Fire Grants: FEMA Could Enhance Program Administration and Performance Assessment
Published: 2016-09-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Public fire departments in the U.S. responded to almost 1.3 million fires occurred in the United States in 2014, which resulted in more than 3,275 civilian deaths, 15,775 injuries, and $11.6 billion in property loss. To help support local firefighting efforts, FEMA, within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), allocated almost $5.8 billion from 2009 to 2016 to award grants to fire departments and other organizations for equipment, staffing, research, and other needs.
The Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2012 (FGRA), which amended and reauthorized the three grant programs, includes a provision for GAO to review changes to the grant programs and FEMA's assessment of the fire grants' performance. This report examines (1) the extent to which the fire grants' policies and performance assessments changed as a result of FEMA's implementation of FGRA, and (2) what additional opportunities exist to enhance FEMA's management of fire grant processes and performance assessment efforts. GAO reviewed FGRA and FEMA grant policy documents, and interviewed FEMA officials and relevant stakeholders who provided insights on key actions taken.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) revised fire grant policies for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG), Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER), and Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) grant programs in response to the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2012 (FGRA). GPD incorporated a majority of these changes into its existing application and award processes. For example, FGRA established minimum award allocations for three types of fire departments. In 2013 and 2014, each of these types of departments received more than the minimum of fire grant funds. FEMA also developed a performance assessment system for the AFG and SAFER programs in response to FGRA. The figure summarizes the types of uses for each fire grant program.
FEMA has several opportunities to enhance its administration of fire grants and how their contributions to national preparedness are assessed. For example, while FEMA developed performance measures for the AFG and SAFER programs, the agency did not include measurable performance targets linked to AFG and SAFER program goals that could help better assess the impact of the program and report program achievements. Establishing measurable performance targets linked to program goals could enhance the quality and utility of the new performance assessment system by providing a yardstick against which these investments can be evaluated. In addition, the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) provides firefighter training and education as well as fire-related research, data collection, and analysis, and acts as a consultant for GPD's fire grant programs, but FEMA has not defined and documented USFA's specific role or responsibilities with the fire grants program. As a result, there is no formalized relationship or policy regarding, for example, how the two organizations' programs could work together to achieve common goals. Using collaborative mechanisms GAO's work has identified across the federal government could help GPD better leverage USFA's expertise and resources to support programmatic management of the fire grants programs. Both GPD and USFA officials agreed that defining and documenting the roles and responsibilities of GPD and USFA would enhance the administration of the fire grants programs.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is making four recommendations, including that FEMA establish measurable performance targets, and define and document the roles and responsibilities of GPD and USFA in administering the fire grants. DHS concurred with all four recommendations, and described planned actions to address them.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Public fire departments in the U.S. responded to almost 1.3 million fires  occurred in the United States in 2014, resulting in 3,275 civilian deaths,  15,775 injuries, and $11.6 billion in property loss. To help support local  firefighters in their efforts to safely and effectively respond to fire-related  hazards, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—within  the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—allocated almost $5.8  billion from 2009 to 2016 to fund three competitive grant programs: the  Assistance to Firefighters Grant program (AFG), Staffing for Adequate  Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER), and Fire Prevention and Safety  (FP&S). FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) is responsible for  administering these programs. Enacted in January 2013, the Fire Grants  Reauthorization Act of 2012 (FGRA) required changes to both the  application and award policies of these grants, and called for the  establishment of a performance assessment system to better measure  and report on the contribution of the grants to their program goals.
In October 2009, we reported on FEMA’s implementation of statutory and  program requirements for awarding fire grants and its management of the  grants. We found that FEMA met most statutory and program  requirements and had taken actions to ensure that its fire grants award  process is accessible and clear to grant applicants. We recommended,  among other things, that FEMA ensure that grant priorities are aligned  with application questions and scoring values, and provide specific  feedback to rejected applicants. In June 2013, we reviewed how  selected grant programs collect, validate, and report data to report  progress toward agency-wide performance goals including FEMA’s fire  grants. We found that FEMA did not have a standardized tool with which  to validate program performance data that are self-reported by grant  recipients and we recommended that FEMA ensure there are consistent  procedures in place at the program office and regional level to promote  verification and validation of grant performance data. FEMA is in the  process of developing the data verification and validation checks, as we  discuss later in this report.
The Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2012 (FGRA), which amended  and reauthorized the three grant programs, included a provision for GAO  to review changes to the grant programs and FEMA’s assessment of the  fire grants’ performance. This report addresses the following questions:  (1) To what extent did fire grant policies and performance assessments  change as a result of FEMA’s implementation of FGRA, and (2) To what  extent are there opportunities to enhance FEMA’s management of fire  grant processes and performance assessment efforts?
To address the first question, we identified relevant statutory  requirements from FGRA and program requirements established in (1)  FEMA’s official grant application solicitation documents, referred to as  “Notice of Funding Opportunity,” for the AFG, SAFER, and FP&S fire  grants and (2) in other related grant documents. We also reviewed FEMA  grant application and awards data from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal  year 2014. We compared the FGRA amendments to the actions and  changes FEMA made to its application and awards policies, and matched  these changes to the awards data. We also analyzed data on a number of  other characteristics, such as the type of community served by the  applicant (e.g. urban, suburban, or rural) to identify changes in  applications and awards over time because FGRA requires FEMA, in  considering applications, to consider factors such as population served  and geographic response area. To assess the reliability of data provided  by FEMA, we reviewed and discussed the sources of data with  knowledgeable agency officials and discussed how the data are collected  and controls for collecting and maintaining the data. We then performed  electronic testing of required data elements to identify any missing data,  outliers, and obvious errors. We determined that the data were sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of this report. We did not assess FEMA’s post- award grant financial management processes, as this was beyond the  scope of our review. We also reviewed relevant FEMA and United States  Fire Administration (USFA) documents, including FEMA’s three reports to  Congress on the agency’s Performance Assessment System for the fire  grant programs. We interviewed agency officials responsible for  implementing the policy changes and establishing the performance  assessment system.
