Fire Prevention & Safety Grants (FPS) Research and Development (R&D) Activity
Fire Prevention & Safety Grants (FPS) Research and Development (R&D) Activity
Fire Prevention & Safety Grants (FPS) Research and Development (R&D) Activity
What is the purpose of the AFG FPS Research and Development activity?
The purpose of AFG’s Fire Prevention and Safety (FPS) R&D program is to reduce fatal and non-fatal injuries of
firefighters in the United States. Project proposals for FPS R&D funding should identify specific outcomes that are
expected to lead to improved firefighter safety, health and wellness. These outcomes likely will be related to new or
improved programs, policies, and/or products. As a research program that benefits firefighters, applicants are expected to
develop strong partnerships with relevant fire service organizations and fire departments.
Fatal and non-fatal and injuries are tracked and described by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
[LINK - Injuries: http://www.nfpa.org/news-and-research/fire-statistics-and-reports/fire-statistics/the-fire-service/
fatalities-and-injuries/firefighter-injuries-in-the-united-states and Link - Fatalities: http://www.nfpa.org/news-and-
research/fire-statistics-and-reports/fire-statistics/the-fire-service/fatalities-and-injuries/firefighter-fatalities-in-the-
united-states ]. Also, AFG has an interest in behavioral and mental health events, including post-traumatic stress,
depression, and suicide that may be linked to the extreme traumas experienced with firefighting activities.
1.
What is meant by AFG’s focus on “fire service in the United States”?
AFG’s R&D interest is in improving the safety, health and wellness of firefighters throughout the nation. Most
studies will need to select or sample participants in a way that is feasible for research study and such that
outcomes can be generalized nationwide by firefighters. These studies, if successful, are expected to lead to new
or improved programs, policies, and products that have potential for widespread adoption and use. Exceptions may
occur but the reason for the exception must be clearly explained in the application. An example may be
preliminary studies or proof of concept designs.
Also, separate from the R&D activity, the FP&S activity includes one category for firefighter safety. That category
calls for a national, state, or regional study that focuses on firefighter safety projects or strategies that are designed to
measurably change firefighter behavior and decision-making.
Sometimes, potential applicants are not sure whether a study should be submitted for consideration within R&D or
the single FP&S opportunity. In general the FP&S firefighter safety opportunity may be a project to provide
information, and possibly to evaluate its impact on the local (not national) level. It is not a program that supports
research. If a study aims to conduct research that can be generalized nationwide, especially if it involves human
subjects, then the application must be made through the R&D activity so that appropriate reviews (for funding) and
monitoring (if awarded) will be conducted.
Does AFG accept applications for R&D projects all year long or during a specific time?
Applications are accepted during an approximately one-month “open application period” that usually takes place
during the first quarter of the calendar year.
I have two or three projects in mind. According to the NOFO I may request funding for more than one
project per application. How does that work?
Yes. Fire Prevention and Safety Program applications may contain requests for up to three Fire Prevention and
Safety Activity and three Research and Development Activity projects.
When the application is received all of the projects are separated and each one is evaluated on its own merit
(without reference to any other project in the application). For that reason, each project must be fully documented
including a budget, relevant supporting documents, such as letters of support specific to each project and
biographical information for principal team members, even if they are the same for more than one project.
Overall, what are the various research categories used by AFG’s R&D program?
AFG Program Office identified five R&D categories in the NOFO (1) clinical, behavioral, and social, (2) technology
and product development, (3) database systems, (4) dissemination and implementation research, and (5) preliminary
studies. Applicants are asked to indicate which of these categories is most relevant to their proposed study.
Categories help to organize the project submitted. All categories are considered equally for awards.
New products can be developed by application of new technologies or adapting existing products and technology to
new uses. As the intention of the R&D awards is to deliver outcomes that are likely to be implemented nationally by
the fire service, inclusion of a cost-effectiveness analysis is encouraged. Technology and product development
projects need to assess the ultimate practicality of deployment and use of the results by firefighters during actual
firefighting operations.
What are “database systems” studies?
Information from databases can inform the fire service about where there are challenges, and what specific
factors influence firefighter safety, health and wellness. For instance, a database system may be developed to
identify firefighters’ use of hospital emergency departments nationwide. Such epidemiologic information
potentially could result in changes to fire service programs, policies, and products, leading to reduced fatal and
non-fatal injuries nationwide.
