What Separates the Winners from the Losers in Grants?

Many departments, particularly volunteer departments, fight a continuous and ongoing battle in funding their existence. Shrinking tax bases, poor economies and swings from the budget axe take their toll on all departments daily and have become the norm, instead of an occasional problem area. Most fundraising activities are marginally successful and generally allow us to keep fuel in our vehicles or keep the lights and phones turned on at the station and little else. So how do we continue to wrestle with this beast and serve our populations and keep our members safe?

One answer to that question is through the use of grant strategy; planning, researching, developing and applying for grants. The grants ballgame is very much like playing the lottery and simply stated,” If you don’t play, you can’t win”. Quite a few of you are obviously playing the game, as 24000 of you applied for this grant last year. Many of you got your “Dear John’s” last week and this might have been the second or third time you have received a rejections notice for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. I am sure many of you are asking the obvious question, “What separates the winners from the losers”?

This past year I purposely took on 18 departments who had previously had their grant applications rejected for a minimum of 2-3 years. This was done purposely, with the intent of conducting an experiment to see what impact “applying the rules” would have on the outcomes. Apparently my observations about what they were doing wrong were correct, as 14 of those departments were funded this year after using this approach to their grant applications.

LESSONS LEARNED

Part of this problem lies in not understanding exactly what a grant is, or what is required to get a grant. Let’s examine these two issues and see if a little knowledge can tear away the frightening mask that covers the face of this imaginary “boogey man”.

One of Mr. Webster’s definitions of a grant is particularly applicable to fire departments grants: “giving to a claimant or petitioner something that could be withheld”. In the world of public safety “grant” means; a gift or monetary award to perform certain deeds or services and to achieve certain goals while solving a particular problem(s) exclusive to your agency and your served populations.

Applying for, and being awarded a grant, is not just simply saying,” I need money” and then sticking out your hand. In that scenario, the only thing likely to be placed into your hand will be a rejection notice. All grant programs are offers to fund solutions to problems that exist for your community and, for which no other source of funding is available. Grants are, in essence, a program / project to resolve community problems. Please pay particular attention to the use of the word “program” here.

STUDY YOUR PLAYBOOK AND PLAY BY THE RULES

The first thing everybody needs to understand is that all grant programs have” funding priorities” assigned to them .We need to remember that it is “their” money ,and if you want “their” money, you must address “their” priorities. If you don’t, you have just failed the basic test of getting your grant into the competitive range.

In the AFGP Guidelines document the “primary reason” for this program is stated as being “to enhance firefighter safety”. What can we infer from this statement? They are seeking to make the individual firefighter safe. Those of you who applied should now ask yourself what your response was to the question that was asked in the grant application, “How many firefighter related injuries has your department had during the last three years”? Almost without fail, every rejected application I read had answered that question with “0”. Now, if the primary purposes of the grant is to enhance firefighter safety and you answered that you had no injuries in three years, what do you suppose a grant reviewer, or in this case the “computer reviewer” would conclude? The computer will assume that you run a very safe operation and that you do not need any help with safety related matters. Guess what? In the words of the noted southern comedian, John Engvall, “Here’s your sign!”

You incorrectly assumed that they meant a “workman’s comp related injury” or one that “required formal medical intervention” didn’t you? Wrong! All they asked you for was how many “injuries”. They did not say what severity, or ask you how many went to the ER, they simply asked how many reported injuries did your department have. True, none of us wants to be labeled as having an “unsafe” department but, let’s be real here folks. Your workman’s comp insurer and the State reporting requirements specifically tell you what type of injuries need to be reported to them. USFA is not asking you that. You are trying to read too much into what is being asked.

How many of you have been fighting a structure fire and the smoke column shifted with the wind and you sucked in some smoke? You probably had to go get into the clean air, or sit on the rescue truck and suck some O2 and then you went about your business. If your grant request was for SCBA equipment does it not make sense that you should have some “smoke inhalation” injuries in order to justify the need for new SCBA and individually fitted face masks? The key to this is you need to have “documented” these injuries. That can be as simple as making a notation on a run record that FF Smith suffered a small cut on his right hand which was treated at the scene and no formal medical attention was needed.

