Marijuana Use and Highway Safety

Summary: A growing number of Americans report that they use marijuana. Most states now allow the use of marijuana for treatment of medical conditions. Ten states and the District of Columbia, representing a quarter of the U.S. population, have decriminalized the recreational use of marijuana, and other states are considering following suit.

Summary: As the opportunity for legal use of marijuana grows, there is concern about the impact of marijuana usage on highway safety. In a 2018 survey, the majority of state highway safety officers considered drugged driving an issue at least as important as driving while impaired by alcohol (which is associated with over 10,000 highway deaths each year). As of May 2019, 18 states have enacted laws declaring that a specified concentration of THC in a driver's body constitutes evidence of impairment and is inherently illegal (referred to as per se laws), similar to the .08% blood alcohol content (BAC) standard of alcohol impairment.

Summary: Advocates of loosening restrictions on marijuana often compare marijuana usage to drinking alcohol, which may contribute to some stakeholders viewing marijuana use and driving as similar to alcohol's impairment of driving. Research studies indicate that marijuana's effects on drivers' performance may vary from the effects of alcohol, in ways that challenge dealing with marijuana impairment and driving similarly to alcohol-impaired driving.

Summary: Alcohol is a nervous system depressant that is absorbed into the blood and metabolized by the body fairly quickly, such that there is little trace of alcohol after 24 hours. Its impairing effects have been extensively studied over many decades, and the association between levels of alcohol consumption and degrees of impairment is well-established. By contrast, marijuana is a nervous system stimulant. It contains over 500 chemical compounds, only one of which, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is significantly psychoactive. Its effects are felt quickly after smoking, but more slowly when consumed in other forms (e.g., in food). It is metabolized quickly, but the body can store THC in fat cells, so that traces of THC can be found up to several weeks after consumption. Its impairing effects have been the subject of limited study, due in part to its status as a controlled substance under federal law.

Summary: Although laboratory studies have shown that marijuana consumption can affect a person's response times and motor performance, studies of the impact of marijuana consumption on a driver's risk of being involved in a crash have produced conflicting results, with some studies finding little or no increased risk of a crash from marijuana usage. Levels of impairment that can be identified in laboratory settings may not have a significant impact in real world settings, where many variables affect the likelihood of a crash occurring. Research studies have been unable to consistently correlate levels of marijuana consumption, or THC in a person's body, and levels of impairment. Thus some researchers, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, have observed that using a measure of THC as evidence of a driver's impairment is not supported by scientific evidence to date.

Summary: Congress, state legislatures, and other decisionmakers may address the topic of marijuana use and driver impairment through various policy options, including whether or not to support additional research on the impact of marijuana on driver performance and on measurement techniques for marijuana impairment, as well as training for law enforcement on identifying marijuana impairment. Other deliberations may address federal regulations on marijuana use and testing for transportation safety-sensitive employees.

A growing number of Americans report that they use marijuana. As more states decriminalize the use of marijuana, the question of what impact marijuana usage has on the risk of a driver being involved in a motor vehicle crash has become more pertinent. In a survey, the majority of state highway safety offices rated drugged driving an issue at least as important as driving while impaired by alcohol.

When faced with the issue of driver impairment due to marijuana, some stakeholders tend to approach the issue using the analogy of driver impairment due to alcohol. However, there are important differences between the two substances. The fact that alcohol reduces a user's ability to think clearly and to perform physical tasks has been known for decades. Extensive research has established correlations between the extent of alcohol consumption and impairment, including drivers' reaction times. Much less research has been done on marijuana. Marijuana is a more complex substance than alcohol. It is absorbed in the body differently from alcohol; it affects the body in different ways from alcohol; tests for its presence in the body produce more complicated results than tests for the presence of alcohol; and correlating its effects with its levels in the body is much more complicated than for alcohol.

That marijuana usage increases a driver's risk of crashing is not clearly established. Studies of marijuana's impact on a driver's performance have thus far found that, while marijuana usage can measurably affect a driver's performance in a laboratory setting, that effect may not translate into an increased likelihood of the driver being involved in a motor vehicle crash in a real-world setting, where many other variables affect the risk of a crash. Some studies of actual crashes have estimated a small increase in the risk of crash involvement as a result of marijuana usage, while others have estimated little or no increase in the likelihood of a crash from using marijuana.

