Federal programs that have failed to accomplish whatever they were initially set up to do should be perfect candidates for the budget chopping block, especially after the Congressional Budget Office’s newly revised prediction that the federal deficit will hit $7.1 trillion in the next 10 years. But getting rid of programs that don’t work is much easier said than done.
Take federal fire grants, which are used to subsidize more than 10,000 local fire departments and emergency medical services. Congress wanted to reduce fire casualties in high-risk areas when it authorized the grants under the FIRE Act of 2000 and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001. But fire grants, which are administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and cost $800 million annually, have had “no statistically measurable results” in reducing deaths and injuries to firefighters or civilians, according to an analysis by David Muhlhausen of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis.
FEMA fire grants do not fulfill any homeland security functions either, such as helping to improve coordination between local first responders preparing for large-scale natural disasters or terrorist attacks, Muhlhausen added. However, both the Senate and House fiscal 2010 Homeland Security appropriations bills continue fire grant programs that have produced no results in an area in which the federal government has traditionally had no direct role.
Not only that, but this unsuccessful grant program is experiencing mission creep. Its focus has changed from one-time purchases of trucks and equipment to funding for firefighter salaries, which doubles under the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response program. Muhlhausen worries that the shift will leave a hole in local fire department budgets if the grants are not renewed, creating a “cycle of dependency” on the federal government that will make the grants even harder to ax in Congress.
It took Muhlhausen close to two years to crowbar the data he needed to analyze the fire grants from FEMA’s tight grip. First, FEMA officials threatened to charge him up to $25,000 in copying costs for grant data dating back to the start of the program in 2006, including the names and addresses of grantees and the Federal Information Processes Standards codes he repeatedly requested under the Freedom of Information Act. “They told me they don’t collect FIPS codes,” Muhlhausen told The Examiner, even though, like all federal agencies, FEMA is required to report them to the Census Bureau.
After stalling for 21 months, FEMA finally handed over an electronic database. Muhlhausen then compared it with the National Fire Incident Reporting System, which includes all types of fire department emergency responses as well as the number of deaths and/or injuries to firefighters and civilians. After eliminating the 341 firefighters killed on Sept. 11, 2001, he compared casualty rates before and after implementation of the fire grant program, as well as fire departments that received grants with those that did not. The study revealed that the federal program has not made one whit of difference.
“Residential fire deaths have been in decline for 30 years,” Muhlhausen pointed out. “Comparison fire departments [that did not receive fire grants] were just as successful at preventing fire casualties as grant-funded departments.” Improved firefighting techniques, tougher fire codes and better building construction had already reduced firefighter deaths 78.3 percent by 2007 without any federal intervention.
A 2007 report by the National Academy of Public Administration came to a similar conclusion, noting that the grant program — which has already cost taxpayers more than $5.7 billion since 2001 — was not the most cost-effective way to reduce fire casualties or increase homeland security, since it “mainly funds local entities and isolated projects not tied to improving regional capabilities.” Some grantees have even used the federal funds to purchase ads for buses and recruit new employees.
Nevertheless, fire grants will be kept going another year unless members of Congress are forced to explain why they intend to burn another $800 million per year on such an unnecessary and useless program.
