Is it time to rethink how we administer the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG)Program?

With the current debate over the proposed changes in the OSHA Fire Brigade Standard, which will be discussed in the future, is it time for the fire service in the United States to rethink the AFG and how we have used the funds.  Since 2001, the AFG has provided much needed funds to departments, however, the impact has been limited.  Intended to balance local needs with improvements in fire fighter health and safety and improvements in the impact of fire on communities.  While there have been some improvements in firefighter line of duty deaths, the community impact has been limited and the cost of apparatus has exploded. 

To better meet the goals of the grant program, I am putting out for discussion the following:

1. Standardized apparatus specifications. Much like the automobile industry, fire apparatus costs have ballooned and along with it, the profit margin in apparatus.  In short, manufacturers do not need to produce as many apparatus to make a profit.  In the automobile industry, we see this in the rise in cost of cars with fewer entry level models being made.  Simply, the cost of producing a spec apparatus or a top-of-the-line apparatus isn’t that great, but the cost difference is.   For example, when I first became a fire fighter, the station I was assigned had recently received a new apparatus and today, the station I am at, is in line for a new apparatus.  Neither were spec apparatus purchase.  Had the cost risen linearly over time, it would require that the cost of the apparatus increase 30% per year, every year, since 1981.  To combat this trend, I suggest that the AFG develop several specifications for apparatus.  Departments seeking grants then have a template to build off of, manufacturers can design to the specification, and costs can be controlled.  Any additions to the specification would need to be justified or paid for by the department outside of federal funds.
2. Alter personnel duty requirements for hiring under SAFER. Currently, personnel hired are required to meet a predetermined training level which includes sufficient training to perform their response role.  I suggest adding fire inspector and public life safety educator to the training mix with an additional requirement that a predetermined amount of duty time, such as 5%, be dedicated to community based, risk reduction activities.
3. Increase the funding percentage for community risk reduction activities. Under the current program, risk reduction activities are not funded at sufficient levels to meet community needs.  I suggest increasing funding for these activities.

These ideas put out with the hope of generating discussion within the fire and EMS community and serve as a starting point.  What are your thoughts?