEMA establish a procedure for 

tracking the percentage of grant funds awarded to fire departments for 

EMS purposes. 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

 

54 GAO, Health Resources and Services Administration: Many Underserved Areas Lack a 

Health Center Site, and the Health Center Program Needs More Oversight, GAO-08-723 

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 8, 2008). 

Page 41 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

In addition, to improve the clarity, consistency, and controls of the grant 

review and award process, we recommend that the Administrator of 

FEMA take the following three actions: 

• Ensure that the priorities in the grant guidance are aligned with the 

scoring matrix and the grant application questions, and that FEMA 

requests applicants to submit all statutorily required information. 

• Coordinate with the Secretary of Homeland Security to document the 

review and approval process for its grant guidance, develop a tracking 

system to monitor the progress of the review within FEMA and DHS, 

and set internal deadlines so that guidance can be issued in a timely 

manner. 

• Inform unsuccessful applicants about the forms of assistance available 

to them in future grant cycles and provide more specific feedback to 

applicants that are turned down for grants following the peer review. 

We provided a draft of this report to DHS and FEMA for review and 

comment. On October 22, 2009, DHS provided written comments on the 

draft report, which are reprinted in appendix XIV. DHS concurred with our 

recommendations and is taking actions to address them. DHS stated that 

FEMA will examine the available options and adopt one for manually and 

electronically monitoring percentages of grant funds awarded to fire 

departments for emergency medical services purposes to ensure 

compliance. DHS also stated that FEMA will explore options and identify 

means for providing clear, concise, and consistent information to 

applicants on the funding priorities and statutorily required information. In 

addition, DHS stated that FEMA will work with applicable offices to 

enable a timely review and tracking of program guidance material. 

Further, DHS stated that additional training and outreach efforts are being 

developed to enhance feedback to applicants. 

Agency Comments 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, interested 

congressional committees, and other interested parties. The report also 

will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, or wish to 

discuss these matters further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or 

jenkinswo@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Page 42 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

William O. Jenkins, Jr. 

Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix XV. 

Director, Homeland Security and Justice 

Page 43 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 44 GAO-10-64 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

The accompanying explanatory statement to the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2008,1

 mandates that we review the application and 

award process for Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) and Staffing for 

Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants. Thus, we 

addressed the following questions: 

• To what extent has the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) met statutory and program requirements for distributing the 

grant funds to a variety of applicants and activities? 

• What actions has FEMA taken to provide assistance to grant applicants 

and involve the fire service community in the grant process? 

• To what extent has FEMA taken actions to help ensure the fire grant 

process and related guidance are accessible, clear, and consistent with 

applicable statutory and program requirements? 

To review the extent to which FEMA met statutory and program 

requirements for distributing fire grants to a variety of applicants and 

activities, we reviewed relevant statutory requirements from sections 33 

and 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (called the 

Fire Act and the SAFER Act, respectively, for purposes of this report). 

Based upon these statutes, we identified a total of eight statutory 

requirements that established specific percentages or dollar amounts 

designating how FEMA was to distribute funds among different grant 

applicants and activities. We also identified three relevant program 

requirements established in FEMA’s grant guidance for the AFG, SAFER 

and Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) grant programs, which related to 

distributing grant funds among different categories of activities and 

applicants.2

 We then compared these statutory and program requirements 

to FEMA grant award data that stratified awards based on the type of fire 

 

1

 Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844 (2007). 

2

 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and 

Application Guidance; Federal Emergency Management Agency, Assistance to 

Firefighters Grant Program 2008 Fire Prevention and Safety Grants; and Department of 

Homeland Security, Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Program and 

Application Guidance. 

 Fire Grants 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

department: volunteer, career, or combination3—and based on the type of 

activity, such as awards for vehicle acquisitions. FEMA began maintaining 

electronic fire grant award data in fiscal year 2002. FEMA’s fire grant 

award data are current as of July 2009, at which time FEMA was in the 

process of awarding fiscal year 2007 FP&S grants and fiscal year 2008 AFG 

and SAFER grants. These years were the latest for which grants had been 

awarded at the time of our review and for which we were able to 

determine FEMA’s compliance with statutory and program funding 

distribution requirements.4

 In addition to analyzing compliance issues, we 

also analyzed FEMA’s annual listings of applications and awards for the 

AFG and FP&S grant programs from fiscal years 20025

 through 2008 and 

SAFER grant program from fiscal years 20056

 through 2008 to provide 

descriptive information on a number of other characteristics, such as the 

type of community served by the applicant—urban, suburban, or rural. We 

provided descriptive information on the type of community served 

because the Fire Act requires FEMA to distribute AFG grants to a variety 

of different fire departments based on such characteristics as the type of 

community served, although the statute did not provide a specific 

percentage of funds against which we could evaluate compliance for the 

community-based requirement. We also determined the number of times 

that departments have applied for and been awarded grants. The 

descriptive information regarding the distribution of grant awards appears 

in appendixes V through X and appendix XIII of this report. To assess the 

reliability of data provided by FEMA, we reviewed and discussed the 

sources of data with agency officials. We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

 

3

 FEMA defines a volunteer fire department as one in which no members receive any 

compensation other than a length of service retirement program and insurance, whereas a 

career department is one in which all members are compensated for their services. A 

combination department is defined as having any number of both volunteer and career 

firefighters regardless of their proportion to one another. According to a FEMA program 

specialist responsible for administering the AFG and SAFER grant programs, combination 

departments also include paid on call/stipend departments. If a volunteer fire department 

provides stipends to its members or provides “pay-on-call” for its members, the department 

is considered to be combination. 

4

 Fire grant data for fiscal year 2007 and 2008 are current as of July 2009. 

5

 Although the first appropriation for the AFG grant program was made in fiscal year 2001, 

a program specialist responsible for administering the AFG and SAFER grant programs 

informed us that electronic data were not available until fiscal year 2002. 

6

 The first appropriation for the SAFER grant program was made in fiscal year 2005. 

Page 45 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

To determine the actions FEMA has taken to provide assistance to grant 

applicants and involve the fire service community in the grant process, we 

collected and reviewed pertinent FEMA documents, such as program 

guidance, and observed FEMA’s fiscal year 2010 criteria development 

panel process and the fiscal year 2008 FP&S peer review panel process. 

We conducted interviews with officials from FEMA and the nine fire 

service organizations to determine the type of information FEMA provides 

to applicants on the grant application and review process.7

 We analyzed 

the methods FEMA uses to inform applicants about the fire grant 

programs, including the various types of outreach and assistance that the 

agency provides to applicants. Specifically, we reviewed information on 

grant-writing workshops, online tutorials, technical support, and 

mentoring, among other forms of applicant outreach, and reviewed the 

contract between the North American Fire Training Directors and FEMA 

to provide additional grant-writing assistance to applicants. We also 

conducted interviews with officials from FEMA, the U.S. Fire 

Administration, and the nine fire service organizations to understand how 

FEMA establishes criteria for awarding grants to applicants. We analyzed 

the information regarding FEMA’s procedures for selecting peer 

reviewers; the training that panelists receive before reviewing 

applications; and the measures FEMA takes to ensure that peer review 

panelists maintain independence, safeguard against any conflict of 

interest, and adhere to restrictions related to confidentiality. We analyzed 

peer review guidance and other AFG Program Office documents, such as 

the criteria development reports and panel application evaluation sheets, 

to determine the process through which peer reviewers score grant 

applications. We collected and analyzed information pertaining to the 

technical review process and observed the fiscal year 2008 FP&S subject 

matter specialists’ portion of the technical review to determine how FEMA 

incorporates scores from the technical reviewers and makes final award 

decisions. 

To evaluate the extent to which FEMA has taken actions to help ensure 

that the fire grant process and related guidance are accessible, clear, and 

consistent with applicable statutory and program requirements, we 

 

7

 In its grant guidance, FEMA identified the following nine major fire service organizations: 

the Congressional Fire Service Institute, the International Association of Arson 

Investigators, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of 

Firefighters, the International Society of Fire Service Instructors, the North American Fire 

Training Directors, the National Association of State Fire Marshals, the National Fire 

Protection Association, and the National Volunteer Fire Council. 

Page 46 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

reviewed FEMA’s methods of publishing grant guidance online and the 

online applications. We also identified statutory requirements pertaining to 

information applicants are required to submit in their fire grant 

applications and analyzed FEMA’s fiscal year 2008 grant guidance and 

application forms to determine whether they consistently instructed 

applicants to submit the statutorily required information. We obtained and 

analyzed FEMA AFG Program Office documents, such as the scoring 

matrix and documents describing the prescreening process. We analyzed 

and compared the fire grant programs’ funding priorities contained in 

fiscal year 2008 AFG and SAFER grant guidance and 2007 FP&S grant 

guidance with the application questions and the scoring matrix to 

determine the extent to which they were consistent based on criteria from 

the National Procurement Fraud Task Force.8

 To determine whether 

FEMA’s process for issuing grant guidance had adequate controls, we 

obtained and analyzed testimonial information regarding the approval and 

issuance of the program and application guidance for fiscal year 2008 for 

the AFG and SAFER programs and for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 for the 

FP&S grant program. We also developed a timeline depicting the grant 

application and review process. We compared the agency’s process for 

documenting and monitoring the guidance approval process with criteria 

in Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

9

 Through 

our analysis of grant program documents for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 

and our interviews with officials from the Office of Management and 

Budget, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and FEMA, we 

obtained obtain information about the approval and issuance of the 

program and application guidance as well as how grant decisions are 

announced. We analyzed the procedures that FEMA uses to announce 

grant decisions and the type of feedback it provides to unsuccessful 

applicants and determined the circumstances under which applicants may 

appeal FEMA’s grant decisions. We compared the views of a 

nonprobability sample of 36 randomly selected fire grant applicants 

 

8

 National Procurement Fraud Task Force, A Guide to Grant Oversight and Best Practices 

for Combating Grant Fraud. 