Researchers who apply for funding in this category also should consider resources and strategies for continued
support and maintenance of the database system after the initial one to three-year funding period. These grants
should be considered as start-up and demonstration funding only.
Note: If you intend to develop a dataset as a function of your specific research study, without data collection
with the same participants post study, then your proposal likely fits the clinical or technology category rather
than the database systems category.
What is dissemination and implementation research?
This is a research (not a Fire Prevention and Safety Activity) category and, as such, it is distinct from the
activities of dissemination and implementation of study results, per se. Instead, it is about conducting
research on the effectiveness of methods for dissemination and implementation or results.
The precondition for studies in this research category is a previously completed rigorous research trial or
test that achieved a successful result (and had peer review publication or AFG Program Office
concurrence). This category supports moving from research to practice in ways that enhance uptake,
translation, fidelity, and long term sustainability.
The study design for dissemination and implementation research (D&I research) should be as relevant and
rigorous as the research that led to the outcome of interest. For instance, D&I research might include a
control and comparison trial to examine whether adoption and sustainability of a new program is more
likely to be achieved following in-person training or internet training, and/or with use of department level
mentors or online chats with experts.
Note: D&I research should not attempt to re-examine original intervention outcomes as was done in the
prior effectiveness trials. A replication study would be a different focus and should be directed to a clinical
or technology category.
Note: If an application could be competitive without the results of preliminary study (such as when adequate
information and methods are already established with prior research in this area), then the clinical or technology
category should be used.
What kinds of expertise are required for PIs and interdisciplinary research teams?
Generally, scientists who take the lead in R&D studies in the clinical category are trained in area(s) of
specialization that are specific to the study topic, such as physicians who are toxicologists in toxicology research,
clinical or social psychologists in behavioral and mental health areas, and sociologists in social or cultural areas.
Scientists and engineers that take the lead in R&D studies in the technology and product development category
also are trained in area(s) of specialization that are specific to the study topics, such as combustion scientists
leading studies of toxic gas exposures, textile engineers for development of better fabric for advanced turnout gear
and protective shelters, fire protection engineers to address fire dynamics in structural firefighting. In some cases
physicians and engineers team up to study the heat stress and work effort need to accomplish routine firefighting
tasks to better define expectations for safe work on the fire ground. Also, scientists and engineers with relevant
expertise may be from many other specializations such as anthropology, behavioral sciences, biostatistics,
chemical engineering, codes and standards, computer sciences, economics, electrical engineering, emergency
medicine, epidemiology, fire modeling, geophysical sciences, health behavior, kinesiology, mechanical
engineering, neural science, nutrition, physics, physiology, and public health to name a few.
How are R&D projects proposals evaluated?
A panel of fire service professionals carries out an initial review. As detailed in the NOFO, the fire service
panel uses a specific set of criteria to consider relevance of the proposal for reducing firefighter fatal and
nonfatal injuries and the likelihood of implementation of successful research results
The highest scoring projects from the fire service evaluation receive further evaluation with a second set
of specific criteria to examine scientific rigor. This second evaluation is carried out by a science panel that
is composed of experts in fields relevant to the proposed research.
Do applicants receive feedback from the review(s)?
Where an application received a fire service review only, that feedback is provided. The aim is to indicate where
the proposal was not considered sufficiently relevant and/or how the applicant might improve relevance.
Where fire service relevance was sufficiently strong to merit the proposal receiving further review by a science
panel, but the proposal was not funded, then feedback from both the fire service review and the science panel
are sent to the primary contact specified in the application.
Letters from partners and other supporting organizations should be included in the Appendix of the application.
Note: Applicants may reduce size of letters so that two images can be placed side by side on a landscape format
page, if sufficient in size that the text of the letter can still be read.
What should be considered in selection of potential fire service partners, and others?
The project team, including partners and others, is evaluated for its ability to complete the proposed project in a
timely manner and deliver research results that will satisfy rigorous scientific review, e.g., peer review for
publication as a contribution to the body of knowledge. The principal investigation should assemble a research
team with expertise to accomplish all parts of the proposed project.
The primary information about fire service evaluation criteria is provided in the NOFO. Further guidance is
offered here, per criterion:
• Purpose. Reviewers will consider your justifications of the study importance which may be established by
citing high injury rates as established by USFA and/or NFPA; or new trends toward increasingly high injury
rates; and/or identification within the NFFF research priorities. Further, they may draw on their own
experience and that of other firefighters they know to appreciate your stated purpose. Thus, examples or
anecdotal data could be useful tools for clarifying your purpose. These are not the only possible justifications;
however, they may provide a good foundation.
