Education vs. AFG Success

[onebugle]

Just thought I would post a poll on education level and AFG success. We know that training is important (another poll), but does education have a factor in AFG success.

As an EFO graduate (associates & bachelors degrees as well), I believe that course of study had an important impact on my success. Not only does the course of study teach you how to develope a problem statement etc., but how to research which was a vital component in completing the required research projects.

[WJVaughn]

Define successful. Myself I count it as 50/50 based on the grants I do year round, not just AFG

[Pelican631]

I agree completely that some of things you learn in school will help you write a successful grant. Depending on the subject in school, half the battle is figuring out what the professor or teacher wants you to write/do/show work for. The exact same thing applies here. Figure out what DHS wants from reading the guidance document, give them what they want, and you should do ok. When departments apply for things they think they need but aren't high on the priorities list, it's not going to work. Just like writing an essay about cheese won't work if the prof asked for an essay on bread...it may be a great essay on cheese, but not what was asked for...no dice.

Being literate with a computer helps too :-)

Andy

[Flochief]

I hate to ask but does PHD stand for post hole diggers or put here dummy.

[KenNFD1219]

I hate to ask but does PHD stand for post hole diggers or put here dummy.
A.S. Alota S
B.S. Bull S
M.S. More S
PHD Piled High and Deep

I'm 3 for 5 on AFG with an A.S. Trying my first SAFER with a new B.S. Hope it helps!

Not really sure if their is a relationship between a degree and success. So far, High School only has a higher success rate.

[Flochief]

I am like you I don't know about the education level. They could have listed the School of Hard Knocks.
On a serious note. I have 1 year of college. I quit to go to work where I am at now some 25 1/2 years ago.

My volunteer dept is 2 for 6 in AFG and 1 for 2 with SAFER. I am not complaining one bit. We have been extremely fortunate.

[ktb9780]

This is an interesting poll; I do wonder though if there is any correlation between those in full time departments vs volunteer. Pelican631 drives home a point that my "paid for" surveys uncovered also. At least some formal post secondary education is a true asset in "comprehension" of program guidance. That is why a large part of my seminars content is devoted strictly to "decoding" the guidance documents of a program, as those studies showed that the biggest reason for failure was simply a matter of "failure to follow directons" ie; the guidance documents. On the contrary though, the results here are also indicative of the level of education that you should be writing at in regards to the "peer reviewers". I cite as an example, a client who had failed several times at "peer review" and was not successful on multiple attempts at AFG. Upon closer scrutiny of the narratives I found they had been written at a level of 18 on the Flesch-Kincaid Readability scale. The writer was clearly writing over the heads of the reviewers. When we backed the scale back down to 10-12 level they were funded.:rolleyes:

[7Stones]

There are some errors with the poll. First, this would indicate that there are equal numbers of people with each education level. Obviously there are more fire fighters and grant writers for fire departments who completed high school than any other group. The number of possible respondents from each group goes down considerably with each increasing level of education. By the time you get to Phd you may only have a handful of people with that level of education who still write grants. Those people tend to be professors, researchers, or in the upper levels of fire administration.

I am leery that these results may be misrepresented to imply that education does not make a difference in grant writing. If that is true, why would anyone attend a grant writing seminar...they are EDUCATION!!! I agree with Kurt, however, that overwriting a grant is certain to kill it in peer review. Part of the knack of writing a successful grant is to know your audience.

As fire fighters we are committed to educating ourselves in the classroom, in practical exercises, through tabletops, by reading (FireHouse Magazine, among others), and learning by experience. If we are not constantly learning how to do our jobs better we should think seriously about finding another line of work.

So if education is fundamental to being a fire fighter is the backlash just against formal classroom education? Are people that have toughed out a degree program somehow supposed to be embarrassed by their achievement? Classroom education cannot stand alone. It must be accompanied by practical work and experience. Let's be careful, however, how we view the different educational and experiential qualifications in our departments. When we stereotype people, cataloging them into predefined groups, are we working to build the strength of our community? Are we advancing the brotherhood? Will this divisiveness aid us in performing our job with excellence? I think not.

We all need to participate, appreciating the contribution of every member. Let's get this education stigmatism out of our system and spend our time and energy making sure we are ready to protect and serve together.

Jon

[onebugle]

I would suspect that the correlation between a high school and college education will remain about a 50/50 split since we are in the 7th year of the AFG.

Probably a more important correlation is education level vs. the number of attempts to be successful. Does a higher education mean that your chances of being successful comes sooner than a high school education? Maybe a future poll.