To address the second question, we reviewed the three FEMA reports to  Congress on the agency’s Performance Assessment System for FEMA’s  fire grants, and compared the information contained in these reports  against our body of work on performance measurement. We also  reviewed FEMA’s efforts to develop measures of national preparedness  capabilities. In addition, we reviewed existing and proposed systems for  collecting data on fire-related hazards; interviewed officials from USFA,  national fire service associations, and other relevant fire hazard data  sources to understand how they are being used or could be used for  assessing fire grants. We assessed whether FEMA’s efforts were  consistent with project management practices identified by the Project  Management Institute (PMI ®). We reviewed USFA’s participation in the  program in the context of our body of work on collaboration across the  federal government. We collected and reviewed FEMA documents and  interviewed officials from GPD FEMA’s National Preparedness  Assessment Division, and USFA officials. In addition, we interviewed  officials from each of the nine national fire service associations who serve  as subject matter experts and assist FEMA in setting program priorities  and developing other facets of the grant application and awards  process.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2015 to  September 2016, 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Fire Grant Roles and Responsibilities
paragraphs: FEMA’s GPD is responsible for managing DHS’s suite of preparedness  grants, including three fire grants designed to provide funding for local fire  departments, emergency medical service (EMS) organizations, and  firefighter and fire prevention interest groups. GPD’s AFG Program  Office administers the three fire grant programs:
AFG program grants fund personal protective equipment, vehicles,  and other operational equipment for fire service and EMS  organizations, as well as projects to modernize facilities, deliver  training, and develop health and fitness programs.
SAFER grants fund the hiring of salaried firefighters and the costs of  recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters.
FP&S grants fund research and community initiatives, such as  installing smoke detectors among high-risk populations or performing  fire prevention research studies to support firefighter safety.
Figure 1 illustrates the general uses for each fire grant program, and the  award funding available in fiscal year 2014.
Figure 2 shows the grant award levels for each fire grant program. For  further information on annual funding levels, see appendix I table 3.
The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) is another component in FEMA. Its  mission is to provide national leadership for fire and emergency services  stakeholders in prevention, preparedness, and response efforts.  USFA  initially administered the AFG program when it was established in  December 2000, and DHS subsequently transferred program  management responsibilities in fiscal year 2004. Since 2005, report  language accompanying appropriations acts directed FEMA to fund fire  grant applications according to local priorities and those established by  USFA. USFA’s goals are to reduce fire and life safety risk through  preparedness, prevention and mitigation, promote response, local  planning and preparedness for all hazards, enhance the fire and  emergency services’ capability for response to and recovery from all  hazards, and advance the professional development of fire service  personnel and of other people engaged in fire prevention and control.  USFA staff also work with local responders to increase national capacity  of firefighters by providing free training and education programs that  support fire departments and emergency services organizations in  preparing for, preventing and responding to fires and other hazards  through the USFA National Fire Academy.
FEMA’s National Preparedness Assessment Division is responsible for  assessing national “whole community” preparedness to, among other  things, analyze and illustrate the impact of GPD’s preparedness grants.  Officials conduct qualitative and quantitative assessments of 32 core  capabilities that support the National Preparedness Goal by, among other  things, analyzing State Preparedness Reports (SPR) and developing the  National Preparedness Report. According to FEMA, the 32 national  preparedness core capabilities provide a common standard to integrate  federal, state, local, and tribal preparedness efforts. States use the core  capabilities to conduct their Threat and Hazard Identification Risk  Assessments (THIRA) and submit annual SPRs to FEMA on the level of  that state’s preparedness, as a requirement for non-fire preparedness  grants. In September 2015, FEMA updated the National Preparedness  Goal to, among other things, include a new core capability for Fire  Management and Suppression. Beginning in 2017, states will be  required to include an assessment of their level of fire management and  suppression capabilities to FEMA as a requirement to receive non-fire  preparedness grants, according to FEMA officials.
section_title: Fire Grants Application and Awards Process
paragraphs: Each year, FEMA organizes a panel of subject matter experts to identify  that year’s funding priorities and criteria for fire grants., Following  review and discussion of the previous year’s information, the criteria  development panel submits its recommendations for funding priorities and  grant award criteria—including those on which participants do not reach  consensus—in a report to GPD. After considering the panel’s  recommendations and developing the grant guidance for the three grant  programs, GPD submits the proposed grant guidance to other offices  within FEMA for internal review.  Subsequently, GPD sends the guidance  to OMB for approval.  Following approval, FEMA announces the  availability of each grant program, providing Notices of Funding  Opportunity online to potential applicants.
The grant application review process for all three competitive grant  programs includes three evaluation stages: an automated scoring or  manual 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  and GPD officials. The grant review and award processes are  represented in Figure 3.
section_title: FEMA Changed Fire Grants Policies and Developed a Performance Assessment System in Response to FGRA Amendments
subsections: section_title: FEMA Changed Applications and Awards Policies Related to FGRA Amendments, and Grant Outcomes Generally Reflected These Changes
paragraphs: Our analysis of FGRA identified 26 amendments related to fire grant  application and award policies. FEMA incorporated 16 of these 26  changes into its existing grant application and awards processes (see  table 1). For the remaining 10 cases, FEMA used existing authorities to  waive changes related to FGRA amendments or found that no change to  existing policy was necessary. See Appendix II for a summary of these  amendments and a detailed description of FEMA’s corresponding  changes to the grant programs (see app. II, table 4).
The number of fire grants applications and awards from 2009 through  2014 are shown in Figure 4 and the outcomes associated with specific  amendments and related policy changes are described below.
AFG Application Policy Changes—Four of the 26 FGRA amendments  are related to application policies for the AFG program. FEMA addressed  two of the amendments by expanding the criteria for eligible AFG  applicants. For example, state fire training academies are now eligible to  apply for fire grants, and two or more entities can now submit regional  applications for a grant to fund a joint program or initiative. For the  remaining two amendments, FEMA officials identified existing grant  policies related to eligible grant uses or considerations required by FGRA  when awarding AFG grants, and did not make changes since these  policies were already in place. For example, AFG prioritizes firefighter  personal protective equipment grants to increase the degree to which an  award will reduce deaths and injuries among firefighters. Although  FEMA expanded the criteria for eligible AFG applicants, AFG grant  applications decreased from about 19,800 in fiscal year 2009 to about  10,000 in fiscal year 2014. FEMA officials and national fire service  associations attributed the decrease, in part, to application fatigue—when  departments give up after not receiving an award after applying over  multiple years—and the increase in administrative requirements and the  associated workload. According to FEMA officials and national fire  service association representatives, these factors may have affected  decreasing application rates for SAFER and FP&S grants as well.
AFG Award Policy Changes—Seven of the 26 FGRA amendments are  related to FEMA’s award policies for the AFG program, which FEMA  implemented by changing its AFG award policies. Specifically, FGRA  included an amendment that established minimum award allocations for  career, volunteer, and combination fire departments. Prior to FGRA, the  distribution of AFG funds among career, combination, and volunteer  departments fluctuated more across fiscal years. For example, volunteer  departments received 43 percent of fiscal year 2009 funds, and 25  percent of fiscal year 2011 funds. After implementation of FGRA in the  fiscal year 2013 grant cycle, career, combinations and volunteer fire  departments received slightly more than 30 percent of AFG funds in fiscal  years 2013 and 2014 (see app. III table 5). FGRA also requires that  FEMA make not more than 3 percent of AFG funds available for grants to  state fire training academies, with a $1 million grant maximum. Previous  policy did not allow state academies to apply, so FEMA changed AFG  policy accordingly and set a $500,000 grant maximum. In both fiscal  years 2013 and 2014, state fire training academies received 3 percent of  AFG funding and no academies were awarded grants larger than  $500,000 (see app. III table 8). According to FEMA officials, they reached  an agreement with the national fire service organizations to limit the  grants to $500,000 to ensure that a larger number of academies could  receive grants. FEMA implemented other FGRA amendments requiring  that no individual AFG grant exceeds one percent of total AFG funding,  revising grantee cost matching requirements for jurisdictions of various  sizes, and allowing FEMA to waive the revised grantee cost matching  requirements for economic hardship.