This CRS report addresses various aspects of the issue of marijuana-impaired driving, including patterns of marijuana use, the relationship and detection of marijuana use and driver impairment, and related state law and law enforcement challenges. The report also references the congressionally required July 2017 report by the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Marijuana-Impaired Driving: A Report to Congress (hereinafter referred to as NHTSA's 2017 Marijuana-Impaired Driving Report to Congress), as well as other studies and research.

Marijuana is a variety of the Cannabis sativa plant, and contains hundreds of chemical compounds. Two significant compounds found in marijuana are tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive compound, and cannabidiol (CBD); CBD is being tested for medicinal purposes, and is not itself psychoactive.

Marijuana use has been recorded for millennia. In the 20 th century, the sale, possession, and use of marijuana were made illegal in most countries, including the United States. In recent years, however, the trend appears to be moving toward acceptance of marijuana usage. In public opinion polls, the percentage of Americans favoring legalization of marijuana has increased significantly. As of May 2019 33 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws legalizing marijuana use under certain conditions, generally for medicinal purposes. Since Colorado and Washington State legalized recreational marijuana in 2012, the number of states in which recreational use of marijuana is permitted has grown to 10, plus the District of Columbia. These jurisdictions are home to one-quarter of the U.S. population. In addition to states that have legalized recreational marijuana use, another 23 states and Puerto Rico allow marijuana to be used for treating medical conditions ("medical marijuana"). Several other states are considering legalizing recreational use of marijuana.

Since 2002, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has conducted an annual, nationally representative survey of substance use among individuals ages 12 and older. The percentage of individuals age 18 and older who self-report marijuana use in the previous month has grown slowly but steadily since 2008. Self-reported use is highest among young adults (ages 18-25) compared to all other age groups; it rose from 16.6% to 22.1% between 2008 and 2017. Self-reported use among adults age 26 and older rose from 4.2% to 7.9% over the same period. This study does not break out usage patterns by state, but other studies have found that reported usage has increased in virtually all states, both in those that have loosened restrictions on marijuana usage and those that have not. Thus, the impact of a state's treatment of marijuana on the extent of marijuana usage is not clear. Some observers have speculated that states' loosening of restrictions on marijuana usage might lead to increased usage. But the fact that usage by adults appears to be increasing in both states that have and those that have not loosened restrictions suggests that other factors may also be involved.

NHTSA has sponsored a periodic roadside survey of alcohol use among drivers for decades. The last two surveys (2007 and 2013-2014) also looked at drug use. In the 2013-2014 survey, 12.7% of drivers in the nighttime sample tested positive for THC, up from 8.7% in the 2007 survey. NHTSA did not report concentrations of THC and did not attempt to evaluate impairment. The data do not permit state-level comparisons.

Driving is among the most dangerous activities the average person engages in. It involves piloting a multiton vehicle at relatively high speeds, usually surrounded by many other such vehicles, and often bicyclists and pedestrians as well. A moment's inattention can, but usually does not, result in a crash. Crashes are usually not serious: the vast majority of crashes result only in damage to the vehicles involved. But in a significant percentage of crashes, one or more people are injured (29.3%), and in a fraction of crashes, people die (0.5%).

Because of the potential danger to the public posed by drivers, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have laws barring driving while impaired. Impairment involves driving performance that is degraded from its "normal" level by some cause. Many things can impair a driver's performance including alcohol, other drugs, fatigue, distraction, and emotional states such as fear or anger. Some state laws against impaired driving require that the state prove that a driver's impairment was caused by the substance or behavior at issue. Other state laws, known as per se laws, provide that a driver is automatically guilty of driving while impaired if specified levels of a potentially impairing substance are found in his or her body (e.g., blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08% or higher, or, in some states, THC in the blood; see Table 1 ).

Currently, detecting marijuana impairment through a standardized test is more complicated than detecting alcohol impairment. Evaluating impairment due to alcohol is relatively straightforward. Alcohol is a central nervous system depressant, the effects of which have been extensively observed and studied for a century. It is a liquid that enters the bloodstream quickly and is metabolized (converted into other substances) by the body fairly quickly. Alcohol in the body can be measured in a person's breath, blood, or urine. A person's BAC peaks within an hour after drinking, and declines gradually and linearly after that. The degree of impairment at various BAC levels is fairly well-established, and many studies have established that a driver's risk of being involved in a crash increases as the driver's BAC level increases.