9 GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. These standards, issued pursuant to the requirements of the Federal 

Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), provide the overall framework for 

establishing and maintaining internal control in the federal government. Also pursuant to 

FMFIA, the Office of Management and Budget issued Circular A-123, revised December 21, 

2004, to provide the specific requirements for assessing the reporting on internal controls. 

Internal control standards and the definition of internal control in Circular A-123 are based 

on GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. 

Page 47 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

regarding feedback to unsuccessful candidates, and reviewed the National 

Academy of Public Administration 2007 assessment of the AFG program.10

From June 22 through June 29, 2009, we conducted structured interviews 

by phone with fire chiefs and other officials knowledgeable about the fire 

grants program from a nonprobability sample of 36 randomly selected fire 

grant applicants that did or did not receive fiscal year 2008 funding for the 

AFG and SAFER grants and fiscal year 2007 funding for the FP&S grants. 

We obtained their perspectives on the application and award process. The 

sample included fire grant applicants across the continental United States 

and Alaska. We obtained a list of the universe of applicants from FEMA for 

the respective fiscal years, from which we randomly selected fire 

departments within seven grant categories: (1) awarded AFG applicant, 

(2) turned down AFG applicant following the peer review panel process, 

(3) turned down AFG applicant following the initial electronic screening 

process, (4) awarded FP&S applicant, (5) turned down FP&S applicant 

following the peer review panel process, (6) awarded SAFER applicant, 

and (7) turned down SAFER applicant following the peer review panel 

process. We conducted two pretest interviews in person with 

representatives of fire departments in South Carolina and Pennsylvania to 

further refine our questions. An independent GAO methodologist reviewed 

our questionnaire to identify and revise potentially biased questions. 

Although we are not able to generalize the results of the nonprobability 

sample to the general population of applicants, the questionnaire allowed 

for a series of open-ended and close-ended responses on the grant 

application and award process, including questions on the perceived 

fairness and objectivity of the grant programs. Because of the scope of our 

work, we reviewed the fire grant programs’ application and award 

process, but did not assess the extent to which FEMA measures its 

performance in implementing these fire grant programs. 

We conducted this performance audit from January 2009 through October 

2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. To assess the 

reliability of data provided by DHS and FEMA on the fire grant applicants, 

review criteria, and award procedures, we reviewed and discussed the 

 

10 National Academy of Public Administration, Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program: 

Assessing Performance. 

Page 48 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

sources of data with agency officials. We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review, and that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

Page 49 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix II: Statutory Requirements for Fire 

Grants 

Page 50 GAO-10-64 

The AFG, FP&S, and SAFER grant programs are authorized to award 

funds for a range of purposes to various eligible organizations. Statutory 

requirements pertaining to each grant program are shown in table 6. 

Table 6: AFG, FP&S, and SAFER Statutory Requirements 

AFG FP&S SAFER 

Statutory authority Section 33 of Federal Fire 

Prevention and Control Act of 

1974, 15 U.S.C. § 2229 (Fire Act). 

Section 33 of Federal Fire 

Prevention and Control Act of 

1974, 15 U.S.C. § 2229 (Fire Act). 

Section 34 of Federal Fire 

Prevention and Control Act of 

1974, 15 U.S.C. § 2229a (SAFER 

Act). 

(Program has a 10-year sunset; 

the authority to make grants ends 

on November 24, 2013.) 

Purposes Hiring firefighters. 

Training firefighters. 

Creating rapid intervention teams. 

Certifying fire inspectors. 

Establishing firefighter wellness 

and fitness programs. 

Funding emergency medical 

services (EMS) (at least 3.5 

percent of appropriation). 

Acquiring firefighting vehicles (no 

more than 25 percent of 

appropriation). 

Acquiring firefighting equipment. 

Acquiring personal protective 

equipment. 

Modifying firefighter facilities. 

Enforcing fire codes. 

Educating the public about arson 

prevention and detection. 

Providing recruitment and retention 

incentives for volunteer firefighters.

Activities: 

Fire prevention and safety: Grants 

to fund fire prevention programs. 

Firefighter safety research and 

development (R&D): Grants to fund 

research to improve firefighter 

health and life safety. 

Activities: 

Hiring grants: Hiring firefighters to 

meet industry standards and attain 

24-hour staffing to provide 

adequate fire protection and fulfill 

traditional firefighting missions. 

Recruitment and retention (R&R) 

grants: Recruiting and retaining 

volunteer firefighters who have 

experience or training in both 

firefighting and emergency 

response. 

Eligible recipients Fire departments (volunteer, 

combined, and career). 

Nonaffiliated EMS organizations 

(nonprofit EMS organizations that 

are not affiliated with a hospital and 

that serve an area without 

adequate EMS protection by a fire 

department). 

For fire prevention and safety 

grants: 

Fire departments. 

Non–fire department organizations 

that specialize in fire prevention, 

fire safety, and firefighter R&D. 

For R&D Grants: 

Non–fire department organizations 

that specialize in fire prevention, 

fire safety, and firefighter R&D. 

For hiring grants: Fire 

departments (volunteer, combined, 

and career). 

For R&R grants: 

Fire departments (volunteer or 

combined, but not career). 

Local or state organizations that 

represent the interests of volunteer 

firefighters. 

Appendix II: Statutory Requirements for Fire 

Grants 

 Fire Grants 
Appendix II: Statutory Requirements for Fire 

Grants 

 AFG FP&S SAFER 

Recipient limitations 

(per grant) 

Population based: 

Population under 500,000: 

$1 million (may be waived based 

on extraordinary need). 

Population from 500,000 to 1 

million: $1.75 million (may be 

waived based on extraordinary 

need). 

Population over 1 million: 

$2.75 million (no waiver). 

Total distribution: 

Total grants for a single recipient 

for a single fiscal year may not 

exceed $2.75 million or 0.5 percent 

of appropriation, whichever is less 

(no waiver). 

No FP&S grant may exceed $1 

million. 

Hiring grants: $100,000 per 

firefighter over 4 years, with annual 

adjustment for inflation starting 

fiscal year 2005.a (Hiring grants are 

to supplement, not supplant, state 

and local funds.) 

Both grants: No grant if the 

applicant’s budget has been 

reduced below 80 percent of its 

average funding level in the 3 

years before the statute’s 

enactment.a

Nonfederal match Population based: 

Population under 20,000: 

5 percent. 

Population from 20,000 to 50,000: 

10 percent. 

Population above 50,000: 

20 percent. 

Population based for fire 

departments: 

Population under 20,000: 5 

percent. 

Population from 20,000 to 50,000: 

10 percent. 

Population above 50,000: 20 

percent. 

No match for non–fire 

departments. 

Hiring grants: Escalating 

nonfederal match over 4-year grant 

period: 

Year 1: 10 percent. 

Year 2: 20 percent. 

Year 3: 50 percent. 

Year 4: 70 percent. 

Preference may be given to 

applicants that offer a higher 

nonfederal match.b

Applicant must commit to retaining 

funded firefighters for 1 year after 

federal assistance ends.a

R&R grants: No match specified. 

Page 51 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix II: Statutory Requirements for Fire 

Grants 

 AFG FP&S SAFER 

Award procedure Annual meeting of criteria 

development panel. 

Annual grant guidelines published 

in the Federal Register. 

Applications must address financial 

need, cost-benefit analysis, 

national fire incident reporting 

systems data, and other federal 

support received by applicant. 

• EMS organizations: FEMA 

shall consider the extent to 

which other sources of federal 

funding are available to 

provide the requested 

assistance. 

• Fire departments: Criteria 

must include extent to which 

grant would enhance 

applicant’s daily operations 

and grant’s impact on 

protection of lives and 

property. 

Peer review evaluation. 

Grant awards by FEMA. 

Annual meeting of criteria 

development panel. 

Annual grant guidelines published 

in the Federal Register. 

Applications must address financial 

need, cost-benefit analysis, 

national fire incident reporting 

systems data, and other federal 

support received by applicant. 

Peer review evaluation. 

Grant awards by FEMA. 

Both grants: 

While the statute does not require 

an annual meeting of the criteria 

development panel, or annual 

grant guidelines published in the 

Federal Register, FEMA follows 

this procedure for SAFER grants. 

Statute requires applicants to 

address 

• inability to meet need without 

federal assistance; 

• long-term retention plans, 

including—for hiring grants—

how applicant will meet the 1-

year service commitment for 

funded firefighters after federal 

assistance ends; and 

• commitment to diversity in 

hiring. 

Hiring grants: Applicant must also 

address how it will ensure 

nondiscrimination against 

firefighters who engage in 

volunteer activities in another 

jurisdiction during off-duty hours. 

Peer review evaluation. 

Grant awards by FEMA. 

Funding distribution to 

different applicants and 

activitiesc

Fire departments: Statute generally 

requires diversity based on type of 

fire department and community 

served. More specifically, statute 

requires that volunteer and 

combined fire departments receive 

a proportion of the total grant 

funding that is not less than the 

proportion of the U.S. population 

protected by those fire 

departments. 

Vehicle acquisition: Not more than 

25 percent of appropriation. 

EMS services: At least 3.5 percent 

of appropriation (but nonaffiliated 

EMS organizations can only 

receive up to 2 percent of 

appropriation; fire departments 

eligible for the rest). 

A total of $3 million to be made 

available for foam firefighting 

equipment in remote areas through 

fiscal year 2008.d

 

At least 5 percent of AFG 

appropriation. 

Hiring grants: Ten percent of 

appropriation to be set aside for 

volunteer fire departments (whole 

or majority). 