SAFER Application Policy Changes—One of the 26 FGRA  amendments is related to application policies for the SAFER program.  Specifically, FGRA makes national and tribal firefighter interest  organizations eligible to apply for SAFER Recruitment and Retention  grants. Under previous application policy, national organizations were  ineligible to apply and tribal organizations were eligible but had to classify  themselves as local entities in their applications. FEMA changed SAFER  policies to allow national organizations to apply for recruitment and  retention grants and for tribal organizations to be classified separately  from local organizations beginning in the fiscal year 2013 SAFER grant  cycle.
SAFER Award Policy Changes—Six of the 26 FGRA amendments are  related to FEMA’s award policies for the SAFER program, establishing  the length of the grant period and amounts for local cost sharing,  among other changes. FEMA waived all six of these requirements for the  SAFER program, citing provisions in the American Recovery and  Reinvestment Act and annual Fire Grant appropriations as their authority  to do so. These post-award requirements have been waived by FEMA  since fiscal year 2009. FEMA officials said that they chose to waive the  award policy amendments to provide greater flexibility to grantees since  the award conditions for SAFER grants, both in FGRA and in previous  law, are too restrictive and grantees frequently defaulted on their cost  matching and performance responsibilities. As a result, SAFER grants  have been 100 percent federally funded from fiscal year 2009 through  fiscal year 2015. This waiver authority was not included in the  Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016. Appendix III, table 4 provides a  detailed description of the FGRA amendments to SAFER award policies  waived by FEMA.
FP&S Application Policy Changes—Two of the 26 FGRA amendments  are related to application policies for the FP&S program, with one  amendment allowing FEMA to fund the establishment of up to three fire  safety research centers using FP&S funds, and another specifying  eligible uses of FP&S funds. Using existing authorities, FEMA decided  not to implement policies that would allow applicants to receive grants for  the establishment of fire safety research centers. According to FEMA  officials, there was not a common understanding of intent among  stakeholders, and it was difficult to define how these research centers  would work within the FP&S program. Additionally, FEMA officials  stated that establishing research centers would require grants with multi- year periods of performance and would not be consistent with other  shorter term FP&S grants, and their establishment would be difficult due  to the small amount of funding for FP&S.
FP&S Award Policy Changes—Six of 26 FGRA amendments are  related to FEMA’s award policies for the FP&S program. FEMA  implemented all six of these changes by revising FP&S award policies  such as changing the minimum funding for FP&S grants as a percentage  of the total grant funding, increasing the cap for FP&S grants from $1  million to $1.5 million, and changing the matching requirement for FP&S  grants to 5 percent. According to FEMA officials, the total number of  FP&S grants awarded decreased post-FGRA as a result of the increased  grant size. Specifically, since there was not a corresponding increase in  available FP&S funds, the result was FEMA giving fewer FP&S awards  since these larger awards each take a larger proportion of FP&S funding.  Due to the decrease in the number of awards, FEMA has prioritized  FP&S projects that will have national benefits. FEMA officials expect that  FP&S award numbers will increase, as FEMA instituted a policy of  dedicating six percent of FP&S funds to micro-grants beginning in fiscal  year 2015, following advice from stakeholders. These micro-grants will be  for up to $25,000 each, so FEMA expects to award over 80 FP&S micro- grants in fiscal year 2015. See figure 5 for FP&S grant awards pre- and  post-FGRA.
section_title: FEMA Developed a Performance Assessment System in Response to FGRA
paragraphs: FGRA also required that FEMA establish a performance assessment  system to track grant program progress and report to Congress on the  effectiveness of fire grants. In response, FEMA developed a fire grant  performance assessment system with 10 performance measures for the  AFG program and 11 more for the SAFER program. According to  FEMA, each measure is aligned with the achievement of program goals  and objectives, and many are based on fire service standards.  According to FEMA, increased compliance with industry standards  reduces fire department response times and enhances operational  capacity. In addition, these standards help fire departments minimize the  possibility of fire-related injuries, property damage, and other effects,  according to FEMA. A complete listing of FEMA’s 21 performance  measures is included in appendix IV.
AFG performance measures reflect the extent to which grant recipients  purchase equipment that brings them into compliance with national  standards of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), or the  Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration  (OSHA), and with state and local regulations (or otherwise provide health  or safety benefits). FEMA developed measures to take into account the  extent to which equipment is used to protect critical infrastructure, replace  aging fire vehicles, or supports automatic and mutual aid. For example,  in 2015, FEMA reported that AFG grants awarded during fiscal years  2008 through 2011, increased the average percent of all on-duty  firefighters equipped with industry-compliant protective gear from 90.7  percent to 98.4 percent; enabled 99 percent of fire departments receiving  a vehicle grant to replace a sub-standard vehicle from service; and  increased the percent of awardees whose equipment purchases primarily  benefitted the health and safety of their members, from 90.1 percent to  94.6 percent.
Similarly, the SAFER performance measures reflect the extent to which  grant recipients conduct structural fire responses in compliance with  industry standards, have agreements to provide aid to neighboring or  regional organizations (mutual and automatic), estimate a department’s  staffing needs based on a department’s risk or needs analysis, protect  critical infrastructure, and hire veterans. For example, FEMA reported in  2014, that SAFER awards increased or maintained full compliance with  NFPA fire department standards for 77 percent of awardees across  career, volunteer, and combined departments during fiscal years 2009  through 2012; identified challenges for “mostly volunteer” SAFER  grantees to sustain compliance with NFPA standards; and demonstrated  FEMA’s compliance with the statutory requirement that at least 10  percent of SAFER funding is set-aside for volunteer fire departments, by  exceeding the 10 percent minimum each award year, including 16  percent in fiscal year 2013.
section_title: Opportunities Exist to Further Enhance FEMA’s Management of Fire Grant Processes and Performance Assessment Efforts
subsections: section_title: Establishing Defined and Measurable Targets
paragraphs: While FEMA developed performance measures as part of its new  performance assessment system for the AFG and SAFER programs, the  agency did not include measurable performance targets linked to AFG  and SAFER program goals that could help better assess the impact of the  program and report program achievements. According to FEMA officials,  they consulted with fire service representatives in developing the  performance system and its measures, as required by FGRA. According  to FEMA officials, they considered measurable targets associated with  program goals in developing the performance assessment reports for  2014 and 2015, but chose to present data for each performance measure  that reflected trends. For example, FEMA reported in 2015 that 74  percent, 78 percent, and 77 percent of AFG awardees for equipment in  fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011, respectively, used the grants to  achieve compliance with state, local, NFPA, or OSHA standards.  However, measures like this did not include a target goal that would  provide a basis to better assess AFG program performance, such as the  desired percentage of awardees who used grants to achieve compliance  with equipment standards.