In the United States, congressional encouragement has led every state to legislate that a driver whose BAC is .08% or higher is too impaired to drive legally. However, studies indicate there is some degree of impairment at far lower levels of BAC. In several European countries, driving with a BAC of .05% or higher is prohibited, and the State of Utah recently lowered its per se impaired BAC level to .05%. In the United States, commercial truck drivers are barred from performing safety-sensitive functions (such as driving) at a BAC of .04%. Relatively simple tests, such as breath analysis conducted by a police officer at the roadside or analysis of blood or urine samples taken in a clinic, can determine whether an individual's BAC exceeds the legal threshold. Since every state has a law prohibiting driving with a specific BAC level, such tests can be presented as evidence of impairment in court.

Detecting impairment due to use of marijuana is more difficult. The body metabolizes marijuana differently from alcohol. The level of THC (the psychoactive ingredient of marijuana) in the body drops quickly within an hour after usage, yet traces of THC (nonpsychoactive metabolites) can still be found in the body weeks after usage of marijuana. There is as yet no scientifically demonstrated correlation between levels of THC and degrees of impairment of driver performance, and epidemiological studies disagree as to whether marijuana use by a driver results in increased crash risk.

Relatively few studies have been done of the effect of marijuana use on driver performance. This is due, in part, to the requirements that must be met to use marijuana in studies due to its status as a controlled substance under federal law and many state laws. Another factor complicating studies of marijuana's effects on drivers is that the potency of THC in marijuana (i.e., the concentration of THC) can vary from one plant to another. The marijuana produced by the only approved source of marijuana for federally funded research is considered by some researchers to be low quality (potency). Also, the way in which marijuana is processed can affect the potency of the product, and the way the user chooses to ingest marijuana may affect the level of THC in the body.

The lack of correlation between both marijuana consumption and the level of THC in a person's system and THC levels and driver impairment reduces the usefulness of rule-of-thumb guides of impairment. In contrast, many drivers use rules-of-thumb to guide their alcohol consumption. While emphasizing that even low levels of alcohol consumption can cause drivers to be impaired, tables published on the internet suggest that two drinks may place a 120-pound female in breach of the 0.08% BAC threshold and leave a 160-pound male with "driving skills significantly affected." The National Transportation Safety Board has advised that "about 2 alcoholic drinks" within an hour will cause a 160-pound male to experience decline in visual functions and in the ability to perform two tasks at the same time. Based on current knowledge and enforcement capabilities, it is not possible to articulate a similarly simple level or rate of marijuana consumption and a corresponding effect on driving ability.

Studies of Crash Risk Associated With Marijuana Usage

To date, results from studies that have examined the association between marijuana use and crash risk have been inconsistent. As described in the 2017 NHTSA report to Congress, one study estimated the increased crash risk from marijuana usage at 1.83 times that of an unimpaired driver, while another study found no association between risk of being involved in a crash and marijuana use. Other studies have estimated the increased crash risk for drivers testing positive for marijuana at between zero and three times that for unimpaired drivers, roughly comparable to the increased crash risk of having a blood alcohol content of between .01% and .05%, well below the legal per se impaired level of .08 BAC. For purposes of comparison, a driver with a BAC of .08% is considered to be five to 20 times more likely to be involved in a crash than an unimpaired driver.

In NHTSA's 2017 Marijuana-Impaired Driving Report to Congress, NHTSA's survey of the research literature found differences between driving by subjects dosed with alcohol and subjects dosed with marijuana. Marijuana-dosed subjects driving in a simulator or in an instrumented vehicle on a closed course tended to drive below the speed limit, to allow a greater distance between themselves and vehicles ahead of them, and to take fewer risks than when they were not under the influence of marijuana. The study authors hypothesized that the subjects felt effects of the marijuana and were consciously altering their driving behavior to compensate. By contrast, subjects who were dosed with alcohol tended to drive faster than the speed limit, to follow leading cars more closely, and to generally drive in a riskier fashion than when they were not under the influence of alcohol. The NHTSA report includes the caveat that impacts on driving performance that can be measured under controlled conditions may or may not be significant under real-world conditions. NHTSA states that while laboratory studies are useful in identifying how substances affect the performance of driving tasks, only epidemiological studies (i.e., studies that look at actual crashes and the factors involved) are useful in predicting their impact on real-world crash risk. Relatively few epidemiological studies of marijuana usage and crash risk have been conducted, and the few that have been conducted have generally found low or no increased risk of crashes from marijuana use.