R&R grants: At least 10 percent of 

appropriation. (R&R grants also get 

any unused funds under the 10 

percent hiring grant set-aside.) 

Page 52 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix II: Statutory Requirements for Fire 

Grants 

 AFG FP&S SAFER 

FEMA program 

administratione

Program administration for AFG 

and FP&S may account for up to 3 

percent of AFG appropriation. 

Program administration for AFG 

and FP&S may account for up to 3 

percent of AFG appropriation. 

No amount specified for program 

administration in SAFER Act. 

Source: GAO. 

a

The Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 11-32, 123 Stat. 1859, 1882 (2009), 

authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant waivers from this SAFER Act requirement in 

making grants for fiscal years 2009 or 2010. 

b

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, Div. A., Title VI, § 603, 

123 Stat. 115, 165 (2009), waived the SAFER Act’s nonfederal match requirement for grant funds 

appropriated in fiscal years 2009 or 2010. 

c

Funding distribution is based on funds appropriated under either section 33 of the Federal Fire 

Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (AFG and FP&S grants) or section 34 of the same act (SAFER 

grants). 

d

The $3 million dollar funding requirement for foam firefighting equipment was enacted on 

December 6, 2003, as part of the United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of 2003, Pub. 

L. No. 108-169, § 205, 117 Stat. 2036, 2040 (2003). 

e

Annual appropriations acts have included different language for FEMA program administration than 

the authorizing statutes. For example, beginning in fiscal year 2005, annual appropriations acts have 

provided that program administration may not exceed 5 percent of the combined appropriation for 

activities under section 33 and section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, 

which encompasses all three fire grant programs (AFG, FP&S, and SAFER). 

Page 53 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix III: Mission, Membership, and 

Description of Fire Service Organizations 

Officials from the nine fire service organizations participate in the criteria 

development panel to recommend changes to the upcoming year’s grant 

priorities, as well as nominate members to serve on the peer review panel. 

The organizations’ missions and memberships represent a range of 

interests within the fire service community. (See table 7.) 

Table 7: Mission, Membership, and Description of Fire Service Organizations 

Mission Membership Description 

Congressional Fire 

Services Institute (CFSI)a

To educate members of 

Congress about fire and life 

safety issues. 

Forty-two national 

organization members who 

are firefighters, emergency 

services responders, 

manufacturers, or fire 

service leaders. 

CFSI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy 

institute incorporated in Delaware in 

1989. It educates and lobbies Congress 

on the basic needs and training of 

firefighters and emergency responders. 

The Congressional Fire Services 

Caucus has about 300 members. 

International Association 

of Arson Investigators 

(IAAI) 

To improve the professional 

development of fire and 

explosion investigators by being 

the global resource for fire 

investigation training, 

technology, and research. 

7,500 fire and explosive 

investigators. 

IAAI is a nonprofit association located in 

Crofton, Md., that provides resources for 

training, research, and technology for 

fire investigators around the world. The 

IAAI Foundation, Inc., seeks to improve 

arson prevention programs. 

International Association 

of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)b

To provide leadership to career 

and volunteer chiefs, chief fire 

officers, company officers, and 

managers of emergency service 

organizations throughout the 

international community—

through vision, information, 

education, services, and 

representation—to enhance 

their professionalism and 

capabilities. 

Roughly 12,500 chief fire 

and emergency officers. 

IAFC is a professional 

association of individuals 

who conduct fire 

investigations. IAFC 

provides resources for 

training, research, and 

technology for fire 

investigators around the 

world. 

IAFC is a nonprofit association formed in 

1873 and headquartered in Fairfax, Va. 

IAFC provides a forum to exchange 

ideas and materials on fire safety and 

wellness, management guidance and 

compliance, and training. It facilitates 

the criteria development panels. 

International Association 

of Fire Fighters (IAFF) 

To organize firefighters and 

emergency medical or rescue 

workers and lobby on behalf of 

their interests in the areas of 

compensation, work 

environment, education, and 

safety. 

There are over 292,000 fulltime professional firefighters 

and paramedics, and more 

than 3,100 affiliates and their 

members in the United 

States and in Canada. IAFF 

also represents state and 

federal employees and fire 

and emergency medical 

workers employed at certain 

industrial facilities. 

Formed in 1918 and headquartered in 

Washington, D.C., IAFF is a union that 

lobbies Congress and the Canadian 

Parliament on such issues as collective 

bargaining rights, staffing, line-of-duty 

deaths, health care, pensions, training, 

and equipment. In 2003, the association 

supported SAFER grant legislation to 

help pay for the costs associated with 

hiring new staff. 

Appendix III: Mission, Membership, and 

Description of Fire Service Organizations 

Page 54 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants 
Appendix III: Mission, Membership, and 

Description of Fire Service Organizations 

 Mission Membership Description 

International Society of 

Fire Service Instructors 

(ISFSI) 

To develop fire instructors and 

trainers who prepare firefighters 

to protect their communities. 

There are over 1,000 

members who are fire 

service instructors and 

training officers, and 

thousands of members in 

state chapters and 

internationally. 

ISFSI represents fire service instructors 

across the United States and supports 

them with networking opportunities and 

resources needed for instruction. 

However, ISFSI does not provide direct 

training or instruction on grant-writing 

programs. Located in Pleasant View, 

Tenn., ISFSI advocates on behalf of 

instructors’ perspectives on legislative 

and regulatory issues, and it provides 

representation on standards committees 

and steering groups. 

North American Fire 

Training Directors 

(NAFTD) 

To promote the common 

interests of providing a quality 

fire training and educational 

experience for firefighters. 

There is one member for 

each U.S. state and territory 

and each Canadian 

province, typically located in 

a university or state 

government office. Members 

serve as points of contact for 

fire training and education. 

NAFTD serves as a forum for the 

enhancement of state, provincial, and 

territorial fire training and education for 

fire and rescue services and is 

headquartered in Washington, D.C. In 

2009, FEMA signed a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) with the 

association to conduct grant application 

training for fire departments. The MOU 

provides $250,000 for training, which is 

to be divided among the states. 

National Association of 

State Fire Marshals 

(NASFM) 

To protect human life, property, 

and the environment from fire. 

To improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of state fire 

marshals’ operations. 

Members are state fire 

marshals, who are the most 

senior fire officials. Most 

members are appointed by 

their governors. 

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., 

NASFM promotes standards, codes, 

and regulations for improved fire safety 

of consumer products, building 

materials, and construction; provides 

training for code enforcement officials; 

educates the public on fire prevention; 

and advocates for fire safety. 

National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) 

To reduce the worldwide 

burden of fire and other hazards 

on the quality of life by 

providing and advocating 

consensus codes and 

standards, research, training, 

and education. 

Worldwide membership of 

more than 81,000, including 

80 national trade and 

professional organizations. 

NFPA is an international nonprofit 

membership association established in 

1896 and headquartered in Quincy, 

Mass. It has developed and published 

over 300 consensus codes and 

standards, and offers statistical and data 

services through its Fire Analysis and 

Research Division, including needs 

assessments of the U.S. fire service, for 

DHS and USFA. 

Page 55 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix III: Mission, Membership, and 

Description of Fire Service Organizations 

 Mission Membership Description 

National Volunteer Fire 

Council (NVFC) 

To provide a unified voice for 

volunteer fire/EMS 

organizations. 

Comprises 49 state fire 

associations. Each appoints 

a member to serve as its 

state director and another 

member to serve as state 

alternate director. These 

individuals make up NVFC’s 

Board of Directors. NVFC 

represents 25,000 to 30,000 

fire departments, which 

include all volunteer and 

some combination 

departments. 

Headquartered in Greenbelt, Md., NVFC 

is a nonprofit association representing 

volunteer fire, EMS, and rescue service 

organizations. It promotes the interests 

of state and local organizations at the 

national level and provides education for 

volunteer fire/EMS organizations. It also 

serves as an information source on 

legislation, standards, and regulatory 

issues and provides resources to fire 

departments. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: FEMA invites the cognizant organizations’ officials to participate in the criteria development 

panel, and the officials are to provide FEMA with a list of nominations of organization members to 

serve on the peer review panels. Although there are both new and returning participants in the criteria 

development panels and peer review panels, returning peer review panelists are not to exceed 50 

percent of the total number of participants. Organizations are eligible to receive FP&S grants, but not 

AFG or SAFER grants. 

a

CFSI is the only organization that is ineligible to receive FP&S grants because of restrictions in its 

charter. 

b

FEMA compensates IAFC through its allowable administrative cost under the AFG grant to facilitate 

the criteria development panels. 

Page 56 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix IV: A

for Fi

pplication and Award Process 

re Grants 

Page 57 GAO-10-64 

Appendix IV: Application and Award Process 

for Fire Grants 

The AFG, FP&S, and SAFER grant programs are evaluated in three phases 

of review. The first phase is an automated scoring process to select 

competitive AFG grant applications, or a prescreening process for FP&S 

and SAFER grants. The second phase for all grants is a peer review panel 

process to evaluate the extent to which an application aligns with the 

grant year’s funding priorities and meets the programs’ goals and 

objectives. The third phase is a technical review panel process to 

determine technical feasibility, avoid duplication with state initiatives, and 

make any modifications to the potential award. 

Automated Scoring and 

Prescreening Process 

After the application period is closed, all fire grant applications undergo 

either an automated scoring process, where each application is ranked 

relative to the funding priorities described in the guidance, or a 

prescreening process, where each application is screened for eligibility. 