The writer was clearly writing over the heads of the reviewers. When we backed the scale back down to 10-12 level they were funded.
I guess that is called the "Dummying Down Theory".:D

[ktb9780]

Jon I ceetainly did not mean to imply, by any means, that education is not a true asset to anyone. I was only trying to point out that the level of education does not "prevent" anyone from being succesful at writing for grants and my discussions over the years with FFs shows that there is a great deal of "intimidation" presented by the grant process and a false feeling by many that you must be an English Lit major to succeed at this. Quite the contrary is true, hence the lament that even I have to continually re-educate myself to these grant programs, trends etc. in order to stay effective.;)

[ktb9780]

I guess that is called the "Dummying Down Theory".:D

Absolutely onebugle.;)

[firechief47]

IMHO, what is trying to be said is: make your narrative sound educated, but remember you're not writing one of Shakespeare's Plays.

I'm one of the less educated submitters, with just a few college classes. But every year I have a school teacher review my narrative and make the little red marks just like in grade school, then I put my pride aside and make the changes. Just a suggestion.

[ktb9780]

IMHO, what is trying to be said is: make your narrative sound educated, but remember you're not writing one of Shakespeare's Plays.

I'm one of the less educated submitters, with just a few college classes. But every year I have a school teacher review my narrative and make the little red marks just like in grade school, then I put my pride aside and make the changes. Just a suggestion.

And that is a good thing to do every year firechief47;)

[bigdogdaddy3]

Do you all believe education really makes a difference?

How many applicants stretch the truth and get by with such?

How about those Fire Chiefs close to the Program such as serving on the Criteria Committee and are funded every year?

Are those serving as Peer Reviewers and then deliver Grant Writing classes while getting paid by the local Community College System?

[ktb9780]

Do you all believe education really makes a difference?

How many applicants stretch the truth and get by with such?

How about those Fire Chiefs close to the Program such as serving on the Criteria Committee and are funded every year?

Are those serving as Peer Reviewers and then deliver Grant Writing classes while getting paid by the local Community College System?

Youare new here so first off let me warn you about "stretching the truth". These are Federal Programs and any "stretching" of the truth can and will result in Federal Fraud charges which brings out the men with shiny bracelets, a warm cozy cell next to the Enron president and a tow truck towing your new shiny tnaker out of the station house and you left holding the bill.

Speaking strictly for myself and I would certainly believe Brian and other professionals in here; if I detect a department committing fraud, I will personally drop them like a hot potato and refuse to work with them and warn every other professional I know about them.

You don't have to lie to get funded! That is what education is all about. If you learn how to function within the rules o the grant and meet the programs priorities you will succeed.;)

[bigdogdaddy3]

First of all I am not new here. I have been reading these and writing into this forum for years now. This is just a new login.

I know and agree that telling the truth is the only way and anyone telling a lie should be banded from the program.

I know of a department just awarded that has stretch the truth about their organization and their fire district.

[bigdogdaddy3]

New here; I dont think so. I have read these forums and wrote throughout them under a different login. The login is new, but not the person.

I am very aware of what you have said. I, too, agree it is serious when or if someone tells a lie on their application. I have been very successful with the AFG program and I understand the pogram well.

I have knowledge of a Department that stretch the truth on their current application and was awarded several rounds ago.

[Greenacres2]

Peer reviewers have several restrictions placed on their future activities, especially where it comes to profiting from their experience. For sure they have an edge on what they write--my view is that it's cheap compensation for their contribution of time. But those i know and have met have all been protective of the program and seem to have a pretty high degree of integrity in what they do.

Are there reviewers from past years who thumb their nose at the system?? In a group that large, i'm sure there are. My guess is that it's a very, very small number (with a very large likelihood of getting caught!!). Going to happen in almost any group of humanoids. And even though it's a lot of people, it's a pretty tight fraternity and word of any unethical behavior probably travels pretty fast.

Anybody in the fire service who wants the competitive edge that comes from serving as a peer reviewer commit to "doing the time" to earn it. Thank God for those who make that commitment--they make it possible for the rest of us to benefit from the AFG program.

earl (all personal opinion, those with facts are encouraged to chime in!!)

[onebugle]

Peer reviewers have several restrictions placed on their future activities, especially where it comes to profiting from their experience. For sure they have an edge on what they write--my view is that it's cheap compensation for their contribution of time. But those i know and have met have all been protective of the program and seem to have a pretty high degree of integrity in what they do.

