La concupiscencia hace perder la libertad interior de la donación mutua (23-

Available studies of the AFG have determined it to be a well-functioning grant program, which has provided billions of dollars in grant money since its inception. The direct involvement of the fire service communities in the criteria development and selection panel supports its implantation as intended by Congress. The policy options analysis was intended to review approaches for increasing the effectiveness of the limited funding towards homeland security goals. Careful analysis was necessary as a significant adjustment has the potential to move the AFG away from the original congressional intent, to increase duplication with other federal funding sources, and to jeopardize the balance of support it has from congressional members, fire service organizations, and local communities.

High Medium

Low Current Approach

Baseline Capability Option Catastrophic Incident Option Regional Capability Option

Continuing the AFG’s current approach to grant distribution represents the strongest and lowest risk option, with significant returns to fire services’ support to homeland security. The current approach recognizes that all fire services play a role in the nation’s homeland security as the primary fire responders, regardless of whether the event is man-caused or natural in a rural, suburban, or urban setting. As such, it allows for a diverse distribution of grants so as to not leave any of the fire services removed from the potential for federal support. The broad grant eligibility criteria provides fire services more control over the use of federal funds towards their highest priorities (CBO, 1990, p. 4).

A strong reason to retrain the program with its current approach to grant distribution is the strong support by the fire community it serves. For example, the National Volunteer Fire Council’s (NVFC) main priority for the AFG, as stated during its reauthorization in 2009, is for the program’s continuation without substantial changes. It believe the program is “well-run, distributing funding in an efficient manner to the most deserving awardees” (NVFC, 2009, p. 7). The strong support of fire departments and their associations of the AFG is a testament to their belief in its contribution to their needs. A large-scale change in approach may jeopardize the positive regard of the community the AFG serves.

The most significant criticisms of the current approach to grant distribution is the identified tradeoff and disconnections as well as the funded projects, which are more isolated locally than tied to regional capabilities (NAPA, 2007, p. 91). One of the tradeoffs is the broad grant eligibility, which may discourage local investments towards homeland security priorities (CBO, 1990, p. 4). One example of disconnection is the lack of national standards for fire services that would target the various grants and move towards a consistent objective of homeland security. With the current approach, the disconnect will be minimized in the long run due to the increasing support of voluntary and state standards in the selection criteria. Additionally, the current approach is working to address isolation of projects by placing more review on regional capabilities or overlap.

Incorporating regional capability needs to the current approach would be a valuable approach for further maximizing the funding to increase interoperability and build capabilities for homeland security. The DHS National Preparedness Guidance in April 2007 included expanding regional cooperation among the most urgent needs for enhancing national first responder preparedness capabilities (GAO, 2005, p. 21). Starting in 2007, the AFG has increased the consideration of regional implementations of the grants awards. This trend has considerable value toward meeting homeland security goals as it aligns resources within areas to reduce situations of redundancy or the lack of a critical resource within a geographic area. Equipment purchased without improved collaboration may waste funding and impact the reduction to the nation’s preparedness (Kettl, 2002 p. 11). However, the policy option analysis indicates that focus on regional capability is not recommended as it would potentially adversely reduce funding to baseline capability and to rural fire services.

Both of the distribution options analyzed that would narrow the eligible activities, the baseline capability and catastrophic incident capability, are not recommended. In addition to limiting the number of fire services that would be competitive, the approach could lead applicants to pursue what is eligible under the AFG versus what is their priority or the region’s priority. It would distort where federal funding is being invested in local fire department capability, potentially leaving more important locally identified gaps unfunded. The Congressional Budget Office’s report on federal subsidies stated the “proximity of local governments to local problems creates the situation to potentially choose more efficient efforts when their choices are not distorted by the availability of federal subsidies” (1990, p. 4).

Of the four policy options analyzed, the approach to focus on catastrophic incidents represents the least favorable. The resulting limited scope of eligible activities has a high redundancy with other federal funding. This poses a risk to justifying the program as a stand-along program. Additionally, the ineligible fire service activities under this focus do not have an alternative for federal funding. The American Fire Service (2002) position paper on the Department of Homeland Security emphasized that it was crucial for the AFG to remain “separate and distinct” due to the unique direct local involvement not found in other homeland security grant programs. The catastrophic

incident focus also eliminates funding for critical first responders that homeland security resources are dependent upon in an incident.