For example, for the AFG and SAFER grant programs, the AFG Program 

Office creates a scoring formula (following the criteria development 

panel’s scoring matrix), which is then entered into a computerized system 

by FEMA’s Information Technology Office. Through this formula, each 

application is scored and ranked electronically. For the AFG program, if 

an application for a project has a high-dollar item or activity that was 

ranked as a low priority, that item or activity may have adversely affected 

the scoring and thus may have taken the application out of the competitive 

range for peer review. FEMA officials stated that because more than 

21,000 AFG applications are submitted every year and the AFG Program 

Office does not have the resources to review all of the applications, the 

number of applications it submits for peer review is the number of 

applications with the highest scores whose cumulative funding requests 

total 200 percent of the appropriated funding. In other words, AFG grants 

that go to peer review can total no more than twice the dollar value of the 

available grant amount. 

SAFER applications also undergo an automated scoring and ranking 

process; however, FEMA submits all of them for peer review (1,314 

applications for fiscal year 2008). Applications that best address the 

funding priorities score higher than applications that do not. Unlike the 

AFG automated scoring, which is used for the sole purpose of selecting 

applications for peer review, the automated score for SAFER grants 

accounts for one-half of the overall consideration provided each 

application, with the peer review accounting for the balance of the 

consideration. 

 Fire Grants 
Appendix IV: Application and Award Process 

for Fire Grants 

Unlike AFG and SAFER grants, FP&S applications do not undergo an 

automated scoring and ranking process. Because of the smaller size of the 

FP&S program and the more technical and academic nature of some FP&S 

requests, the AFG Program Office manually screens for eligibility all 

applications submitted for the two FP&S activities, which are fire 

prevention and safety grants and R&D grants. Both the applicants and the 

projects are screened for eligibility based on statutory and programmatic 

eligibility criteria, and those found ineligible are removed from further 

consideration before the peer review process. For example, for-profit 

applicants and projects requesting fire suppression equipment or fire 

vehicles are considered ineligible. According to an AFG Program Office 

section chief, out of 2,637 FP&S applications submitted for fiscal year 2008 

funding, 170 applications were considered ineligible before the peer 

review panel process and another 16 applications were found ineligible 

during the peer review and therefore were not scored. 

Peer Review Process Peer review panel participants are fire service professionals who are 

members of one or more of the nine major fire service organizations. The 

panel’s goal is to evaluate the extent to which an application aligns with 

the grant year’s funding priorities and meets the programs’ goals and 

objectives. The AFG Program Office officials explained that FEMA 

requests that each organization nominate members to serve as peer review 

panelists. FEMA also sends letters to subgroups within the organizations 

that represent minorities to receive nominations to help diversify the 

panel. Although the officials select both new and returning panelists to 

review applications in any or all three grant categories, they attempt to 

limit returning panelists to no more than one-third of the total panel 

composition. However, FEMA may invite more experienced panelists if 

there are not enough confirmed attendees. 

In the orientation for the peer review of fiscal year 2008 FP&S 

applications, new panelists completed a review of two mock applications 

and discussed them as a group to familiarize themselves with the review 

process. These simulated exercises for new panelists occur for the AFG 

and SAFER panels as well. 

For fiscal year 2008 SAFER hiring grants, panelists also scored 

applications numerically according to six evaluation factors stated in their 

score sheets, which were the extent to which the application described 

(1) a plan to use firefighters and the specific benefit these firefighters will 

provide for the fire department and the community, (2) a risk to the 

community and current firefighters that will be significantly reduced with 

Page 58 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix IV: Application and Award Process 

for Fire Grants 

grant funding, (3) the need for financial assistance, (4) a plan to recruit 

and hire minorities and women, (5) a long-range plan to make the 

nonfederal match and retain firefighters, and (6) a policy to prevent 

discrimination against firefighters who volunteer for other departments. 

For SAFER recruitment and retention grants, only the first four evaluation 

factors apply.1

For fiscal year 2008 FP&S applications, panelists scored applications for 

the fire prevention and safety activity based on six evaluation factors 

stated in their score sheets using adjectives ranging from “Strongly Agree” 

to “Strongly Disagree,” which the AFG Program Office subsequently 

converts to numerical scores. The evaluation sheet contains six detailed 

evaluation factors: (1) financial need, (2) vulnerability statement, 

(3) implementation plan, (4) project evaluation plan, (5) sustainability, and 

(6) cost-benefit analysis.2

 For the FP&S research and development 

activity, panelists scored applications reflecting the degree to whi

addressed the following evaluation factors: (1) study purpose(s), goals and 

objectives, and specific aims; (2) scientific and technical merit of the 

proposed research; (3) dissemination and implementation; (4) resources—

people and time; (5) protection for human subjects; (6) financial need; and 

(7) impact on firefighter safety.

ch they 

 

3

Automated Scoring and 

Prescreening Process 

Results in Some 

Applications Not 

Undergoing Peer Review 

In the House report accompanying DHS’s fiscal year 2008 appropriations 

bill, the House Committee on Appropriations raised concerns about the 

number of fire grant applications that did not reach the peer review stage 

(9,268 out of 20,972 according to the House report).4

 In the subsequent 

explanatory statement accompanying DHS’s fiscal year 2008 

appropriations act, both the House and Senate appropriations committees 

directed FEMA to provide fire grant applicants whose applications were 

1

 The score sheet factors correspond with the evaluation factors stated in the SAFER grant 

guidance and application form for fiscal year 2008. 

2

 The score sheet factors include six of the seven evaluation factors stated in the FP&S 

grant guidance for fiscal year 2008, but do not include the seventh factor related to an 

applicant’s past performance. However, FEMA’s Section Chief for the FP&S program 

advised us that FEMA’s Program Office considers past performance as part of its award 

consideration. 

3

 The score sheet factors correspond with the evaluation factors stated in the FP&S grant 

guidance and application form for fiscal year 2008. 

4

 H. Rep. No. 110-181, at 106 (2007). 

Page 59 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix IV: Application and Award Process 

for Fire Grants 

not selected for peer review an official notification detailing the reasons 

for their rejection.5

 A program specialist responsible for administering the 

AFG and SAFER grant programs stated that the agency sent all AFG 

applicants that submitted applications that were not peer reviewed a letter 

notifying them that their applications were not among those selected for 

the second phase of the competitive review. The letter explained that 

during the second phase, those applications that best addressed AFG’s 

established funding priorities for each eligible activity were approved and 

forwarded for peer review and that the objective of peer review is to 

further ensure the best use of grant funds. According to AFG Program 

Office officials, in fiscal year 2008, about 21,000 AFG applications were 

submitted, of which 8,000 were subsequently not selected for peer review. 

FEMA offered the applicants an opportunity to receive a more detailed 

explanation. The officials stated that applicants that submitted about 7,000 

of these applications6

 requested additional information, and four FEMA 

contractors spent about 4 months gathering the information needed to 

send electronic responses to these applicants to clarify specifically why 

the applications did not meet the criteria for peer review. 

To determine the types of applicants whose applications were rejected 

before the peer review process, we reviewed data provided by FEMA. For 

fiscal year 2008, we found that 4,489 applicants (or about 29 percent) of 

the 15,544 applicants were turned down for all applications they submitted 

for AFG funds through the automated scoring process, and consequently 

none of their applications were peer reviewed.7

 Appendix XIII contains 

more detailed information about unsuccessful fire grant applicants by 

department type and community service area. 

Technical Review Process Fire grant applications that receive the highest scores by the peer review 

panels are submitted for technical review. The technical review process 

consists of reviews made by subject matter specialists, the AFG Program 

Office or grants management specialists, or state homeland security 

 

5

 Explanatory Statement, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 

Stat. 1844 (Dec. 26, 2007). The explanatory statement was published in the December 17, 

2007, daily edition of the Congressional Record, and the congressional direction for this 

GAO study appears on page H16096. 

6

 Grant applicants may submit more than one application for the fire grant. 

7

 In fiscal year 2008, these 15,544 applicants submitted a total of 21,022 applications for 

AFG grants, as discussed above and in table 2. 

Page 60 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix IV: Application and Award Process 

for Fire Grants 

representatives. The AFG Program Office has a group of subject matter 

specialists who review each potential award application to ensure that the 

project is technically feasible and that the application does not contain 

projects, activities, or items that are ineligible or otherwise not worthy of 

funding. In addition, they identify potential modifications to projects that 

would enhance the overall award, and identify applications that have 

scored outside the fundable range but should receive the award. The 

subject matter specialists review the entire application as well as the 

panelists’ comments. Once they have completed their review, the AFG 

Program Office staff reviews each potential award before making a 

recommendation on whether to award a grant to the applicant. The AFG 

Program Office staff assesses the findings from the previous reviews, 

determines whether any duplicate applications exist, and validates the 

eligibility of both the applicant and the items requested. 

Following the review by the AFG Program Office staff, grant applications 

that have been recommended for award are submitted to grants 

management specialists in FEMA’s Grants Management Division. These 

specialists are responsible for reviewing the financial information in 

applications and for ensuring that the requested amounts are reasonable 

and calculated correctly. They also ensure that applicants have provided 

responses to a questionnaire that the Grants Management Division sends 

to applicants. The questionnaire solicits information such as whether any 

proposed reductions in the requested amount in the grant applications are 

acceptable and if the applicant is a recipient of other federal grants. These 

responses to the questionnaire, which are supplemental to the grant 

application, are processed internally by the Grants Management Division. 

The Grants Management Division might contact the grantee for additional 

follow-up or send the application back to the AFG Program Office, as 

appropriate. According to grants management specialists, their review 

typically requires only a couple of hours, but the approval process might 

take as long as a month or more, depending on how long applicants take to 

respond to the questionnaire and the extent to which follow-up 

information is necessary. Once the specialists approve the recommended 

applications for award, the applications are sent to the assistance officers 

in the Grants Management Division for approval, at which point the 

assistance officers obligate the awards. 