A friend of mine and our current Chief were former reviewers for the AFG. They both display the highest intergity for this program. They will divulge nothing about the process except for what we already know. The most I have gotten even from the Chief is how poorly some of the narratives are written. Poor grammar, sentence structure, spelling, no paragraphs, don't follow directions, sections of the narrative missing etc. Things an education will help with. At the very least have the narrative proof read before submission; as was pointed out earlier.

[7Stones]

The question of honesty could probably fill another thread with multiple pages of posts. Those who cheat should be exposed. I have heard several stories of departments who have taken liberty with the number of structures over 4 stories in their justification for an aerial. Anyone who cheats in any grant program is, in essence, stealing, from the rest of us! Their behavior is a disgrace to the fire service. Who gives them the right to tarnish the reputation of the rest of us?

As for the education discussion, I agree wholeheartedly with comments made with Onebugle and Kurt. I have a graduate degree and have written numerous proposals for a variety of organizations. However, I am far from a grant expert. I am headed to a Chief Seminar next month and I know I will learn a ton! I strongly encourage everyone to attend a seminar with Kurt or Brian. Take advantage of grant experts in your area. Have others read your narrative. A well written narrative may not get us through the computer scoring but it is essential when it comes to peer review.

[bigdogdaddy3]

The question of honesty could probably fill another thread with multiple pages of posts. Those who cheat should be exposed. I have heard several stories of departments who have taken liberty with the number of structures over 4 stories in their justification for an aerial. Anyone who cheats in any grant program is, in essence, stealing, from the rest of us! Their behavior is a disgrace to the fire service. Who gives them the right to tarnish the reputation of the rest of us?


How can you expose a cheater when the Program Office doesn't care!!!!

[ktb9780]

First of all I am not new here. I have been reading these and writing into this forum for years now. This is just a new login.

I know and agree that telling the truth is the only way and anyone telling a lie should be banded from the program.

I know of a department just awarded that has stretch the truth about their organization and their fire district.

Sorry guy it only listed you had 1 post at the time you osted so I thought you were totally new.;) ;)

[7Stones]

bigdogdaddy3:

Here is the information for reporting fraud taken directly from the DHS website:

Fraud Hotline
If you have knowledge of fraud, waste, abuse, or allegations of civil liberties or civil rights abuses, or mismanagement involving Federal Emergency Management Agency programs or operations, you can:


Fax DHS OIG Hotline at: (202) 254-4292

Email: DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov

Or write:
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
Attn: Office of Inspector General, Hotline

I strongly urge you, and anyone else, to report fraud. The report is confidential so you are not exposed to the wrath of the implicated department.

Look, we have mutual aid partners who have no NFPA compliant turnout gear or SCBA. One of the departments is driving two trucks over 30 years old. Both departments have been rejected for grants. I am personally sick and tired to hearing about fraud when honest departments cannot receive the help they desperately need. We have to police ourselves! Fraud is a crime and it directly affects our fellow firefighters. Would we condone one department stealing from another?

No one likes having to report another department for fraud. I would prefer to keep my distance entirely. But I cannot live with the fact that not reporting them makes me an accomplice to their crime.

Be courageous...do the right thing!

Jon

[imafireman]

bigdogdaddy3:
Look, we have mutual aid partners who have no NFPA compliant turnout gear or SCBA. One of the departments is driving two trucks over 30 years old. Both departments have been rejected for grants. I am personally sick and tired to hearing about fraud when honest departments cannot receive the help they desperately need. We have to police ourselves! Fraud is a crime and it directly affects our fellow firefighters. Would we condone one department stealing from another?
Jon

Are you saying this department has no SCBA what-so-ever? Or are they just not compliant to recent standards.

[FFChrisK200]

My department has applied for grants since the inception of the program and was never awarded (AFG, FP, etc.). This is the first year I took responsiblity for the grants and fortunately was finishing up my BS in business admin. Not only do I believe my education helped me decipher and critically critque the guidance documents, I believe that the education offered in higher ed helps furthers ones writing ability and ability to make a point in an efficient and effective manner. This year, we have made it further than ever before receiving the 1199A and also the 10Qs and now are playing the waiting game. I am confident this is almost all attributable to the more well written narrative we submitted this year.

Like most of you said, one shouldn't try to write over their ability and certainly not over the ability of the peer reviewers. Trust me, they can tell when you are using a thesaurus to come up with "more educated sounding words". The narratives really need to follow the guidance and be to the point. Wasteless story telling and nagging in the narrative will get you nowhere.