In reports examining many aspects of marijuana use and its effects, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in a 2017 report and the National Institutes of Health in a 2018 report reference various studies on the impact of marijuana consumption on driver performance to state that cannabis use prior to driving increases the risk of being involved in a motor vehicle accident. For example, the NAS committee that produced the 2017 report looked at systematic reviews of driving under the influence of marijuana and at recently published primary literature. The NAS committee's report concluded, "There is substantial evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and increased risk of motor vehicle crashes."

Several factors complicate the effort to determine what, if any, impact marijuana usage has on the likelihood of being involved in a crash. Chief among these factors is the distinction between correlation (things that occur together) and causation (one thing that causes another thing). A driver who has been involved in a crash may have used marijuana shortly before the crash; that correlation (marijuana usage and crash involvement) does not alone prove causation (that the marijuana usage was the cause of the driver being involved in a crash). For example, in the United States the population group with the highest rate of motor vehicle crashes, by far, is young male drivers (generally defined as those between the ages of 16 and 19). Young males are also the population group with the highest prevalence of marijuana use. When a young male driver is involved in a motor vehicle crash, and has recently used marijuana, it is difficult to separate the role, if any, of the effects of marijuana usage from the other factors that may contribute to the exceptionally high rate of crash involvement of young male drivers.

An impaired driving arrest typically begins with a law enforcement officer stopping a driver for a traffic violation or observing a driver at a crash scene or a checkpoint. If the officer suspects that the driver is impaired by alcohol, based on the driver's behavior and signs such as the odor of alcohol or other evidence of its presence, the officer may administer a field sobriety test or preliminary breath test to check for alcohol impairment. Training for the Standard Field Sobriety Test for alcohol impairment is usually included in basic police academy courses. The test includes 1) a driver heel-to-toe walk and turn test, and 2) a driver one-leg standing test.

Law enforcement officers often are not trained in recognizing impairment from marijuana or other drugs. NHTSA, with input from law enforcement organizations, has developed two training programs for law enforcement officers to recognize drug impairment in drivers during roadside stops.

Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) is a 16-hour course providing basic information on drug impairment, including indications of impairment from both marijuana and other opioids. From 2009 through 2015, around 8% of the nation's patrol officers received ARIDE training. Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) are trained not only to identify impairment by drugs but also to differentiate between categories of drugs. DRE training consists of 72 hours of classroom training and 40 to 60 hours of fieldwork. This represents a considerable investment of resources on the part of the trainee's organization, since it takes the officer away from regular duties for three to four weeks. As of 2016, around 1% of the nation's patrol officers were active DREs. In evaluating drivers suspected of impairment, DREs administer a 12-step evaluation lasting around 90 minutes. This is not a roadside test; the DRE testing protocol calls for the testing to be done in a controlled environment. Adherence to the protocol is important for the validity of the results.

Urine, hair follicles, blood, and saliva can be tested for evidence of THC and its metabolites. At present THC cannot be measured accurately in a person's breath.

Blood tests are considered the gold standard in establishing the presence of marijuana for impaired driving cases. To conduct a blood test of a driver suspected of driving under the influence of marijuana, police typically must obtain a search warrant and have the blood drawn by a nurse or person licensed to draw blood (phlebotomist). Testing of oral fluid can readily detect the presence of marijuana or its metabolites, and such testing is less complicated than blood testing. It may require a search warrant. Devices that can not only collect but also test oral fluids at the point of arrest (i.e., in the field) are available, but their accuracy and reliability have been questioned. Marijuana can be found in oral fluids as a result of environmental exposure. Hair testing is of little reliability for drug-impaired driving enforcement, as THC can be found in hair months after usage, so a positive result cannot be used to establish usage around the time of driving. THC in hair follicles can result from environmental exposure to second-hand smoke rather than direct consumption of marijuana. Also, the use of hair products can affect test results. Urine testing cannot be reliably used to establish drug use around the time of driving, as THC and its metabolites can be detected in urine for days, or even weeks, after usage.

The decision as to whether a driver who tests positive for marijuana should be arrested or charged with driving while impaired is not straightforward, because tests for the presence of marijuana in a driver's body are inadequate to determine impairment. The value of testing a person for the presence of alcohol lies largely in the well-established link between levels of alcohol in a person's blood and impairing effects associated with that blood alcohol content. Similar links between levels of THC in a person's body and levels of impairment have not been established.