Grant Awards Process Although FEMA generally makes funding decisions using rank-order 

results from the peer review panel evaluation, it may deviate from the 

panel’s scores and make funding decisions based on the type of 

department (career, combination, or volunteer), the size and character of 

Page 61 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix IV: Application and Award Process 

for Fire Grants 

the community the applicant serves (urban, suburban, or rural), or both to 

satisfy statutory and programmatic funding goals.8

 State homeland 

security offices may also review applications to ensure that the relevant 

proposed projects do not duplicate existing statewide programs. Since the

number of submitted application requests exceeds the appropriated 

funding, applications reviewed within this final stage may not be awarded

grants, despite falling within the fundable range. 

 

FEMA announces these awards over several months as decisions are 

made, but does not make the awards in any specified order (i.e., by state, 

program, or any other characteristic). Awards are made until the funding 

is exhausted or the appropriation has expired. 

8

 For the AFG program, the Fire Act requires FEMA to ensure that awards are made to a 

variety of fire departments (volunteer, combination, and career) serving a variety of 

communities (urban, suburban, and rural). 15 U.S.C. § 2229(b)(9). More specifically, the 

Fire Act requires that volunteer and combination fire departments receive a proportion of 

the total AFG grant funding that is not less than the proportion of the U.S. population 

protected by those fire departments. 15 U.S.C. § 2229(b)(11). Like the Fire Act, the SAFER 

Act contains requirements for distributing grant funds between SAFER applicants. In 

particular, FEMA is required to set aside 10 percent of the annual SAFER Act appropriation 

for awarding hiring grants to volunteer or majority volunteer fire departments and at least 

another 10 percent of the appropriation for awarding recruitment and retention grants, 

which are available to volunteer and combination fire departments. If FEMA awards less 

than 10 percent of the appropriation for hiring grants to volunteer or majority volunteer fire 

departments, it is required to transfer any unused amounts for the purpose of awarding 

recruitment and retention grants. In this way, the statute ensures that volunteer, majority 

volunteer, and combination fire departments are eligible for at least 20 percent of the 

annual SAFER Act appropriation in either hiring or recruitment and retention grants. See 

15 U.S.C. § 2229a(a)(1)(H), (a)(2). 

Page 62 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix V: AFG, SAFER, and FP&S 

Applicants and Award Distribution by State 

Tables 8 and 9 show the AFG and SAFER applicants and award 

breakdown, respectively, by state for fiscal year 2008. Table 10 shows the 

FP&S applicants and award breakdown for fiscal year 2007. 

Table 8: AFG Applicants and Award Breakdown by State for Fiscal Year 2008 

State 

Number of 

applicants 

per state 

Number of 

awardees

per state

Amount

awarded per state

Percentage of 

total applicantsa

Percentage of 

total awardeesa

Percentage of 

total amount 

awardeda

Alabama 535 227 $22,276,969 3 5 5

Alaska 42 12 990,051 0 0 0

Arizona 127 37 4,287,251 1 1 1

Arkansas 295 66 6,660,857 2 1 1

California 408 149 24,154,708 3 3 5

Colorado 134 28 2,265,389 1 1 0

Connecticut 182 51 6,781,557 1 1 1

Delaware 25 4 219,989 0 0 0

District of Columbia 1 1 1,171,200 0 0 0

Florida 220 65 6,573,027 1 1 1

Georgia 287 75 7,741,627 2 2 2

Guam 1 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii 3 3 772,631 0 0 0

Idaho 95 22 2,428,091 1 0 1

Illinois 631 207 19,960,699 4 5 4

Indiana 367 116 12,054,648 2 3 3

Iowa 404 93 8,805,654 3 2 2

Kansas 205 54 3,623,808 1 1 1

Kentucky 459 132 16,392,887 3 3 4

Louisiana 211 62 5,977,714 1 1 1

Maine 201 54 4,490,287 1 1 1

Maryland 164 48 5,392,930 1 1 1

Massachusetts 238 87 8,603,909 2 2 2

Michigan 567 161 13,909,589 4 4 3

Minnesota 402 149 11,832,600 3 3 3

Mississippi 312 79 7,480,139 2 2 2

Missouri 380 116 10,772,152 2 3 2

Montana 144 41 4,112,281 1 1 1

Nebraska 136 32 3,981,401 1 1 1

Nevada 21 4 686,657 0 0 0

Appendix V: AFG, SAFER, and FP&S 

Applicants and Award Distribution by State 

Page 63 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants 
Appendix V: AFG, SAFER, and FP&S 

Applicants and Award Distribution by State 

State 

Number of 

applicants 

per state 

Number of 

awardees

per state

Amount

awarded per state

Percentage of 

total applicantsa

Percentage of 

total awardeesa

Percentage of 

total amount 

awardeda

New Hampshire 96 26 2,623,388 1 1 1

New Jersey 478 111 11,715,646 3 2 3

New Mexico 72 11 966,542 0 0 0

New York 1,040 292 28,220,396 7 7 6

North Carolina 584 174 16,796,539 4 4 4

North Dakota 102 30 2,773,546 1 1 1

Northern Marianas 2 0 0 0 0 0

Ohio 772 238 24,770,332 5 5 5

Oklahoma 288 70 6,278,135 2 2 1

Oregon 170 58 7,879,448 1 1 2

Pennsylvania 1,698 422 37,301,086 11 9 8

Puerto Rico 7 1 74,080 0 0 0

Rhode Island 51 12 1,378,341 0 0 0

South Carolina 305 93 10,271,719 2 2 2

South Dakota 142 21 1,933,547 1 0 0

Tennessee 447 155 15,529,558 3 3 3

Texas 579 147 18,382,319 4 3 4

Utah 93 19 909,108 1 0 0

Vermont 83 13 1,046,581 1 0 0

Virgin Islands 1 0 0 0 0 0

Virginia 253 68 7,728,819 2 2 2

Washington 256 101 11,437,238 2 2 3

West Virginia 258 64 6,642,017 2 1 1

Wisconsin 524 175 13,830,445 3 4 3

Wyoming 46 10 1,023,328 0 0 0

Total 15,544 4,486 $453,912,860

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Notes: Fire grants data for fiscal year 2008 funding are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 

fire grants period closed on September 30, 2009, the end of fiscal year 2009. State category includes 

U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. 

a

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Page 64 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix V: AFG, SAFER, and FP&S 

Applicants and Award Distribution by State 

Table 9: SAFER Applicants and Awards Breakdown by State for Fiscal Year 2008 

State 

Number of 

applicants 

per state 

Number of 

awardees

per state

Amount

awarded per state

Percentage of 

total applicantsa

Percentage of 

total awardeesa

Percentage of 

total amount 

awardeda

Alabama 31 7 $6,418,057 2 3 5

Alaska 13 6 1,437,817 1 2 1

Arizona 33 9 4,011,700 3 4 3

Arkansas 14 2 1,873,118 1 1 1

California 44 7 3,738,490 3 3 3

Colorado 21 3 1,642,576 2 1 1

Connecticut 20 3 949,124 2 1 1

Delaware 2 1 398,400 0b0c0d

Florida 46 17 14,743,143 4 7 11

Georgia 39 7 8,935,070 3 3 7

Hawaii 2 1 1,625,700 0b 0c 1

Idaho 14 1 309,121 1 0c0d

Illinois 46 7 1,300,560 4 3 1

Indiana 19 3 2,926,260 1 1 2

Iowa 11 2 0 1 1 0

Kansas 10 3 1,464,897 1 1 1

Kentucky 27 4 1,335,180 2 2 1

Louisiana 16 3 3,743,171 1 1 3

Maine 10 2 535,040 1 1 0

Maryland 13 5 3,170,856 1 2 2

Massachusetts 23 5 1,823,240 2 2 1

Michigan 20 3 461,120 2 1 0d

Minnesota 16 1 491,000 1 0c 0d

Mississippi 20 2 875,408 2 1 1

Missouri 31 6 1,549,494 2 2 1

Montana 18 5 2,748,540 1 2 2

Nebraska 3 1 1,950,840 0b0c1

Nevada 6 0 0 0b0 0

New Hampshire 10 1 8,350 1 0 0

New Jersey 52 6 3,724,428 4 2 3

New Mexico 10 1 108,380 1 0c0d

New York 83 14 3,579,579 6 5 3

North Carolina 88 28 12,437,424 7 11 9

North Dakota 9 2 1,518,520 1 1 1

Page 65 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix V: AFG, SAFER, and FP&S 

Applicants and Award Distribution by State 

State 

Number of 

applicants 

per state 

Number of 

awardees

per state

Amount

awarded per state

Percentage of 

total applicantsa

Percentage of 

total awardeesa

Percentage of 

total amount 

awardeda

Northern Marianas 2 0 0 0b0 0

Ohio 47 7 3,520,462 4 3 3

Oklahoma 17 3 622,624 1 1 0

Oregon 22 5 2,015,452 2 2 2

Pennsylvania 88 13 2,283,522 7 5 2

Puerto Rico 1 0 0 0b0 0

Rhode Island 4 0 0 0d0 0

South Carolina 36 6 4,397,811 3 2 3

South Dakota 11 1 48,000 1 0 0

Tennessee 30 6 1,176,335 2 2 1

Texas 82 17 12,574,961 6 7 9

Utah 22 5 3,304,763 2 2 2

Vermont 1 0 0 0b0 0

Virginia 18 4 1,373,796 1 2 1

Washington 62 13 6,384,936 5 5 5

West Virginia 18 0 0 1 0 0

Wisconsin 19 3 2,275,980 1 1 2

Wyoming 5 4 2,329,174 0b2 2

Total 1,305 255 $134,142,419 

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Notes: Fire grants data for fiscal year 2008 funding are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 

fire grants period closed on September 30, 2009, the end of fiscal year 2009. State category includes 

Puerto Rico. 

a

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

b

Due to rounding, it represents less than 0.5 percent of total applicants. 

c

Due to rounding, it represents less than 0.5 percent of total awardees. 

d

Due to rounding, it represents less than 0.5 percent of total amount awarded. 

