Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Second Round of 1199s and 10?s

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tdpearce
    replied
    I hope we get it, we could sure use it. I think we may have just asked for the right equipment at the right time this year.

    Leave a comment:


  • BC79er
    replied
    And Congrats by the way. Forgot the important part there for a minute.

    Leave a comment:


  • BC79er
    replied
    10-Q. Everyone got the 1199A email on the 27th, even those that had previously submitted. I just wanted to make sure that was the case with you before everyone ran off beating on the application web site thinking that they had started the next round of pre-award notifications.

    Leave a comment:


  • tdpearce
    replied
    I received an email on the 25th asking things like "if you get the award, would you accept it?" and how would your department pay for it's share.

    Then on the 27th, I received the email about the 1199a.

    Leave a comment:


  • BC79er
    replied
    TD, when did you get that email? Today or last week on the 27th?

    Leave a comment:


  • tdpearce
    replied
    3rd time to apply, first time we've ever been asked for the 1199a info. Usually we just get the "you're SOL" email.

    Leave a comment:


  • onebugle
    replied
    Typically any reference to the 1199A (Update 1199A or reference to an existing 1199A) is a good sign.

    It's like reading between the lines. If the feds are asking you to update 1199A info, print and send then things look good (disclaimer: there are no guarantees in life ). Why, the feds are not going to have you do it if you are not going to get an award. More paperwork that they do not need to deal with.

    Is this your first?

    Leave a comment:


  • tdpearce
    replied
    So this may have already been asked, but is it a good sign if I've been asked to confirm my 1199a information? We have never been asked for this info before and am hoping this is a good sign for our grant.

    Thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • onebugle
    replied
    As with your narrative, you should have some one familiar with the department (not intimately) review your application. If you are using incorrect info and you do not know it, you are doomed to repeat the same mistakes each year. Someone familiar with your department may not recognize it as a mistake, but it may raise a red flag with them which in turn makes you revisit the data for that question.

    I had a neighboring department (been recieving DJ's) over a year ago ask me to check their application and narrative. Five minutes into glancing through the application 3 red flags popped up.

    1) The % of personnel costs to budget appeared to be low. It was, they forgot to add in the call salaries which increased it from 30% to just over 70%.

    2) Mutual aid calls were low. They were under reported by 25%.

    3) % of open space appeared to be low. They had the correct figure, but it was more of a guess than from a reliable source. They were told who they could contact at town hall & they verified the figure.

    4) Average budget figure incorrect. They caught this before coming over. The previous year they made a million $ mistake upwards.

    With a million dollar mistake only spelled doom along with other mistakes. Right off the bat, they were showing $700,000 in additional funds. Hard to prove you have a need with that kind of dough.

    As for the narrative, there was not enough Tylenol to cure the headache. Again they did not follow the PG. They were given suggestions for improvement, unfortunately it was close to the deadline and I did not see the final version.

    Final outcome: They recieved a DJ towards the final rounds.

    Which brings up one final point. If someone tells you that it's a winning application, it's only their opinion. The only opinions that count are the Peer Reviewers. The same department was upset that they recieved another DJ, because someone else told them differently. By the time we left that MA call, they knew differently.

    Leave a comment:


  • BC79er
    replied
    Your budget is the amount of money you receive in 1 calendar year from all sources. So if your balance sheet shows that at the end of 2005 you had brought in $100K then that's your budget.

    That's why they ask for the breakdown in where the funds come from. So if you bring in $20K in fundraising, then 20% of your budget comes from Fundraising. If you get $10K in taxes, etc, etc. Where you state that it costs you $10K to raise that $20K is in the narrative funding issues section. That is the section to explain that you don't have $100K sitting around the office in January every year. Truck payments, insurance, utilities, everything that has to be spent must be explained in there.

    Too many people have gotten in trouble by trying to manipulate their budget by claiming 'that's not an "operating" expense, so I don't have to count it'. Then when it comes time to explain where the money goes, they hid everything so it looks like they have X amount just lying around. That and when the site audit happens and they review the IRS forms & budget and find that you claimed 50% of the money you get as 'non-operating' expenses, it fun goes away.

    Leave a comment:


  • DellroyVFD08
    replied
    Originally posted by imafireman
    I believe that part of the problem with our grants the last 4 years has been the fact that we are giving an outrageous value as our operating budget. And I have discussed this briefly with Kurt, but we were talking way to fast to get a clear understanding. We spend A LOT of money each year to purchase food, guns, baskets, and many other types of things to be used for fundraising activities. Should this type of activity be included as part of our operating budget? It looks bad on our part that we show a budget over $100,000 for the small rural area that we are in. Believe me though, we hold our breath from month to month hoping that we have enough to cover our payments. But how do you show that on the application?
    If I'm understanding you correctly, you're afraid that your operating budget looks larger than what you actually have to spend because of the amount you spend for fundraising activities. That's a bit baffling to me...If you're spending this large amount on the fundraisers, I would HOPE that you're actually increasing your funds because of them. Your operating budget is your contracts and levies, but (from the way it was explained to me) not any of your actual fundraising profits. If your spending departmental income to initially fund the fundraising activities, then it's still part of your operating budget.
    Am I right on this gurus?

    Leave a comment:


  • imafireman
    replied
    [QUOTE=Greenacres2] One example--I've only worked with a handful of departments, but 4 out of 5 were reporting way more than "operating budget" on the AFG application. No fudging of the books, just a clear understanding of the question helped to turn things around.


    I believe that part of the problem with our grants the last 4 years has been the fact that we are giving an outrageous value as our operating budget. And I have discussed this briefly with Kurt, but we were talking way to fast to get a clear understanding. We spend A LOT of money each year to purchase food, guns, baskets, and many other types of things to be used for fundraising activities. Should this type of activity be included as part of our operating budget? It looks bad on our part that we show a budget over $100,000 for the small rural area that we are in. Believe me though, we hold our breath from month to month hoping that we have enough to cover our payments. But how do you show that on the application?

    Leave a comment:


  • k3twpfire
    replied
    Round 2 of SAFER is out. We received our confirmation email today.

    Leave a comment:


  • BC79er
    replied
    As Earl mentioned the actual scoring metrics for the computer are not known. Being the computer nerd that I am I think I've come close. After reviewing 10k+ apps for common traits you build up a pretty decent picture. And lose a lot of sleep.

    But also going to Peer gives away some scoring metrics. That's why all reviewers have to sign paperwork saying they won't disclose what they've seen, as well as not being allowed to turn around and charge people for writing grants. Definitely unethical, and DHS was still considering making that illegal if it wasn't written that way already.

    Which is one of the reasons I've never gone, 2nd to the fact that my wife wouldn't let me out of the house for a week for that.

    Leave a comment:


  • sgafirefighter
    replied
    Looks like the predictions will keep moving. I cant find any announcements on a new round of SAFER or AFG's anywhere.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X