We have previously reported that performance measures should have  quantifiable targets to help assess whether goals and objectives were  achieved by comparing projected performance and actual results. The  National Academy of Public Administration identified the need for  quantified targets for measures, and recommended baselines for  measuring and predicting improvement in outcome measures after  reviewing the AFG program in 2007. Thus, establishing measurable  performance targets linked to AFG and SAFER program goals could  enhance the quality and utility of the new performance assessment  system by providing a yardstick against which the national investments in  the programs can be evaluated. FEMA officials agreed that measureable  performance targets could help them better assess and report on the  results and impact of fire grants and said they are examining the  possibility of developing measureable targets, along with clearer  performance measures, to include in their 2016 report to Congress.
section_title: Substantiating Grantee Information on Program Goals
paragraphs: FEMA officials said they were implementing a process to verify and  validate grantee information on program goals that could further enhance  the performance assessment system, in response to a recommendation  in our previous report. Specifically, we reported in June 2013 on the AFG  program’s performance data collection efforts, noting at the time that  FEMA relied on self-reported data that was collected from awardees’  progress reports, and that FEMA lacked data validation tools to ensure  data reliability. We found that FEMA did not have a standardized tool or  process to verify and validate the performance data that grant recipients  provide to FEMA headquarters and FEMA’s 10 regional offices. We  recommended that FEMA ensure that there are consistent procedures in  place at the program office and regional level to validate and verify grant  performance data that allow FEMA to attest to the reliability of data used  to report progress toward goals. DHS concurred with our  recommendation.
According to FEMA officials, to address our past recommendation they  have developed quality assurance tools to verify and validate the post- award grant monitoring information that awardees are required to provide  as part of their progress and close-out reports. However, they said that  the regional offices have not yet implemented these tools and GPD is  developing an implementation work plan that includes additional  verification steps. GPD officials said they are negotiating a Memorandum  of Understanding to provide structure and guidance to the 10 regional  offices, and plan to distribute quality assurance tools to the regional  offices, once this agreement is in place. As these efforts are ongoing, our  recommendation will remain open until FEMA demonstrates that they  have fully implemented the additional verification and validation steps.  Substantiating the post-award, grant monitoring information that  awardees are required to provide will be important, particularly in light of  recently completed assessments of AFG and SAFER grants’ post-award  activities by the DHS Office of Inspector General. Specifically, the  Inspector General reported in June 2016 that GPD did not sufficiently  manage or oversee AFG or SAFER grants, grantees did not comply with  grant guidance and requirements, and, as a result, FEMA cannot ensure  grant funds were spent appropriately or used for their intended purpose.  FEMA concurred and is planning to implement validation processes by  December 31, 2016.
section_title: Aligning Performance Measures with National Standards
paragraphs: The data that FEMA collects and analyzes for two of its program  measures do not fully align with national standards used for similar  assessments related to national preparedness efforts. As a result, the  information that FEMA reports will be of limited utility for broader national  preparedness assessments. Specifically, in developing its 21  performance assessment system measures, FEMA identified a subset of  six measures as program priority measures that were intended to identify  the AFG and SAFER programs’ contributions to promoting fire safety and  national preparedness. Two of these measures are designed to help  describe the extent to which AFG and SAFER grantees are “responsible  for protecting critical infrastructure.” According to FEMA, fire grant  program policies define critical infrastructure as “any system or asset that  if attacked would result in catastrophic loss of life or catastrophic  economic loss” and include a list of examples, such as public water and  power systems, chemical facilities, and facilities that support large public  gatherings, such as sporting events or concerts. Using this definition, fire  grant applicants indicate on their applications whether they have critical  infrastructure within their jurisdiction, and FEMA counts the instances  when applicants provide this information on their application. For  example, for fiscal years 2013 and 2014, 91 percent of all fire grant  applicants indicated that they had critical infrastructure within their  jurisdictions.
In contrast, DHS’s National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD),  as part of its efforts to support the National Infrastructure Protection Plan,  is responsible for the National Critical Infrastructure Prioritization Program  list, a single prioritized list of systems and assets that reflect the National  Preparedness Goal’s definition of critical infrastructure: assets that would,  if destroyed or disrupted, cause national or regional catastrophic effects.  As we noted in a March 2013 report, the prioritization program uses the  National Preparedness Goal’s definition to coordinate a voluntary effort  with states and other partners to identify, prioritize, and categorize high- priority critical infrastructure in terms of four factors—fatalities, economic  loss, mass evacuation length, and degradation of national security.  According to the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, the list derived  from the National Preparedness Goal’s definition of critical infrastructure  identifies nationally significant critical infrastructure that DHS uses to  enhance decision making, including implementing FEMA homeland  security grant programs and federal incident management planning and  response efforts. For example, FEMA uses the National Critical  Infrastructure Prioritization Program list based on the National  Preparedness Goal’s definition of critical infrastructure in prioritizing other  homeland security preparedness grant programs, basing annual risk- based calculations on the differences in criticality of infrastructure in other  preparedness grants such as the State Homeland Security Grant program  and the Urban Area Security Initiative grants. In addition, committee  report language states that there is an interest in maximizing the efforts of  FEMA and NPPD through close coordination and information sharing and  encourages the two components to work together on stakeholder  outreach and sharing information internally on issues, including critical  infrastructure protection.
However, because FEMA does not use this definition in its fire grants  program performance assessments, it relies on applicants’ perceptions of  the criticality of the infrastructure in their jurisdiction that may not be  consistent with DHS priorities. GPD officials recognize that fire grant  applicants provide information on critical infrastructure that may not be  consistent with the NPPD definition, but said that they wanted to provide  applicants with greater latitude to make their own local risk assessments  using the fire grant programs’ definition because it is useful during the  peer review process in evaluating an applicant’s need. However, FEMA  officials agreed that using the national standardized definition would  enhance their program performance reporting. Thus, using the National  Preparedness Goal’s definition of critical infrastructure as the basis of  collecting information from applicants and using the National Critical  Infrastructure Prioritization Program list to measure fire grant programs’  performance could enhance FEMA’s efforts to assess and integrate the  fire grant programs’ contributions to national preparedness.
section_title: Integrating New Data Systems
paragraphs: FEMA has awarded about $8.7 million in FP&S grants from 2011 to 2015,  to national fire service associations to lead the development of two new  information systems—the National Fire Operations Reporting System  (NFORS) and the Fire Community Assessment Response Evaluation  System (FireCARES)—that contain more extensive and detailed data on  fire service operations than the data GPD collects from grant applicants  and grantees. While GPD officials intend to use the new data from these  systems to enhance program management, they have not reviewed the  fire grants application and award processes or the new performance  assessment system to determine what data elements could be used.