The concentration of THC in a person's blood rises rapidly after consumption, then drops rapidly, within an hour or two. Impairing effects appear rapidly, but may remain for some time. Consequently, tests that show the amount of THC in the subject's body are poor indicators of impairment, how recently a person has used marijuana, or whether the person used marijuana or was simply exposed to second-hand smoke. Moreover, tests can show the presence of metabolites of THC, which themselves are not impairing, for weeks after consumption. Also, studies indicate that individuals can adapt to the impairing effects of marijuana, such that a level of THC that could indicate impairment in an occasional marijuana user may not have the same impairment effect on an experienced user.

State Laws Regarding Marijuana and Impaired Driving

Some states have " per se " ("in itself") laws that make it illegal for a driver to have more than a certain concentration of THC in his or her system. In some other states, it is illegal for a person to drive with any trace of marijuana ("zero tolerance") in his or her system (see Table 1 ).

Drivers have challenged convictions under per se marijuana impairment laws, with differing results. Some courts, acknowledging the testimony of experts that there is, at present, no reliable test to indicate impairment from marijuana, have nevertheless supported a state's per se standard as a reasonable effort to combat impaired driving in the absence of effective measurements of impairment. Other courts have overturned per se convictions on various grounds (e.g., that while the state legislation included all metabolites of marijuana, it was not reasonable to convict a driver of impairment when the driver tested positive for a metabolite that does not have an impairing effect).

Federal Regulations Governing Testing for Drug Use

Marijuana possession and usage remain illegal under federal law. In addition, people holding certain jobs, including federal employees and transportation workers in safety-sensitive positions (such as airline pilots, aircraft maintenance personnel, railroad engineers, ship captains, commercial truck drivers, and bus drivers), are prohibited from consuming any amount of marijuana, regardless of state laws.

Federal regulations require that transportation workers in safety-sensitive positions be tested for alcohol and certain drugs before beginning work for a new employer, if they are involved in a serious crash, and also at random. Safety-sensitive workers who appear to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol while at work can be tested immediately. Those who test positive must be evaluated by a substance abuse professional, complete counseling or treatment as prescribed by the evaluator, undergo a follow-up evaluation, and be tested again before returning to their safety-sensitive work. Those who return to safety-sensitive work after a positive test must be tested at least six times with no advance notice in the following 12 months. The follow-up period of intensive testing can be extended an additional four years. Approximately 12 million transportation workers are subject to these rules.

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Transportation stated that it is "unacceptable for any safety-sensitive employee subject to drug testing under the Department of Transportation's drug testing regulations to use marijuana." Regardless of many states having legalized more uses of marijuana, safety-sensitive employees remain subject to drug testing and may lose their jobs for marijuana use that is legal under state law.

There are several subjects on which better information may aid policymaking around the issue of marijuana and impairment. These include

continued research into whether a quantitative standard can be established that correlates the level of THC in a person's body and the level of impairment, and better data on the prevalence of marijuana use by drivers, especially among drivers involved in crashes and drivers arrested for impaired driving.

Currently, most states do not distinguish in their records whether drivers arrested for impaired driving are impaired by alcohol or other substances. Substance-specific impaired driving data could be of particular use in analyzing prelegalization and post-legalization data within a state and differences across states with different legal treatment of marijuana use.

Given that currently the most reliable means of detecting impairment among drivers who have used marijuana is by observation of physiological, cognitive, and psychomotor indicators by law enforcement officers, another policy option is additional support for training of law enforcement officers in detecting impairment. To improve the handling of drug-impaired driving cases, the Governors Highway Safety Association has recommended that prosecutors and judges assigned to drug-impaired driving cases receive training in the issue.

Among the roughly 12 million transportation workers whose safety-sensitive status subjects them to federally mandated drug testing, federal regulations provide no opportunity for legal use of marijuana, regardless of the status of marijuana under state law. As previously discussed, regulations that apply to safety-sensitive employees do provide an avenue for an employee who has tested positive to regain a safety-sensitive position. CRS could not identify any data on how many safety-sensitive transportation employees have lost their jobs as a result of positive tests for marijuana use. Considering the length of time that marijuana is detectable in the body after usage, and the uncertainty about the impairing effect of marijuana on driving performance, Congress and other federal policymakers may elect to reexamine the rationale for testing all safety-sensitive transportation workers for marijuana usage. Alternatively, Congress and federal policymakers may opt to maintain the status quo until more research results become available.