Page 66 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix V: AFG, SAFER, and FP&S 

Applicants and Award Distribution by State 

Table 10: FP&S Applicants and Awards Breakdown by State for Fiscal Year 2007 

State 

Number of 

applicants 

per state 

Number of 

awardees

per state

Amount

awarded per state

Percentage of 

total applicantsa

Percentage of 

total awardeesa

Percentage of 

total amount 

awardeda

Alabama 58 7 $227,665 2 3 1

Alaska 15 1 13,500 1 0 0

Arizona 42 8 1,454,191 2 4 4

Arkansas 21 2 27,345 1 1 0

California 115 13 2,387,151 5 6 7

Colorado 33 3 289,975 1 1 1

Connecticut 44 4 191,475 2 2 1

Delaware 4 1 362,500 0 0 1

District of Columbia 11 3 2,157,899 0 1 6

Florida 80 7 1,489,251 3 3 4

Georgia 45 3 88,543 2 1 0

Guam 1 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii 3 0 0 0 0 0

Idaho 22 2 17,640 1 1 0

Illinois 111 9 3,056,161 4 4 9

Indiana 55 6 920,017 2 3 3

Iowa 29 3 90,130 1 1 0

Kansas 26 2 42,583 1 1 0

Kentucky 62 5 204,859 2 2 1

Louisiana 47 6 859,596 2 3 3

Maine 19 1 152,356 1 0 0

Maryland 41 7 4,350,211 2 3 13

Massachusetts 65 5 1,515,733 3 2 4

Michigan 101 10 350,949 4 5 1

Minnesota 34 3 171,669 1 1 1

Mississippi 39 5 1,343,325 2 2 4

Missouri 53 6 1,469,079 2 3 4

Montana 22 0 0 1 0 0

Nebraska 15 2 64,852 1 1 0

Nevada 15 1 142,320 1 0 0

New Hampshire 23 1 23,818 1 0 0

New Jersey 94 6 111,343 4 3 0

New Mexico 13 0 0 1 0 0

New York 163 13 1,899,522 6 6 6

Page 67 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix V: AFG, SAFER, and FP&S 

Applicants and Award Distribution by State 

State 

Number of 

applicants 

per state 

Number of 

awardees

per state

Amount

awarded per state

Percentage of 

total applicantsa

Percentage of 

total awardeesa

Percentage of 

total amount 

awardeda

North Carolina 84 11 1,392,988 3 5 4

North Dakota 10 1 8,873 0 0 0

Northern Marianas 1 0 0 0 0 0

Ohio 144 9 1,268,207 6 4 4

Oklahoma 27 2 30,660 1 1 0

Oregon 46 4 859,015 2 2 3

Pennsylvania 233 12 683,422 9 6 2

Puerto Rico 2 0 0 0 0 0

Rhode Island 10 2 147,333 0 1 0

South Carolina 42 1 23,893 2 0 0

South Dakota 6 1 121,670 0 0 0

Tennessee 61 3 952,790 2 1 3

Texas 101 6 1,295,561 4 3 4

Utah 19 1 11,697 1 0 0

Vermont 6 1 12,454 0 0 0

Virgin Islands 1 0 0 0 0 0

Virginia 58 7 1,361,389 2 3 4

Washington 50 5 97,859 2 2 0

West Virginia 31 2 101,280 1 1 0

Wisconsin 59 1 13,534 2 0 0

Wyoming 11 1 28,788 0 0 0

Total 2,523 215 $33,887,071

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Notes: FP&S application and award numbers are for fiscal year 2007 funding and reflect all fiscal year 

2007 awards made through July 2009. No fiscal year 2008 FP&S grants had been awarded as of July 

2009. State category includes U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. 

a

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Page 68 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix VI: Distribution of AFG, SAFER, 

and FP&S Awards by Department Type, Fiscal Appendix VI: Distribution of AFG, SAFER, Years 2002 through 2008 

and FP&S Awards by Department Type, 

Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 

Tables 11, 12, and 13 show the distribution of AFG, SAFER, and FP&S 

awards, respectively, from fiscal years 2002 to 2008 by department types 

(e.g., career, combination, volunteer, paid on call/stipend, or a 

combination of these). 

Table 11: Distribution of AFG Awards by Department Type for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 

Department type 

Fiscal years/AFG awards Career Combination Volunteer

Paid on 

call/stipend Total

Amount awardeda2002 $70,975,002 $80,591,004 $180,449,110 0 $332,015,115

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda

21 24 54 0

Amount awardeda 2003 $117,486,153 $150,940,511 $430,043,841 0 $698,470,505

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda

17 22 62 0

Amount awardeda2004 $111,473,064 $152,205,706 $378,816,933 $30,385,478 $672,881,182

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda

17 23 56 5

Amount awardeda2005 $108,111,730 $144,726,028 $311,965,746 $31,745,810 $596,549,314

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda

18 24 52 5

Amount awardeda 2006 $58,454,814 $121,880,485 $272,820,480 $31,442,977 $484,598,756

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda

12 25 56 6

Amount awardeda 2007 $76,218,273 $142,548,951 $243,652,237 $30,729,293 $493,148,754

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda

15 29 49 6

Amount awardeda2008 $88,077,419 $122,344,945 $216,741,884 $26,748,612 $453,912,860

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda

19 27 48 6

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Note: Fire grants data for fiscal year 2008 are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 fire grants 

period closed on September 30, 2009, the end of fiscal year 2009. 

a

The sum of the dollars awarded by department may not equal the total amount due to rounding. 

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

Page 69 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants 
Appendix VI: Distribution of AFG, SAFER, 

and FP&S Awards by Department Type, Fiscal 

Years 2002 through 2008 

Table 12: Distribution of SAFER Awards by Department Type for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2008 

FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 

Department 

type 

Amount 

awarded 

Percentage 

of total 

amount 

awardeda

Amount 

awarded

Percentage of 

total amount 

awardeda

Amount 

awarded

Percentage 

of total 

amount 

awardeda

Amount 

awarded

Percentage 

of total 

amount 

awardeda

Career $32,133,168 51 $43,607,369 43 $35,486,504 33 $68,188,502 51

Combination 25,218,789 40 47,125,704 46 60,656,387 57 51,407,312 38

Volunteer 4,805,687 8 7,370,261 7 6,212,534 6 7,128,112 5

Interest 

Organization 1,341,457 2 3,355,484 3 4,972,327 5 7,418,493 6

Total $63,499,101 $101,458,818 $107,327,752 $134,142,41

9

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Notes: The SAFER Act was enacted on November 24, 2003, and the first appropriation was made in 

fiscal year 2005. Fire grants data for fiscal year 2008 are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 

fire grants period closed on September 30, 2009, the end of fiscal year 2009. 

a

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Table 13: Distribution of FP&S Awards by Department Type for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007 

2005 2006 2007 

Department type Amount awarded 

Percentage of 

total amount 

awardeda

Amount awarded

Percentage of 

total amount 

awardeda

Amount awarded

Percentage of 

total amount 

awardeda

Career $6,905,847 21 $6,250,783 17 $1,845,331 5

Combination 3,019,939 9 2,268,050 6 1,560,303 5

Volunteer 1,362,946 4 1,815,343 5 789,123 2

Paid on call/stipend 658,543 2 109,782 0 36,072 0

Interest 

organization 21,134,765 64 26,821,628 72 29,656,242 88

Total $33,082,040 $37,265,586 $33,887,071

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Notes: FEMA did not provide FP&S application and award information by department type for fiscal 

years 2002 through 2004. Fiscal year 2007 FP&S grants reflect awards made through July 2009. No 

fiscal year 2008 FP&S grants had been awarded as of July 2009. 

a

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Page 70 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix VII: Distribution of AFG, SAFER, 

and FP&S Awards by Community Service Appendix VII: Distribution of AFG, SAFER, Area, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 

and FP&S Awards by Community Service 

Area, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 

Tables 14, 15, and 16 show the distribution of AFG, SAFER, and FP&S 

awards, respectively, from fiscal years 2002 to 2008 by community service 

area (e.g., rural, suburban, and urban). 

Table 14: Distribution of AFG Awards by Community Service Area for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 

Service area 

Fiscal years/AFG awards Urban Suburban Rural Total 

Amount awardeda 2002 $40,377,302 $77,031,109 $214,074,511 $331,482,921

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda 12 23 64 

Amount awardeda2003 $47,066,785 $121,647,167 $529,756,553 $698,470,505

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda

7 17 76

Amount awardeda 2004 $34,407,348 $118,467,285 $520,006,549 $672,881,182

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda

5 18 77

Amount awardeda2005 $63,453,509 $119,669,234 $413,426,571 $596,549,314

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda

11 20 69 

Amount awardeda2006 $36,692,506 $88,412,349 $358,877,634 $483,982,489

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda

8 18 74

Amount awardeda 2007 $55,174,641 $96,482,911 $341,491,202 $493,148,754

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda

11 20 69 

Amount awardeda 2008 $57,881,399 $90,957,326 $305,074,135 $453,912,860

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda

13 20 67 

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Note: Fire grants data for fiscal year 2008 funding are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 

fire grants period closed on September 30, 2009, the end of fiscal year 2009. 

a The sum of the dollars awarded by department may not equal the total amount due to rounding. 