According to national fire service association officials, NFORS is  designed to enable fire fighters to enter information on their fire response  efforts to provide detailed descriptions of each fire department, and the  community that each department serves and the manner in which it  provides fire protection. The system is also designed to collect health and  wellness data on firefighter or civilian exposure, injury, or death. The  project team is also developing FireCARES, a complementary system to  NFORS, which is designed to assess community risks and fire  department performance, and evaluate how well fire department  resources are deployed. According to the project team officials, they  designed FireCARES to provide information on the risks fire fighters and  the public face, and what they need in their fire departments to do the job  safely and effectively. They said that a community will be less vulnerable  to firefighter injury and death, civilian injury and death, and property loss  when fire departments use FireCARES to deploy resources that match  the community’s risk levels. At the time of our review, the project team  was testing the data systems in 10 major metropolitan fire departments,  and plans to expand the systems to 125 fire departments later in 2016  and then implement the new systems nationwide by 2019.
According to GPD officials, the information in NFORS and FireCARES  could help improve the grant application and awards processes, as well  as program performance measurement. For example, such data would  provide more insight on firefighting operations and capability gaps and  could be used by FEMA and its subject-matter experts during annual  grant priorities and application criteria development sessions. GPD  officials said these data systems could also be used to better inform the  grant awards process, as NFORS could provide more detailed  information on an applicant’s’ operational needs, and FireCARES data  could provide qualitative information on an applicant’s community fire risk  level. Finally, these systems could further inform the fire grant’s  performance measures by providing data on vehicles, protective gear,  and equipment purchased with fire grants, according to GPD officials.  Although GPD intends to use the information in these new systems,  officials have not developed a plan to identify relevant data elements in  the systems and determine how they can be used to improve the fire  grants application and award processes and the performance  assessment system, or what GPD resources may be required to make  associated changes in grant program processes and policies.
According to the Project Management Institute, project management  plans help establish project objectives and outline the course of action  required to attain those objectives, defining how projects are to be  executed and controlled and providing a means to track, review, and  report progress and performance of the project by defining project  activities and developing cost and schedule estimates, among other  things.
FEMA officials said that they have not developed a plan for how they  intend to integrate NFORS and FireCARES information into their existing  fire grant program processes because the systems are still being piloted,  and they intend to wait until the systems have been more broadly  implemented to conduct more detailed planning after the systems contain  enough data to be operationalized. However, FEMA officials are familiar  with the data elements and goals of NFORS as GPD has assisted in the  development of the NFORS data system, and GPD receives updates on  the status of implementation. Additionally, since NFORS was funded at  least in part through FP&S grants, NFORS data will be available free of  charge for use by FEMA. Therefore program officials could, while system  testing was still ongoing, evaluate their application and award processes,  as well as their performance assessment system to identify what data  elements in the new NFORS and FireCARES systems could be beneficial  to enhance program management and how these data can be  incorporated. Thus, a plan to determine what, and how, new NFORS and  FireCARES data elements can be used to improve the fire grants’  application and award processes and performance assessment system  could help enhance program management efforts and subsequent  changes to information systems and policies.
section_title: Enhancing Collaboration between GPD and USFA
paragraphs: The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) plays an informal role as a  consultant to GPD’s fire grant programs, but GPD could better leverage  USFA’s expertise and resources to support programmatic management of  the fire grant programs using collaborative mechanisms that our work  across the federal government has identified. USFA supports the efforts  of state and local fire and emergency medical services departments by  providing training and education, applied research and technology, data  collection and analysis, public education and awareness, and  dissemination of information and deployment assistance. For example,  according to USFA officials, USFA has regular and ongoing interactions  with fire service organizations, including through USFA’s free training  courses and programs delivered at the National Fire Academy in  Emmitsburg, Maryland, online, and throughout the nation. This  opportunity to interact with firefighters and emergency medical service  technicians provides USFA with direct feedback and perspectives from  fire grant programs constituencies. In addition, USFA also manages the  National Fire Data Center, which operates the National Fire Incident  Reporting System (NFIRS), conducts regular analyses of NFIRS data  and publishes reports on national fire service trends. Finally, the USFA  Administrator also serves as the fire protection and emergency response  community expert to the FEMA Administrator and acts as a federal  advocate to address challenges facing the nation’s fire service.
According to GPD officials, USFA plays a strategic role in fire grant  program priorities, although there is no formal relationship between the  two components. For example, USFA provides assistance to GPD such  as providing facilities for GPD’s annual criteria development panels, and  to review GPD’s draft Notice of Funding Opportunity.
USFA’s programs and GPD’s fire grant programs reflect the same broad  area of national need—support of national fire service organizations—and  both components have similar goals, target similar beneficiaries, and  provide complementary services and products that align with these  program goals. For example, USFA’s goals are to reduce fire and life  safety risk through preparedness, prevention and mitigation; promote  response, local planning, and preparedness for all hazards; enhance the  fire and emergency services’ capability for response to and recovery from  all hazards; and advance the professional development of fire service  personnel and of other people engaged in fire prevention and control.  GPD’s stated goals in managing the fire grants programs are to enhance  the safety of the public and firefighters; provide a continuum of support for  emergency responders regarding fire, medical, and all-hazard events;   assist fire prevention programs; support firefighter health and safety  research and development; and help build, sustain, and deliver core  capabilities that are essential to achieving the National Preparedness  Goal; assist local fire departments with staffing and deployment  capabilities; and assure that communities have adequate protection from  fire and fire-related hazards.
Despite the similarities in the goals and missions of the two organizations,  key USFA and GPD policy documents do not describe how the two  organizations’ programs could work together to achieve their common  goals, and officials from both offices said there is no formalized  relationship between them regarding program management. For example,  USFA’s Strategic Plan for 2014-2018 does not include any reference to  the fire grants programs or GPD when it describes its key initiatives in  building fire service capabilities. Nor does GPD identify any program-wide  role for USFA in supporting the fire grants programs in the AFG, SAFER,  and FP&S grant policies presented in the annual Notice of Funding  Opportunity, and according to GPD officials, have not historically used  NFIRS data in reviewing the fire grants programs.