Additionnaly, I enlisted the use of writing specialist at the university I attended. Though, he wasn't a grant writer, he critically critiqued are narrative, adjusting the grammer and format. I suggest any department not using a professional to write their grants to enlist the local high school or college to review their narratives.

I suggest any department not using a grant writer to have a member of their grant committee attend grant writing classes or have a higher education degree. Personally, I believe this will help increase everyones' chances.

[7Stones]

Their SCBA dates back to the early 1980s as does their turnout gear. They have equipment, it is just unsafe. Sure, we are rural with low call volume but we are still committed to protecting our communities the best we can. I know there are many other rural parts of our country in the same boat. To hear about fraudulent AFG awards burns my boat!

[bigdogdaddy3]

bigdogdaddy3:

Here is the information for reporting fraud taken directly from the DHS website:

Fraud Hotline
If you have knowledge of fraud, waste, abuse, or allegations of civil liberties or civil rights abuses, or mismanagement involving Federal Emergency Management Agency programs or operations, you can:


Fax DHS OIG Hotline at: (202) 254-4292

Email: DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov

Or write:
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
Attn: Office of Inspector General, Hotline

I strongly urge you, and anyone else, to report fraud. The report is confidential so you are not exposed to the wrath of the implicated department.

Jon

Trust me Jon, myself and a few others know the details and calls are being made. We are just fighting and uphill battle. My Department and several others I worked with have non-compliant gear and SCBA and have not seen a thing this year. I know their applications are solid (and truthful). It would be a disgrace for any department to be funded by being dishonest.

We are just surprised that some in the Program Office are not interested in this information.

The information will be sent to the above address. Thanks for the heads up.

[neiowa]

Their SCBA dates back to the early 1980s as does their turnout gear. They have equipment, it is just unsafe. Sure, we are rural with low call volume but we are still committed to protecting our communities the best we can. I know there are many other rural parts of our country in the same boat. To hear about fraudulent AFG awards burns my boat!

We're about as rural as you're going to get (rural Iowa), low call volume, small budget. There has to be more to the story. Or sorry, but they just must not be trying very hard to prepare and submit a decent application (or again, there is more to the story). Fire Grants have funded HUNDREDS of rural FD in the last 5years with the urgently needed modern turnout gear and SCBA. It doesn't happen without at least in little effort on the part of the FD, not a good idea to start an hour before application close. If no one literate or willing to prep a good app get them in touch with Brian or Kurt. NOW not in March.

And you darn sure do have a vested interest in having your mutual aid partners properly equipped. And if compatible with your equipment even better. Maybe prep the app for them.

[BC79er]

To weigh in on the fraud part, report it when you find it. I have on several occasions, my integrity comes first and based on that I believe it is my responsibility to uphold the integrity of the programs I work with to ensure that their purposes are met.

Fraud is fraud, period. I've heard the statement 'what's the harm in a little exaggeration', but to me where does the line get drawn? A department has nothing over 3 stories and reports 6 buildings taller than 4 stories. Remember, the question asked taller than 4, not 4+, 5+. So if they win an award, don't we call that a poisoned apple> I'd say so. Lied to the computer, probably lied in the application.

If I find it, it will be dealt with accordingly, if it means no one will use me for anything again and I have to work at WalMart to pay the bills. Indifference from people in the postions to deal with such fraud will cost them theirs too.

[Pelican631]

We're about as rural as you're going to get (rural Iowa), low call volume, small budget. There has to be more to the story. Or sorry, but they just must not be trying very hard to prepare and submit a decent application (or again, there is more to the story). Fire Grants have funded HUNDREDS of rural FD in the last 5years with the urgently needed modern turnout gear and SCBA. It doesn't happen without at least in little effort on the part of the FD, not a good idea to start an hour before application close. If no one literate or willing to prep a good app get them in touch with Brian or Kurt. NOW not in March.

And you darn sure do have a vested interest in having your mutual aid partners properly equipped. And if compatible with your equipment even better. Maybe prep the app for them.

This actually brings us back full circle to the original thread topic. Trying hard to prepare a grant is relative, depending on skill level and in some cases, education. Even trying hard won't cut it if you don't have the skill set needed to read the guidance document (some firefighters can barely read, believe it or not), analyze it, perform an objective risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis, and prepare a grant application. Easy as cake for some people, nearly impossible for others.

One of the challenges of trying to help some of these departments is that they don't want help. I know several people in this thread that have run into that problem. It's seen as an intrusion on their way of doing things. They'd rather complain about why the government is crooked and hates them than admit that they can't do it by themselves and get outside assistance. And yes, unfortunately, there are people that would rather not admit weakness than do what's best for their community. In the past it could be a real struggle to convince people that they should apply for turnout gear (because it's a top priority in the grant guidance) instead of a shiny new truck. That particular problem is reduced now that you can apply for both, but the same principle still applies.