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Page 71 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants 
Appendix VII: Distribution of AFG, SAFER, 

and FP&S Awards by Community Service 

Area, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 

Table 15: Distribution of SAFER Awards by Community Service Area for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2008 

2005 2006 2007 2008 

Service 

area 

Amount 

awarded 

Percentage 

of total 

amount 

awardeda

Amount 

awarded

Percentage 

of total 

amount 

awardeda

Amount 

awarded

Percentage 

of total 

amount 

awardeda

Amount 

awarded

Percentage 

of total 

amount 

awardeda

Urban $17,629,425 28 $21,440,571 21 $13,764,694 13 $40,939,468 31

Suburban 29,942,758 47 47,783,221 47 61,453,851 57 55,888,003 42

Rural 14,585,461 23 23,050,246 23 27,136,880 25 28,514,628 21

Otherb 1,341,457 2 9,184,780 9 4,972,327 5 8,800,320 7

Total $63,499,101 $101,458,818 $107,327,752 $134,142,419

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Notes: The SAFER Act was enacted on November 24, 2003, and the first appropriation was made in 

fiscal year 2005. Fire grants data for fiscal year 2008 funding are current as of July 2009. The fiscal 

year 2008 fire grants period closed on September 30, 2009, the end of fiscal year 2009. 

a

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

b

“Other” represents organizations without a community service area affiliation, such as local, regional, 

or statewide organizations. 

Table 16: Distribution of FP&S Awards by Community Service Area for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007 

2005 2006 2007 

Service area 

Amount 

awarded 

Percentage of 

total amount 

awardeda

Amount 

awarded

Percentage of 

total amount 

awardeda

Amount 

awarded

Percentage of 

total amount 

awardeda

Urban $6,773,144 20 $5,449,955 15 $5,793,376 17

Suburban 3,115,200 9 3,458,314 9 3,339,585 10

Rural 4,327,820 13 3,406,300 9 2,238,615 7

Otherb18,865,876 57 24,951,017 67 22,515,495 66

Total $33,082,040 $37,265,586 $33,887,071

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Note: FEMA did not provide FP&S application and award information by community service area for 

fiscal years 2002 through 2004. Fiscal year 2007 FP&S grants reflect awards made through July 

2009. No fiscal year 2008 FP&S grants had been awarded as of July 2009. 

a

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

b

“Other” represents organizations without a community service area affiliation, such as private and 

nonprofit organizations. 

Page 72 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix VIII: Distribution of AFG Awards by Appendix VIII: Distribution of AFG Awards Activity, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 

by Activity, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 

Table 17 shows the distribution of AFG awards by activity (e.g., operations 

and safety, vehicle acquisition, and regional) for fiscal years 2002 through 

2008. The amount of funding provided for operations and safety activities 

is consistently higher than that spent on regional activities and vehicle 

acquisition. Fiscal year 2008 funding for operations and safety grants 

amounted to $273.1 million out of the total $453.9 million grant awards. 

Grant funding for vehicle acquisition and regional applications was 

$131.7 million and $49.2 million, respectively. 

Table 17: Distribution of AFG Awards by Activity for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 

Activity 

Fiscal years/AFG awards 

Emergency 

medical 

services

Fire 

prevention

Operation 

and safety

Vehicle 

acquisition Regional Total

Amount awardeda 2002 $3,016,445 $9,870,333 $280,051,832 $39,119,506 0 $332,058,115

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda 1 3 84 12 

Amount awardeda2003 $4,275,001 $13,326,524 $496,501,088 $184,367,892 0 $698,470,505

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda1 2 71 26 

Amount awardeda2004 0 $7,905,672 $464,734,642 $200,240,868 0 $672,881,182

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda1 69 30

Amount awardeda 2005 0 0 $437,125,917 $159,423,397 0 $596,549,314

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda 73 27 

Amount awardeda2006 0 0 $311,002,879 $133,624,780 $39,971,097 $484,598,756

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda

64 28 8

Amount awardeda2007 0 0 $299,241,655 $143,783,353 $50,123,746 $493,148,754

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda

61 29 10

Amount awardeda2008 0 0 $273,102,841 $131,651,375 $49,158,644 $453,912,860

Percentage of total 

amount awardeda

60 29 11

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Note: Fire grants data for fiscal year 2008 funding are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 

fire grants closed on September 30, 2009, the end of fiscal year 2009. 

a

The sum of the dollars awarded by department may not equal the total amount due to rounding. 

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Page 73 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants 
Appendix IX: Distribution of AFG, SAFER, 

and FP&S Awards and Funding by Appendix IX: Distribution of AFG, SAFER, Department Type 

and FP&S Awards and Funding by 

Department Type 

Tables 18 and 19 show the distribution of AFG and SAFER awards and 

funding, respectively, by department type for fiscal year 2008. Table 20 

shows the distribution of FP&S awards and funding by department type 

for fiscal year 2007. 

Table 18: Distribution of AFG Awards and Funding by Department Type for Fiscal Year 2008 

dollars in millions 

Department type 

Number of 

applications 

submitted 

Number of 

awards

Amount 

awarded Average award

Percentage of 

total applicationsa

Percentage of 

total awardsa

Career 2,534 686 $88.08 $128,392.74 12 14

Combination 4,681 1,105 122.34 110,719.41 22 23

Volunteer 12,313 2,655 216.74 81,635.36 59 55

Paid on call/ 

stipend 1,494 359 26.75 74,508.67 7 7

Total 21,022 4,805 $453.91

Source: GAO Analysis of FEMA data. 

Note: Fire grants data for fiscal year 2008 funding are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 

fire grants period closed on September 30, 2009, the end of fiscal year 2009. 

a

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Table 19: Distribution of SAFER Grant Awards and Funding by Department Type for Fiscal Year 2008 

dollars in millions 

Department type 

Number of 

applications 

submitted 

Number of 

awards

Amount 

awarded Average award

Percentage of 

total applicationsa

Percentage of 

total awardsa

Career 229 67 $68.19 $1,017,738.84 17 26

Combination 631 121 51.41 424,853.82 48 47

Volunteer 426 53 7.13 134,492.68 32 21

Interest 

organization 

28 14 7.42 529,892.36 2 5

Total 1,314 255 $134.14

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Note: Fire grants data for fiscal year 2008 funding are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 

fire grants period closed on September 30, 2009, the end of fiscal year 2009. 

a

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Page 74 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix IX: Distribution of AFG, SAFER, 

and FP&S Awards and Funding by 

Department Type 

Table 20: Distribution of FP&S Awards and Funding by Department Type for Fiscal Year 2007 

dollars in millions 

Department type 

Number of 

applications 

submitted 

Number of 

awards

Amount 

awarded Average 

award

Percentage of total 

applicationsa

Percentage of 

total awardsa

Career 585 48 $1.85 $38,444.40 23 22

Combination 723 49 1.56 31,842.92 28 23

Volunteer 711 34 0.79 23,209.50 28 16

Paid on call/ 

stipend 67 1 0.04 36,072.00 3 0

Otherb475 84 29.66 353,050.50 19 39

Total 2,561 216 $33.89

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Note: FP&S application and award data are from fiscal year 2007 and reflect all fiscal year 2007 

awards made through July 2009. No fiscal year 2008 FP&S grants had been awarded as of July 

2009. 

a

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

b “Other” represents organizations without a community service area affiliation, such as private and 

nonprofit organizations. 

Page 75 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix X: Distribution of AFG, SAFER, and 

FP&S Awards and Funding by Community Appendix X: Distribution of AFG, SAFER, Service Area 

and FP&S Awards and Funding by 

Community Service Area 

Tables 21 and 22 show the distribution of AFG and SAFER awards, 

respectively, by service area for fiscal year 2008. Table 23 shows the 

distribution of FP&S awards by service area for fiscal year 2007. 

Table 21: Distribution of AFG Grant Awards and Funding by Community Service Area for Fiscal Year 2008 

dollars in millions 

Service area 

Number of 

applications 

submitted 

Number

of awards

Amount 

awarded Average award

Percentage of

total applicationsa

Percentage of 

total awardsa

Urban 1,366 358 $57.88 $161,679.89 6 7

Suburban 3,357 806 90.96 112,850.28 16 17

Rural 16,299 3,641 305.07 83,788.56 78 76

Total 21,022 4,805 $453.91

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Note: Fire grants data for fiscal year 2008 funding are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 

fire grants period closed on September 30, 2009, the end of fiscal year 2009. 

a

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Table 22: Distribution of SAFER Awards and Funding by Community Service Area for Fiscal Year 2008 

dollars in millions 

Service area 

Number of 

applications 

submitted 

Number of 

awards

Amount 

awarded Average award

Percentage of total 

applicationsa

Percentage of 

total awardsa

Urban 152 45 $40.94 $909,765.96 12 18

Suburban 461 92 55.89 607,478.29 35 36

Rural 670 101 28.51 282,323.05 51 40

Otherb 31 17 8.80 517,665.88 2 7

Total 1,314 255 $134.14

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Note: Fire grants data for fiscal year 2008 funding are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 

fire grants period closed on September 30, 2009, the end of fiscal year 2009. 

a

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

b

“Other” represents organizations without a community service area affiliation, such as local, regional, 

or statewide organizations. 

Page 76 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants 
Appendix X: Distribution of AFG, SAFER, and 

FP&S Awards and Funding by Community 

Service Area 

Table 23: Distribution of FP&S Awards and Funding by Community Service Area for Fiscal Year 2007 

dollars in millions 

Service area 

Number of 

applications 

submitted 

Number of 

awards Amount awarded Average award

Percentage of total 

applicationsa

Percentage of total 

awardsa

Urban 482 53 $5.79 $109,308.98 19 25

Suburban 778 56 3.34 59,635.45 30 26

Rural 1,109 66 2.24 33,918.41 43 31

Otherb192 41 22.52 549,158.41 7 19

Total 2,561 216 $33.89

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Note: FP&S application and award numbers are for fiscal year 2007 funding and reflect all fiscal year 

2007 awards made through July 2009. No fiscal year 2008 FP&S grants had been awarded as of July 

2009. 

a

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

b

“Other” represents organizations without a community service area affiliation, such as private and 

nonprofit organizations. 