Assistance to Firefighters Program: Distribution of Fire Grant Funding

Summary: The Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program, also known as fire grants or the FIRE Act grant program, was established by Title XVII of the FY2001 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106-398). Currently administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the program provides federal grants directly to local fire departments and unaffiliated Emergency Medical Services (EMS) organizations to help address a variety of equipment, training, and other firefighter-related and EMS needs. AFG also supports fire prevention projects and firefighter health and safety research and development through the Firefighter Prevention and Safety (FP&S) grant program. A related program is the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters (SAFER) program, which provides grants for hiring, recruiting, and retaining firefighters.

Summary: The fire grant program is now in its 19th year. AFG assistance is distributed to career, volunteer, combination, and paid-on-call fire departments serving urban, suburban, and rural areas. There is no set geographical formula for the distribution of fire grants—fire departments throughout the nation apply, and award decisions are made by a peer panel based on the merits of the application and the needs of the community.

Summary: On January 3, 2018, the President signed the United States Fire Administration, AFG, and SAFER Program Reauthorization Act of 2017 (P.L. 115-98). P.L. 115-98 extends the AFG and SAFER authorizations through FY2023; extends the sunset provisions for AFG and SAFER through September 30, 2024; provides that the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) may develop and make widely available an online training course on AFG and SAFER grant administration; expands SAFER hiring grant eligibility to cover the conversion of part-time or paid-on-call firefighters to full-time firefighters; directs FEMA, acting through the Administrator of USFA, to develop and implement a grant monitoring and oversight framework to mitigate and minimize risks of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement related to the AFG and SAFER grant programs; and makes various technical corrections to the AFG and SAFER statute.

Summary: The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6) provided $700 million for firefighter assistance in FY2019, including $350 million for AFG and $350 million for SAFER. For FY2020, the Administration requested $688.688 million for firefighter assistance, including $344.344 million for AFG and $344.344 million for SAFER. This is the same amount the Administration requested in its FY2019 budget proposal and a 1.6% reduction from the FY2019 appropriation.

Summary: A continuing issue for the 116th Congress is how equitably and effectively grants are being distributed and used to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire-related hazards. Another continuing issue is budget appropriations for AFG and SAFER. As is the case with many federal programs, concerns over the federal budget deficit could impact budget levels for AFG and SAFER. At the same time, firefighter assistance budgets will likely receive heightened scrutiny from the fire service community, given the local budgetary shortfalls that many fire departments may face.

Firefighting activities are traditionally the responsibility of states and local communities. As such, funding for firefighters is provided mostly by state and local governments. During the 1990s, shortfalls in state and local budgets, coupled with increased responsibilities of local fire departments, led many in the fire community to call for additional financial support from the federal government. Although federally funded training programs existed (and continue to exist) through the National Fire Academy, and although federal money was available to first responders for counterterrorism tra ining and equipment through the Department of Justice, there did not exist a dedicated program, exclusively for firefighters, which provided federal money directly to local fire departments to help address a wide variety of equipment, training, and other firefighter-related needs.

During the 106 th Congress, many in the fire community asserted that local fire departments require and deserve greater support from the federal government. The Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFG), also known as fire grants or the FIRE Act grant program, was established by Title XVII of the FY2001 Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 106-398 ). Currently administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the program provides federal grants directly to local fire departments and unaffiliated Emergency Medical Services (EMS) organizations to help address a variety of equipment, training, and other firefighter-related and EMS needs. AFG also supports fire prevention projects and firefighter health and safety research and development through the Firefighter Prevention and Safety (FP&S) grant program, which is funded at not less than 10% of the annual appropriation for AFG.

Since its establishment, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program has been reauthorized three times. The first reauthorization was Title XXXVI of the FY2005 Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 108-375 ), which authorized the program through FY2009. The second reauthorization was Title XVIII, Subtitle A of the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 112-239 ), which authorized the program through FY2017 and modified program rules for disbursing grant money. The third and current reauthorization is the United States Fire Administration, AFG, and SAFER Program Reauthorization Act of 2017 ( P.L. 115-98 ), which authorizes the program through FY2023.