Everyone wants new gear and trucks, but not everyone is willing to change their ways enough to be successful in the program. One of the goals of a formal post-secondary education is to make the learner open to new ideas and to be able to analyze those new ideas for validity. That certainly can't hurt when writing grant applications.

Andy

[ktb9780]

... and one last point Andy. A litttle education never, ever hurts! Those of you reading this column, acccessing this forum, using the computer owe that due to the fact that you took time to edcuate yourself or someone took time to educate you to the process. Knowledge is Power!;)

[PATF1engineer]

To weigh in on the fraud part, report it when you find it. I have on several occasions, my integrity comes first and based on that I believe it is my responsibility to uphold the integrity of the programs I work with to ensure that their purposes are met.

Fraud is fraud, period. I've heard the statement 'what's the harm in a little exaggeration', but to me where does the line get drawn? A department has nothing over 3 stories and reports 6 buildings taller than 4 stories. Remember, the question asked taller than 4, not 4+, 5+. So if they win an award, don't we call that a poisoned apple> I'd say so. Lied to the computer, probably lied in the application.

If I find it, it will be dealt with accordingly, if it means no one will use me for anything again and I have to work at WalMart to pay the bills. Indifference from people in the postions to deal with such fraud will cost them theirs too.


Brian,

Regarding this subject, did you see the email I sent you last week? When you get a chance, let me know what you think.

[Chief2701]

Absolutely onebugle.;)


Careful guys...you wouldn't want to insult any peer reviewers that might be reading this tread.:rolleyes:

[ktb9780]

Careful guys...you wouldn't want to insult any peer reviewers that might be reading this tread.:rolleyes:

His words not mine; how does "remembering to properly address the target audience sound" . LOL!:D

[Chief2701]

It works by me... "Conflict Resolved" :p

[BC79er]

Tom, yes I did. Still in moving mode so haven't had a change to do much of anything in depth between the last minute SAFER rush and a pile of rain.

And if anyone chooses to only listen to one piece of advice from me ever it is this: if you're putting down laminate hardwood floors, don't buy anything that needs glue. Snaplock is the mack-daddy of methods. My father-in-law and I ran almost 650 sq ft in less than 8 hours including hall and doorway cuts. The stuff is great and the floor looks great if I do say so myself. :)

[neiowa]

Tom, yes I did. Still in moving mode so haven't had a change to do much of anything in depth between the last minute SAFER rush and a pile of rain.

And if anyone chooses to only listen to one piece of advice from me ever it is this: if you're putting down laminate hardwood floors, don't buy anything that needs glue. Snaplock is the mack-daddy of methods. My father-in-law and I ran almost 650 sq ft in less than 8 hours including hall and doorway cuts. The stuff is great and the floor looks great if I do say so myself. :)

Would that work in an bay????

[BC79er]

Probably not, slight difference in weight rating between me and a tanker. ;)Especially since I'm down 20lbs and 2in in the waist in the last month. I call it the renovation diet, nothing but V8 and Monster Lo Carb all day, then regular dinner. Amazing how many calories get burned not sitting in a chair.

[Bones42]

There's only 2 levels of education involving the grant process.

Your either dumb enough to ask for what you actually need, or you are smart enough to ask for what the Feds think you need. :p

[Greenacres2]

His words not mine; how does "remembering to properly address the target audience sound" . LOL!:D

Chief2701 could probably speak from experience, but i got to believe that remembering that the "target audience" reads a small mountain of paper every day for a week has got to help. If i can't keep it short, i at least try to make it entertaining.

earl

[ktb9780]

Chief2701 could probably speak from experience, but i got to believe that remembering that the "target audience" reads a small mountain of paper every day for a week has got to help. If i can't keep it short, i at least try to make it entertaining.

earl

Earl, your are forgetting your lessons here; it is not "short", it is "concise".;)

[neiowa]

Earl, your are forgetting your lessons here; it is not "short", it is "concise".;)

What? You're preparing to write viagra email spam?

[Greenacres2]

Earl, your are forgetting your lessons here; it is not "short", it is "concise".;)

Sorry, i was confusing the narrative with...never mind!! :D
earl

[ktb9780]

What? You're preparing to write viagra email spam?

I would expect that cornfield humor from Iowa dude. LOL!;)

[onebugle]

Nelson Mandela:

Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.

:)