For programmatic management of other non-fire preparedness grants,  GPD leverages the subject matter expertise of other DHS components.  For example, the Transportation Security Administration was established  after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to ensure the security of the nation’s  transportation system, and the agency works with GPD to assist with  programmatic management of the Transit Security Grant Program.  Similarly, the Coast Guard works with GPD to assist with programmatic  management of the Port Security Grant Program. The relationships  between GPD and these other DHS component subject-matter-expert  agencies in coordinating their relative responsibilities are established in  different ways. For example, GPD and the Coast Guard define their  relative roles and responsibilities in the annual port security grant Notice  of Funding Opportunity. Additionally, GPD and the Transportation  Security Administration have an established Memorandum of Agreement  to define their respective responsibilities with regard to surface  transportation security grant programs.
These efforts reflect the types of mechanisms our work has shown that  federal agencies have used to implement interagency collaborative efforts  to address a range of purposes, including policy development; program  implementation; oversight and monitoring; information sharing and  communication; and building organizational capacity, such as staffing and  training. Although collaborative mechanisms such as written  agreements differ in complexity and scope, our prior work found that they  were most likely to be successful if they addressed certain key features— such as clarity of roles and responsibility, and bridging organizational  cultures.  In addition, since 2005, report language accompanying  appropriations acts has directed FEMA to fund fire grant applications  according to local priorities and those established by USFA.
According to GPD and USFA officials, their collaboration in the fire grants  program is informal. GPD officials said the current level of coordination  between the staff and leaders of the two respective offices is effective and  they have not sought to define or document roles and responsibilities  because the current relationship meets program needs. They added that  the coordination of programs and policies between USFA and GPD is  effectively maintained through FEMA’s regular policy working group  meetings of senior officials. According to USFA officials, however, their  role and participation in the fire grants program is minimal, limited to  providing facilities, observing the annual criteria development meetings,  and reflects and depends on the level of interest and ability of staff from  the two components; and as a result, USFA does not have a meaningful  impact on fire grant application processes or in peer review panels,  according to USFA officials. USFA officials said that they would prefer a  more formal role in the fire grants program and could contribute more to  the programmatic management of fire grants by providing access to  subject matter experts in fire departments nationwide, and by providing  expertise on long-term trends and current practices in the fire service  industry, fire prevention, and research and development efforts. For  example, USFA officials said that they could enhance GPD’s review and  approval of FP&S grants because the purposes of FP&S grants are  directly linked to USFA’s mission and role in prevention and research and  development. They also said they could serve as a repository for the  results of work conducted under the FP&S program.
USFA officials also said their National Fire Data Center office performs  quantitative fire service trend analysis based on data in USFA’s system  (NFIRS) that could also add value to fire grants program management.  For example, the officials said that their subject matter expertise could  have enhanced the utility of the new NFORS and FireCARES systems— and better coordinate the integration of NFIRS with these systems—if  they had been involved earlier in the systems’ development. USFA  officials provided us NFIRS data that indicated that the majority of fire  service organizations response efforts are often not related to fire  response. According to FEMA officials, greater consideration of USFA’s  perspectives in developing the new systems could have helped GPD  better align with the all-hazards approach used for national preparedness  efforts, as documented in the National Response Framework. They  added that it is difficult to strategically determine, plan, or assess the  impact of their collaborative efforts on the fire grants programs when the  efforts are based on personalities, rather than documented roles and  responsibilities. Officials from both GPD and USFA agreed that  formalizing USFA’s role would benefit fire grant program management.
Although a level of informal coordination exists between GPD and USFA,  enhancing these efforts by using collaborative mechanisms that our work  across the federal government has identified as key features and issues  to consider during implementation —such as clearly defining and  agreeing upon USFA’s role and responsibilities and documenting  agreement regarding how they will be collaborating—could help GPD  further leverage USFA expertise and resources in support of the fire  grants programs, which could also help GPD manage the integration of  fire grants into broader national preparedness efforts.
section_title: Incorporating Fire Grants into Broader National Preparedness Efforts
paragraphs: Moving forward, FEMA’s addition of a new fire service-related core  capability to the National Preparedness Goal in September 2015 will  require states to realign information on fire management capabilities from  public and private services and resources and integrate information from  other core capabilities into their assessments of the new fire management  and suppression core capability, according to FEMA officials. To help  transition the fire grants programs into these broader national  preparedness assessment efforts, FEMA officials said that they are taking  steps to educate states, territories, tribes, and locals on the new core  capability and encourage them to include capability improvements  resulting from the fire grants in their assessments.
In addition, FEMA officials said that they are working to increase the  involvement of fire service stakeholders in annual state Threat and  Hazard Identification Risk Assessments (THIRA) and State Preparedness  Reports (SPR) to more effectively reflect the impact of fire grants. For  example, FEMA released revisions to national planning frameworks and  new guidance on developing THIRAs and SPRs in June 2016, along with  a schedule of webinars to provide additional information and answer  questions. States are expected to include an assessment of their level  of fire management and suppression capabilities beginning in 2017. While  these initial steps to increase involvement of fire service stakeholders into  broader assessments of national preparedness are promising, the  success of these efforts will not be measurable until after the new fire  management-related capability assessments are made.
FEMA officials also said they planned to develop and implement a  consolidated grant management system to integrate data used to manage  fire grant programs with the data gathered and used for FEMA’s non-fire  preparedness grants, and ultimately better measure the impact of fire  grants on national preparedness efforts. Specifically, as we reported in  May 2016, FEMA plans to develop and implement a new Grants  Management Modernization system to provide agency-wide management  for all of FEMA’s disaster and preparedness grants. According to the  FEMA officials, the system is to be implemented in 2020. They said  states will be able to use fire grant program information on AFG- purchased personal protective equipment, fire service vehicles, and  training in developing SPRs because states use equipment and training  as elements for assessing capabilities under existing national  preparedness assessment efforts. Since GPD’s grant management  systems consolidation will not occur for several years, it is too early to  assess its potential for enhancing FEMA’s efforts to measure the impact  of fire grants on national preparedness efforts. Because measuring  national preparedness is an issue we have previously identified for  FEMA’s management of its other preparedness grants, we will continue to  monitor the planned consolidation as part of our ongoing review and  annual report on efforts to address fragmentation, overlap, and  duplication across federal programs.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: FEMA has provided almost $5.8 billion since 2009 to fund fire grant  programs that help firefighters and emergency medical service  departments enhance their capabilities to respond to the needs of  localities across the nation. In response to statutory amendments to the  programs through FGRA in 2012, FEMA changed a number of its fire  grants policies and the agency’s grant awards in 2013 and 2014 generally  reflected these changes. FEMA also enhanced its assessment of  program performance by establishing and reporting on measures of the  effectiveness of these national investments. Yet, the performance  measures do not include measurable performance targets linked to AFG  and SAFER program goals that could enhance their quality and utility. In  addition, aligning the fire grants programs’ use of data on, and definitions  of, critical infrastructure to award fire grants and assess program  performance with the more objective, quantitative approach used by DHS  and GPD for other programs and non-fire preparedness grants could  enhance GPD’s efforts to integrate the fire grants program into larger  national preparedness efforts and more objectively assess the impact of  fire grants.