On January 2, 2013, President Obama signed P.L. 112-239 , the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Title XVIII, Subtitle A is the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2012, which authorized the fire grant program through FY2017 and made significant changes in how grant money would be disbursed. Table 1 provides a summary of key provisions of the 2012 reauthorization, and provides a comparison with the previously existing statute.

Fire Grants Reauthorization in the 115th Congress

With the authorizations of both the AFG and SAFER programs expiring on September 30, 2017, and with sunset dates for both programs of January 2, 2018, the 115 th Congress considered reauthorization legislation.

On April 5, 2017, S. 829 , the AFG and SAFER Program Reauthorization Act of 2017 was introduced by Senator McCain and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. On May 17, 2017, the committee ordered S. 829 to be reported ( S.Rept. 115-128 ) with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. On August 2, 2017, the Senate passed S. 829 by unanimous consent.

On July 12, 2017, the House Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, held a hearing entitled U.S. Fire Administration and Fire Grant Programs Reauthorization: Examining Effectiveness and Priorities . Testimony was heard from the USFA acting administrator and from fire service organizations.

On December 15, 2017, H.R. 4661 , the United States Fire Administration, AFG, and SAFER Program Reauthorization Act of 2017, was introduced by Representative Comstock. H.R. 4661 was identical to the Senate-passed S. 829 , except that while S. 829 repealed the sunset provisions for AFG and SAFER, H.R. 4661 extended the sunset dates to September 30, 2024. Additionally, H.R. 4661 reauthorized the USFA through FY2023.

On December 18, 2017, the House passed H.R. 4661 by voice vote under suspension of the rules. On December 21, 2017, the Senate passed H.R. 4661 without amendment by unanimous consent.

Other legislation related to the fire act reauthorization included H.R. 3881 , the AFG and SAFER Program Reauthorization Act of 2017, introduced by Representative Pascrell, which was identical to S. 829 as passed by the Senate; and H.R. 1571 , the Fire Department Proper Response and Equipment Prioritization Act, which was introduced by Representative Herrera-Beutler and would amend the FIRE Act statute to direct FEMA to give high-priority consideration to grants providing for planning, training, and equipment to firefighters for crude oil-by-rail and ethanol-by-rail derailment and incident response.

On January 3, 2018, the President signed the United States Fire Administration, AFG, and SAFER Program Reauthorization Act of 2017 ( P.L. 115-98 ). P.L. 115-98

extends the AFG and SAFER authorizations through FY2023; extends the sunset provisions for AFG and SAFER through September 30, 2024; extends the USFA authorization through FY2023; provides that the U.S. Fire Administration in FEMA may develop and make widely available an online training course on AFG and SAFER grant administration; expands SAFER hiring grant eligibility to cover the conversion of part-time or paid-on-call firefighters to full-time firefighters; directs FEMA, acting through the Administrator of USFA, to develop and implement a grant monitoring and oversight framework to mitigate and minimize risks of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement related to the AFG and SAFER grant programs; and makes various technical corrections to the AFG and SAFER statute.

From FY2001 through FY2003, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program (as part of USFA/FEMA) received its primary appropriation through the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriation Act. In FY2004, the Assistance to Firefighters Program began to receive its annual appropriation through the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Homeland Security.

The fire grant program is in its 19 th year. Table 2 shows the appropriations history for firefighter assistance, including AFG, SAFER, and the Fire Station Construction Grants (SCG) provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Table 3 shows recent and proposed appropriated funding for the AFG and SAFER grant programs.

For FY2017, the Obama Administration requested $335 million for AFG and $335 million for SAFER, a reduction of $10 million for each program from the FY2016 enacted level. The budget justification stated that the proposed reduction in AFG and SAFER "reflects FEMA's successful investments in prior year grants awarded."

Under the proposed budget, the AFG and SAFER grant accounts would be transferred to the Preparedness and Protection activity under FEMA's broader "Federal Assistance" account. According to the budget request, Federal Assistance programs will "assist Federal agencies, States, Local, Tribal, and Territorial jurisdictions to mitigate, prepare for and recover from terrorism and natural disasters."

On May 26, 2016, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved S. 3001 , the Department of Homeland Security Act, 2017. The Senate bill would provide $680 million for firefighter assistance, including $340 million for AFG and $340 million for SAFER. The committee maintained a separate budget account for Firefighter Assistance and did not transfer that budget account to the Federal Assistance account as proposed in the Administration budget request. In the accompanying report ( S.Rept. 114-68 ), the committee directed DHS to continue the present practice of funding applications according to local priorities and those established by the USFA, and to continue direct funding to fire departments and the peer review process. The committee stated its expectation that funding for rural fire departments remain consistent with their previous five-year history, and directed FEMA to brief the committee if there is a fluctuation.