• Implementation. For implementation by the fire service, reviewers may focus on whether the fire service
would even adopt your (successful) results. You may have that concern in mind and address it in the section
where you describe future dissemination and implementation, but it would be useful to address that in your
writing for the Fire Service Panel Review in the front pages of the application.
• Potential Impact. In describing potential impact, you may project numbers of reduced injuries that would
be accomplished with your (expected) results. If you indicate what proportion of the fire service likely might
adopt the intended outcome in the 5-10 years following your study, and strategies to overcome
implementation barriers, you would further demonstrate that you have knowledge of fire service realities and
are not naïve about the change process.
• Barriers. Barriers to timely completion of the study and the eventual implementation of the proposed results
may be discussed elsewhere but are important to offer in these early pages. Especially important to discuss
are those barriers that involve fire service participants, from recruitment and retention, to compliance and
honesty, to national and local political concerns, among other factors. Addressing these barriers in detail, as
well as the strategies to overcome them, is another way to underscore your knowledge of the realities of the
fire service.
• Partnerships. Because your fire service partnerships are a central element of your study, your
development of those partnerships prior to the application would be reflected in the detailed letters of support
you provide in the Appendix. An overview of those relationships would be helpful in the front pages of the
application. In many cases, fire service panelists will expect to see evidence of relevant national or regional
partnerships that support the study’s purpose and goals and eventual national implementation. For instance,
if the population of interest were volunteer firefighters, then the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFV) would
be expected to be a helpful partner.
What further guidance can be given for addressing the criteria considered in the Science Panel
Review?
The science review of application is a thorough and rigorous evaluation by experts knowledgeable in the
research areas relevant to the proposed project. It is critical that the content of the narrative and the appendix
fully address how the proposed research is responsive to the evaluation criteria. Generally applicants choose
to follow a sequence in the narrative that follows the order of the science evaluation criteria as provided in the
NOFO. Further guidance is offered here, per criterion:
• Goals, objectives, and specific aims. The goals, objective, and specific aims criterion intends to provide a
framework that guides the applicant to move from a statement of broader purpose (such as reducing toxic
exposure) to providing precise, measurable and/or behavioral details that represent what you plan to achieve
by this study (such as increased time lapsed from suppression to overhaul). The applicant’s goals and
objectives should drive the study design and activities. If that is not the case, then some goals and/or
objectives should be dropped (or design and activities amended); measurements and analyses must follow the
methods planned and should lead to answers regarding specific aims. If not, then changes must be made such
as in sample size or iteration strategy, and so on.
• Literature review. The literature review in the application demonstrates the PI and scientific team are
knowledgeable about what has been studied in the past. This expertise suggests the ability to do applied
research in this area. Importantly, the literature review makes evident how the proposed research will contribute
to the existing body of knowledge in this area. Without a strong literature review, the relevance of this study, as
proposed, will be less evident.
• Methods. Project methods describe the overall approach to the study. Methods may be a study design such
as a randomized control trial or a large-scale fire test series design. Related information, such as how best to
select participants or structures, contents and firefighting methods utilized, respectively, should be described.
• Measurements. Project measurements include the more macro and micro aspects of the research. The
applicant may specify established instruments that will provide the data for analysis. Where extensive, a table
format may be useful. Sufficient information would be such that the feasibility of the analytic plan can be
assessed.
• Analysis. Project analysis may include the statistical plan for determining clinical and statistically significant
results, including power analysis information. For instance, where fire departments rather than individual
firefighters are the unit of analysis, then sampling, measurement strategies, and analysis would reflect that
decision. For technology and product development studies the analysis plan should specify what constitutes
significant or successful results.
• Dissemination and implementation. The dissemination and implementation criterion (not the same as
dissemination and implementation research) asks PIs to indicate how their studies (if successful) would be
disseminated to the fire service and scientific communities. Not only does this criterion cover dissemination of
study results, but also how the study might move to implementation, that is, moving from research to practice.
The applicant should show how the issues for dissemination and implementation have been taken into
consideration throughout the study and in development of their project product. For instance, if a product can be
made available via the Internet that would improve access and adoption. Also, providing the research result to
relevant firefighter standards organizations to promote national adoption is a proven means to implement
successful research results. This development of dissemination and implementation plans does not intend to
suggest that a PI would be responsible for all the subsequent activities.