Moving forward, FEMA is seeking to advance national fire service data  collection by funding new systems—NFORS and FireCARES—that can  be used to gather more extensive and comprehensive data on fire service  organizations operation, but program officials have not taken steps to  identify what and how data from the new systems could be used to  enhance fire grants program management. A project management plan  could help enhance the effectiveness of subsequent changes to FEMA’s  information systems and program management policies that will be  needed to operationalize the data. Finally, although a level of informal  coordination exists between FEMA’s GPD and the USFA, enhancing  these efforts by clearly defining responsibilities and documenting their  agreement regarding how they will be collaborating could help GPD  further leverage USFA’s expertise and resources in support of the fire  grants programs, as well as help GPD manage the integration of fire  grants into broader national preparedness efforts.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To better assess the impact of the fire grants program, the Secretary of  Homeland Security should direct the FEMA Administrator to establish  measurable performance targets linked to AFG and SAFER program  goals, such as the desired percentage of awardees who used grants to  achieve compliance with equipment standards.
To enhance FEMA’s efforts to assess and integrate the fire grant  programs’ contributions to national preparedness, the Secretary of  Homeland Security should direct the FEMA Administrator to use the  National Preparedness Goal’s definition of critical infrastructure as the  basis of collecting information from applicants and using the National  Critical Infrastructure Prioritization Program list to measure fire grant  programs’ performance in addressing national priorities.
To enhance FEMA’s efforts to incorporate new NFORS and FireCARES  data elements into fire grants program management activities, the  Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the FEMA Administrator to  develop a project management plan for identifying relevant data elements  in the new NFORS and FireCARES systems and determining how they  can be used to improve fire grant applications and awards processes and  the performance assessment system.
To further leverage the expertise and resources in support of FEMA’s fire  grants programs, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the  FEMA Administrator to define and document the roles and responsibilities  of USFA in administering the fire grant programs.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. In  response, DHS provided written comments on August 25, 2016, which  are summarized below and reproduced in appendix VI. DHS concurred  with all four recommendations and described planned actions to address  them. DHS had no technical comments on the draft report.
DHS concurred with our first recommendation that FEMA establish  measurable performance targets linked to AFG and SAFER program  goals, such as the desired percentage of awardees who used grants to  achieve compliance with equipment standards. DHS stated that FEMA is  reviewing all metrics to determine the feasibility for targets on the current  set of metrics and will include approved targets in the annual report to  Congress that will be issued by the end of fiscal year 2016. These  actions, if implemented effectively, should address the intent of our  recommendation.
DHS also concurred with our second recommendation that FEMA use the  National Preparedness Goal’s definition of critical infrastructure as the  basis of collecting information from applicants and using the National  Critical Infrastructure Prioritization Program list to measure fire grant  programs’ performance in addressing national priorities. DHS stated that  FEMA will incorporate the National Preparedness Goal's definition of  national critical infrastructure into the fire grant performance measures  and will conduct an assessment of data from AFG program application  and awards in order to verify recipients are reporting infrastructure that  aligns with the National Preparedness Goal definition of critical  infrastructure.  According to DHS, the assessment will be completed by  the end of calendar year 2016 and FEMA will report the measures in the  fiscal year 2017 Annual Report to Congress, expected to be completed by  December 30, 2017. These actions, if implemented effectively, should  address the intent of our recommendation.
DHS concurred with our third recommendation that FEMA develop a  project management plan for identifying relevant data elements in the  new NFORS and FireCARES systems and determining how they can be  used to improve fire grant applications and awards processes and the  performance assessment system. DHS stated that FEMA will develop a  plan to assess the data collected to determine feasibility for integration in  to the fire grants programs. According to DHS, the plan will incorporate  ways to improve the applications, awards processes, and tracking of  performance and should be completed by March 31, 2017. These actions,  if implemented effectively, should address the intent of our  recommendation.
DHS concurred with our last recommendation that FEMA define and  document the roles and responsibilities of USFA in administering the fire  grant programs. DHS stated that FEMA will prepare a formal  memorandum of understanding (MOU) between USFA and GPD to  assign roles and responsibilities for coordination of their separately  legislated responsibilities to (a) maximize FEMA's service to the Fire and  Fire Based Emergency Management Services, and (b) prevent  programmatic inconsistencies and conflicts. According to DHS, this effort  should be completed by October 31, 2016. These actions, if implemented  effectively, should address the intent of our recommendation.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committee, the Director of OMB, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and  other interested parties. The report will also be available at no charge on  the GAO web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-8777 or CurrieC@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix VII.
section_title: Appendix I: Fire Grants Funding and Awards by Grant Program, Eligible Activity
subsections: section_title: Funding Distribution of Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG), Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER), and Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Awards Pre- and Post-Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2012, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2014
paragraphs: Table 2 shows the distribution of grants awards for the three grant  programs fiscal years 2002 through 2014. The amount of funding  increased from fiscal year 2002, peaking in fiscal year 2010 with a total  amount awarded of $788.9 million.
Table 3 shows the outcomes for the AFG, SAFER, and FP&S grants  awarded in the fiscal year 2014 grant cycle subdivided by the eligible  activities under each grant program. AFG grants received the majority of  applications and awarded the largest number of grants. In addition, this  table corresponds to information in GAO-10-64, Table 2.
section_title: Appendix II: Fire Grants Applications and Awards Policies Related to Fire Grant Reauthorization Act (FGRA) Amendments
paragraphs: Our analysis of FGRA identified 26 amendments related to fire grant  application and award policies. FEMA incorporated most of these  changes into its existing grant application and awards processes (see  table 4 below). In some cases, FEMA used existing authorities to waive  changes related to FGRA amendments or found that no change to  existing policy was necessary.
section_title: Appendix III: Fire Grants Funding, Applications, and Awards
subsections: section_title: Analyses of AFG, SAFER and FP&S Application and Awards Distributions, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2014
paragraphs: The following tables below provide additional information on fire grant  applications and awards. In addition, some tables correspond to data  analyses performed as part of our October 2009 review of the fire grants  program to offer comparisons of data for fiscal years 2002 through 2008.
Table 5 shows the distribution of Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG)  awards from fiscal years 2009 through 2014 by department types (i.e.,  career, combination, volunteer, paid on call/stipend, or a combination of  these). In addition, this table corresponds to information in GAO-10-64,  appendix VI.