My inquiries of these Chief’s also showed that many of you did not understand how critical these answers are that the application asks you to answer in the front of the grant. People, there were 24000 applications received for this program. Do you think that a human being reads every one of them first? No, they don’t! When you are dealing with this many grant applications you have to “screen” them somehow. A computer tabulates and assigns points to the answers you provide in those questions. If, in the end, your score does not reach a certain level you never make it into the competitive range. That means a human being never reads your request! All of the work you did in the narrative section now becomes moot.

It is vitally important that the answers to those “activity specific” questions are not put in “willy-nilly”. The numbers need to be researched thoroughly. They should be accurate and they need to be complete. You have to do some research here folks; just throwing in a number is a sure-fire way to get your grant scored lower than it needs to be. Do the work, do the math!

PAINT A COMPLETE PICTURE

A grant writer must be an artist. You are providing the funding source, or “grantor”, with a picture of your community, its problems, your department’s problems, and the proposed solution. Many times I have received grants for review and am presented with what amounts to a black and white picture describing the proposed program. What is needed is an 8 x 10, color glossy, 5 mega pixel digital image. The problem with them is they lack sufficient detail. A person sitting on a review panel should not be left with unanswered questions about your proposal when they are finished reading it.

There are several elements asked for in this grant application narrative. You should address each of these and use the headings provided by USFA, the reviewer is then assured that you are addressing each of those concerns by doing so.

1.Project Description – This defines the problem you are experiencing in your department. Why does it exist? What have you done to try and correct the problem yourselves? Why haven’t you funded this project yourselves? How many runs or calls did you answer last year? How many of them were for mutual aid? How big is your service area? How many people live there? What critical infrastructure do you protect? You will generally need three years average and the most current yearly figures for the grant application. This is also the area where you should tug at the emotions of the reader. Grant writers call this the “make em’ bleed, make em’ cry factor”. It is critical to grab the attention of the reader and impress upon them that you need outside help to solve this problem.

2.Financial Need – Here is where you need to know where your budget is derived from. How much was it last year? How much did you spend on the lights, building mortgage, maintenance of vehicles, fuel, equipment repair etc.? Why can’t you fund this yourselves? Did you even bother to ask your governing boards for assistance? Did the voters turn down the last tax referendum? Did you have two major corporations shutter their plants and move to Mexico? Why are you in need? These are the questions you need to answer or tell the reviewer about in your grant application. You have to provide hard facts here, so start digging up those statistics and newspaper articles about why you can’t fund these activities with your current budget. What is the primary economic structure of your community? What is the average median income for a resident of your community? This is all statistical data which is published and available on the Internet or through your own records. The reviewer needs to understand why you are in the financial predicament that you are in and what efforts you are making to deal with it. Quote your debt service on mortgages to build the firehouse or pay off your apparatus. Let them know that the City just paid for a new water plant to bring the water pressure up and to extend lines and hydrants into new service areas. Bring in the “bean counters and number crunchers” amongst your members here. This is not a place where you should be short sighted. It takes experience to put an accurate budget down on paper. Most of us do not have this skill, it is one that is taught and this is an area where you should call upon the first rule of proper management, “surround yourself with competent people and listen to them”. If you do not have a budget expert amongst your staff, seek one out. Most communities are happy to lend the expertise of their city treasurer, a bank loan officer or similar type person to assist you in preparing a proper and accurate budget.

3.Cost Benefit- Otherwise known as “bang for their buck”. All grantors, or givers, want to know that the most people will benefit from the least amount of money spent. They don’t give away money to be spent willy-nilly or to benefit just your individual department. You must show that the community and other surrounding agencies as well (think Mutual Aid here) will benefit from your good fortune and their generous gifts. It is vitally important that you properly address this in detail. You have to get out of the “us” mode and into the “we” mode here. The guidelines document mentions the words “interagency interoperability” at least 3-4 times. That is you clue here. You must show how helping you. Will help them as well.

4.Operational Outcomes –This is new area in this year’s application, so pay attention closely. This is where you must explain to the reviewer what the results will be in increasing your operational capabilities or efficiency. You should talk about how obtaining the new equipment increases your capacity to fulfill a void that previously existed in your capabilities. It is also where you should discuss the difference it will make in how you did things before, and how you will be able to do things now.

Those that play by the rules closest, usually win! Good luck with your applications this year.

©2005 Kurt Bradley, CHIEF Grants (http://www.chiefgrants.com)