Page 77 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix XI: Fire Grant Applicants in 

Nonprobability Sample 

We conducted structured interviews with randomly selected applicants 

that applied for fiscal year 2008 funding for the AFG and SAFER grants 

and fiscal year 2007 funding for the FP&S grants to discuss various aspects 

of FEMA’s grant application and award process. (See table 24.) 

Table 24: Fire Grant Applicants in Nonprobability Sample 

Organization name Department type City State 

1 Bear Creek Volunteer Fire Department Volunteer Seward Alaska 

2 Brentwood Fire Department Career Brentwood Tennessee 

3 Center Point Fire District Career Birmingham Alabama 

4 Champaign Fire Department Career Champaign Illinois 

5 Chippewa Township Fire Department Combination Doylestown Ohio 

6 City of Melrose Fire Department Career Melrose Massachusetts 

7 Clark County Fire District #9 East County Fire and Rescue Combination Camas Washington 

8 Cowlitz #2 Fire and Rescue Combination Kelso Washington 

9 DeFuniak Springs Fire Department Combination DeFuniak Springs Florida 

10 Delaware Volunteer Firemen’s Association N/A Dover Delaware 

11 Dickinson County EMS Career Abilene Kansas 

12 East Olympia Fire District #6 Combination Olympia Washington 

13 Forman Fire Protection District Volunteer Manito Illinois 

14 Gates Fire District Combination Rochester New York 

15 Hamden Fire Department Combination Hamden Connecticut 

16 Hardin County EMS Career Elizabethtown Kentucky 

17 Haycock Fire Company #1 Volunteer Quakertown Pennsylvania 

18 Honea Path Fire Department Volunteer Honea Path South Carolina 

19 Konawa Volunteer Fire Department Volunteer Konawa Oklahoma 

20 Lenoir City Fire Department Career Lenoir City Tennessee 

21 Lyndon Station Fire and Rescue Paid on call/stipend Lyndon Station Wisconsin 

22 Mission Township Fire Department Combination Topeka Kansas 

23 Monroe Fire Department Career Monroe Louisiana 

24 Natick Fire Department Career Natick Massachusetts 

25 Northampton Fire Department Career Northampton Massachusetts 

26 Philadelphia Fire Department Combination Philadelphia Mississippi 

27 Plainville Fire Department Volunteer Plainville Kansas 

28 Pricetown Volunteer Fire Department Volunteer Weston West Virginia 

29 Riverton Fire Protection District Volunteer Riverton Wyoming 

30 Seguin Fire Department Combination Seguin Texas 

31 Shortsville Fire Department Volunteer Shortsville New York 

Appendix XI: Fire Grant Applicants in 

Nonprobability Sample 

Page 78 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants 
Appendix XI: Fire Grant Applicants in 

Nonprobability Sample 

 Organization name Department type City State 

32 Stockland Fire Protection District Volunteer Milford Illinois 

33 Town of North Have Combination North Haven Connecticut 

34 Vineland Fire Department Combination Vineland New Jersey 

35 Waco Community Volunteer Fire Department Volunteer Waco North Carolina 

36 Westhampton Fire Department Volunteer Westhampton Massachusetts 

Source: GAO. 

Legend: N/A = not applicable. 

Page 79 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix

Year 2008 Fire 

 XII: Time Frames for the Fiscal 

Grants Process

Page 80 GAO-10-64 

We obtained information from FEMA officials and documents in order to 

prepare a timeline depicting the time frames for the fiscal year 2008 fire 

grants process. (See fig. 8.) 

Appendix XII: Time Frames for the Fiscal 

Year 2008 Fire Grants Process 

Figure 8: Time Frames for Fiscal Year 2008 Fire Grants Process 

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data.

Grants awarded 

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan 

Feb

Mar

Apr

May 

Jun

Jul 

Aug 

Sept 

Oct 

Nov 

Dec 

Jan 

Feb 

Mar 

Apr 

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep 

2007

2008

2009

AFG SAFER

Guidance 

development 

Approval

Grants awarded

FP&S

Application period Mar 3 - Apr 4Application period

Guidance development 

and approval

Technical review

Apr 29 - Sep 9

Peer review panel

Apr 27 - May 16

Guidance development 

and approval

Application period

May 27 - Jun 27

Technical review Jul 15 - Sep 30

Peer review panel Te Jul 14 - 18

Guidance development 

and approval

Application period Feb 15 - Mar 6

Grants awarded 

Technical review

Apr 13 - May 8

Peer review panel Te

Apr 13 - May 1

Automated scoring

Apr 8 - 9

Automated scoring

Jun 30 

Prescreening

Mar 9 - 16

Criteria development panel June 6 - 7

 Fire Grants 
Appendix XIII: Unsuccessful AFG, SAFER, 

and FP&S Applicants by Department Type and Appendix XIII: Unsuccessful AFG, SAFER, Community Service Area 

and FP&S Applicants by Department Type 

and Community Service Area 

Tables 25 and 26 show the breakdown of unsuccessful AFG and SAFER 

applicants, respectively, by department type and community service area 

for fiscal year 2008. Table 27 shows the breakdown of unsuccessful FP&S 

applicants by department type and community service area for fiscal year 

2007. 

Table 25: Breakdown of Unsuccessful AFG Applicants by Department Type and Community Service Area for Fiscal Year 2008 

Total applicants 

Unsuccessful 

applicants 

FY08 unsuccessful 

applicants who have 

never received awards 

FY08 unsuccessful 

applicants whose 

applications never made 

it to panel 

Number Percentagea

Number PercentageaNumber PercentageaNumber Percentagea

Department type 

Career 1,798 12 1,169 11 390 10 255 11

Combination 3,398 22 2,361 21 716 19 438 18

Volunteer 9,256 60 6,710 61 2,373 64 1,547 65

Paid on call/stipend 1,092 7 749 7 250 7 145 6

Total 15,544 10,989 3,729 2,385

Service area 

Urban 990 6 650 6 204 5 123 5

Suburban 2,494 16 1,726 16 543 15 322 14

Rural 12,060 78 8,613 78 2,982 80 1,940 81

Total 15,544 10,989 3,729 2,385

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Note: Fire grants data for fiscal year 2008 funding are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 

fire grants period closed on September 30, 2009, the end of fiscal year 2009. 

a

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Page 81 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix XIII: Unsuccessful AFG, SAFER, 

and FP&S Applicants by Department Type and 

Community Service Area 

Table 26: Breakdown of Unsuccessful SAFER Applicants by Department Type and Community Service Area for Fiscal Year 

2008 

Total applicants Unsuccessful applicants 

FY08 unsuccessful applicants 

who have never received an 

award 

Number Percentagea Number Percentagea Number Percentagea

Department type 

Career 225 17 171 16 122 13

Combination 628 48 536 49 452 48

Volunteer 424 32 369 34 348 37

Interest organization 28 2 14 1 11 1

Total 1,305 1,090 933

Service area 

Urban 152 12 115 11 89 10

Suburban 453 35 381 35 312 33

Rural 669 51 580 53 521 56

Otherb 31 2 14 1 11 1

Total 1,305 1,090 933

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Note: Fire grants data for fiscal year 2008 funding are current as of July 2009. The fiscal year 2008 

fire grants period closed on September 30, 2009, the end of fiscal year 2009. 

a

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

b

“Other” represents organizations without a community service area affiliation, such as private and 

nonprofit organizations. 

Page 82 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix XIII: Unsuccessful AFG, SAFER, 

and FP&S Applicants by Department Type and 

Community Service Area 

Table 27: Breakdown of Unsuccessful FP&S Applicants by Department Type and Community Service Area for Fiscal Year 

2007 

Total applicants Unsuccessful applicants 

Unsuccessful applicants who 

have never received an award 

Number Percentagea Number Percentagea Number Percentagea

Department type 

Career 565 22 520 23 359 19

Combination 711 28 662 29 540 28

Volunteer 708 28 674 29 623 33

Paid on call/stipend 66 3 65 3 59 3

Interest organization 473 19 388 17 320 17

Total 2,523 2,309 1,901

Service area 

Urban 469 19 418 18 314 17

Suburban 767 30 710 31 568 30

Rural 1097 43 1032 45 908 48

Otherb 190 8 149 6 111 6

Total 2,523 2,309 1,901

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

Note: FP&S application and award numbers are for fiscal year 2007 and reflect all fiscal year 2007 

awards made through July 2008. No fiscal year 2008 FP&S grants had been awarded as of July 

2009. 

a

Some percentages may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

b

“Other” represents organizations without a community service area affiliation, such as private and 

nonprofit organizations. 

Page 83 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix XIV: Comments from the Appendix XIV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 

Department of Homeland Security 

Page 84 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants 
Appendix XIV: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security 

Page 85 GAO-10-64 Fire Grants
Appendix XV: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 86 GAO-10-64 

Appendix XV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

William Jenkins, (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov 

In addition to the contact named above, Leyla Kazaz, Assistant Director, 

and Deborah Ortega, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. Sarah 

Arnett, Marie Webb, and Su Jin Yon made significant contributions to the 

work. Christine Davis provided legal support. Stanley Kostyla and Jerome 

Sandau assisted with design, methodology, and data analysis, and Lara 

Kaskie provided assistance in report preparation. 

 Fire Grants 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(440782) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

GAO’s Mission 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Congressional Relations 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Please Print on Recycled Paper