Table 6 shows the distribution of Staffing for Adequate Fire and  Emergency Response (SAFER) awards from fiscal years 2009 through  2014 by department types (i.e., career, combination, volunteer, interest  organizations, or fire department/fire district). In addition, this table  corresponds to information in GAO-10-64, appendix VI.
Table 7 shows the distribution of Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S)  awards from fiscal years 2009 through 2014 by department types (i.e.,  career, combination, volunteer, paid on call, interest organization, or  state/local volunteer interest organizations). In addition, this table  corresponds to information in GAO-10-64, appendix VI.
Table 8 shows the distribution of AFG awards from fiscal years 2009  through 2014 by community service areas (i.e., rural, suburban, urban,  and state fire training academies). For fiscal years 2009 through 2014,  rural departments received the most funding of any community service  type each year. In addition, this table corresponds to information in  GAO-10-64, appendix VII.
Table 9 shows the distribution of SAFER awards from fiscal years 2009  through 2014 by community service areas (i. e., rural, suburban, urban,  and interest organizations). For fiscal years 2009 through 2014, urban  departments received a majority of the grant funding. In addition, this  table corresponds to information in GAO-10-64, appendix VII.
Table 10 shows the distribution of FP&S awards from fiscal years 2009  through 2014 by community service areas (i.e., rural, suburban, urban,  and interest organizations). For fiscal years 2009 through 2014, interest  organizations received a majority of the grant funding. In addition, this  table corresponds to information in GAO-10-64, appendix VII.
Table 11 shows the distribution of AFG awards from fiscal years 2009  through 2014 by activity (i.e., operations and safety, vehicle acquisition,  regional, and state fire training academies). The amount of funding  provided for operations and safety activities is consistently higher than  that awarded on each of regional activities, vehicle acquisition, and state  fire training academies. Fiscal year 2014 awards for operations and  safety grants amounted to $194.9 million out of a total of $304.7 million in  grant awards. Grant funding for vehicle acquisition, regional applications,  and state fire training academies was $62.4 million, $38 million, and $9.4  million, respectively. In addition, this table corresponds to information in  GAO-10-64, appendix VIII.
Table 12 shows the distribution of SAFER awards from fiscal years 2009  through 2014 by activity (i.e. hiring and recruitment and retention). The  amount of funding awarded for hiring is consistently higher than the  amount awarded for recruitment and retention activities. Fiscal year 2014  funding for hiring amounted to $305.3 million out of a total of $340 million  grant awards. Grant funding for recruitment and retention was $34.7  million.
Table 13 shows the distribution of FP&S awards from fiscal years 2009  through 2014 by activity (i.e. fire prevention, research and research and  prevention). The amount of funding provided for fire prevention awards is  consistently higher than that awarded on research and development and  research and prevention. Fiscal year 2014 funding for fire prevention  amounted to $25.2 million out of a total of $34 million grant awards. Grant  funding for research activity and research and prevention was $7.5 million  and $1.2 million, respectively.
Tables 14, 15, and 16 show the distribution of AFG, SAFER, and FP&S  awards and funding, respectively, by department type for fiscal year 2014.  In addition, these tables correspond to information in GAO-10-64,  appendix IX.
Tables 17, 18, and 19 show the distribution of AFG, SAFER, and FP&S  awards and funding, respectively, by community service area for fiscal  year 2014. In addition, these tables correspond to information in  GAO-10-64, appendix X.
Table 20 shows the spending on FP&S grants as a percentage of AFG  and FP&S appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2014. FEMA funds  AFG and FP&S from the same appropriation.
section_title: Appendix IV: Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Performance Assessment System Measures for Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) programs
paragraphs: In 2014, FEMA created a performance assessment system for its fire  grants programs in response to a Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2012  (FGRA) requirement that FEMA establish a system to track program  progress and report to Congress on the effectiveness of these grants.  FEMA has submitted annual reports to Congress on the AFG and SAFER  programs in November 2014, along with a second annual report to  Congress on the AFG program in October 2015. FEMA organized these  congressional reports to (1) describe the methodology behind FEMA’s fire  grants’ performance evaluation system and programmatic effectiveness  measures, many based on applicable safety standards, and (2) report  data by each measures, based on most recently available data to assess  the effectiveness of the AFG and SAFER programs, and develop  performance measures to continually track progress and implementation.
The data reported in these measures are based on most recent FEMA  grants data available that includes both information included in awardees’  grant applications and their corresponding closeout reports, according to  FEMA. FEMA also included case studies for related measures to further  illustrate FEMA’s findings and describe examples of awardees’ best  practices. For example, FEMA provided a case study in its 2015 report on  how one nonprofit organization in Oklahoma used its Fire Prevention and  Safety (FP&S) award to install visual and tactile alarms and alert devices  in 125 homes with hearing-impaired occupants, 58 percent of which  previously had no working smoke alarm.
However, FEMA did not develop FP&S program measures. According to  FEMA officials, the relatively smaller available funding amount of the  FP&S program, along with the numerous eligible categories of prevention  projects available, posed a challenge to identifying a reportable  performance measure with a statistically-valid sample size.
Specifically, FEMA’s performance assessment system identifies a total of  21 measures for the AFG and SAFER programs, as shown in tables 21  and 22, below. According to FEMA, each measure is aligned with the  achievement of fire grants’ program goals and objectives, and many are  based on fire service standards established by the National Fire  Protection Association, Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and  Health Administration, as well as relevant state, and local governments  and regulatory agencies. According to FEMA, such standards help fire  departments minimize the possibility of fire-related injuries, property  damage, and other effects.
section_title: Appendix V: Incorporating Fire Grants into Broader National Preparedness Efforts
paragraphs: FEMA officials said that they recognized that the quality of the fire  management and suppression component of states’ Threat and Hazard  Identification Risk Assessments (THIRA) and State Preparedness  Reports (SPR) depends on the full integration and participation of  different groups as part of the “whole community” effort. FEMA officials  noted that they obtain information on participation of different groups of  the whole community in the THIRA and SPR processes. FEMA provides  states, territories, tribes, and urban areas to use FEMA’s Unified  Reporting Tool (URT) to complete their THIRA and SPR assessments. As  part of each assessment, jurisdictions are required to indicate the types  and number of governmental departments and agencies participating in  their process as well as the type and number of participating non- governmental organizations. See table 23 below for nationwide  participation rates for whole community stakeholders in their jurisdiction’s  THIRA and SPR processes as reported by FEMA.
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Chris Keisling (Assistant  Director), John Vocino (Analyst-in-Charge), David Beardwood, Dominick  Dale, Lorraine Ettaro, Eric Hauswirth, Thomas James, Tracey King, John  Mingus, Keith O’Brien, and Katherine Pfeiffer made key contributions to  this report.