On June 22, 2016, the House Appropriations Committee approved its version of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017. Unlike the Senate, the House Committee did transfer the Firefighter Assistance budget account into a broader Federal Assistance account in FEMA. The bill provided $690 million for firefighter assistance, including $345 million for AFG and $345 million for SAFER. In the committee report, the committee directed FEMA to continue administering the fire grants programs as directed in prior year committee reports, and encouraged FEMA to ensure that the formulas used for equipment accurately reflect current costs.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ) provided $690 million for firefighter assistance in FY2017, including $345 million for AFG and $345 million for SAFER. Money is to remain available through September 30, FY2018. The firefighter assistance account was transferred to FEMA's broader Federal Assistance account.

For FY2018, the Administration requested $688.688 million for firefighter assistance, including $344.344 million for AFG and $344.344 million for SAFER, slightly below the FY2017 level. AFG and SAFER are under Grants in the Federal Assistance budget account.

On July 18, 2017, the House Appropriations Committee approved the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2018 ( H.R. 3355 ; H.Rept. 115-239 ). The bill provided $690 million for firefighter assistance under the Federal Assistance budget account, including $345 million for AFG and $345 million for SAFER. In the bill report, the committee encouraged FEMA to give high-priority consideration to grants providing for planning, training, and equipment to firefighters for crude oil-by-rail and ethanol-by-rail derailment and incident response.

On September 14, 2017, the House passed H.R. 3354 , a FY2018 omnibus appropriations bill that includes funding for AFG and SAFER. During floor consideration, the House adopted an amendment offered by Representative Kildee that added $20 million to SAFER; thus H.R. 3354 would provide $345 million for AFG and $365 million for SAFER.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 ( P.L. 115-141 ) provided $700 million for firefighter assistance in FY2018, including $350 million for AFG and $350 million for SAFER. Money is to remain available through September 30, 2019.

For FY2019, the Administration requested $688.688 million for firefighter assistance, including $344.344 million for AFG and $344.344 million for SAFER.

On June 21, 2018, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved S. 3109 , the Department of Homeland Security Act, 2019 ( S.Rept. 115-283 ). The Senate bill would have provided $700 million for firefighter assistance, including $350 million for AFG and $350 million for SAFER.

On July 25, 2018, the House Appropriations Committee approved its version of the FY2019 Homeland Security appropriations bill ( H.R. 6776 ; H.Rept. 115-948 ). The House bill would also have provided $700 million for firefighter assistance, including $350 million for AFG and $350 million for SAFER. In the bill report, the committee encouraged FEMA to give high priority consideration to grants providing for planning, training, and equipment to firefighters for crude oil-by-rail and ethanol-by-rail derailment and incident response. The committee also encouraged FEMA to "provide technical assistance, and work more closely with those communities that are underserved or underrepresented," and to rate Source Capture Exhaust Extraction Systems as "high priority" under the AFG program.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ) provided $700 million for firefighter assistance in FY2019, including $350 million for AFG and $350 million for SAFER, with funds to remain available through September 30, 2020.

Fire Station Construction Grants in the ARRA

Since its inception, the traditional fire grant program has provided money specifically for health- and safety-related modifications of fire stations, but has not funded major upgrades, renovations, or construction. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 ( P.L. 111-5 ) provided an additional $210 million in firefighter assistance grants for modifying, upgrading, or constructing state and local nonfederal fire stations, provided that 5% be set aside for program administration, and provided that no grant shall exceed $15 million. The conference report ( H.Rept. 111-16 ) cited DHS estimates that this spending would create 2,000 jobs. The ARRA also included a provision (§603) that waived the matching requirement for SAFER grants funded by appropriations in FY2009 and FY2010.

The application period for ARRA Assistance to Firefighters Fire Station Construction Grants (SCG) opened on June 11 and closed on July 10, 2009. There is no cost share requirement for SCG grants. Eligible applicants are nonfederal fire departments that provide fire protection services to local communities. Ineligible applicants include federal fire departments, EMS or rescue organizations, airport fire departments, for-profit fire departments, fire training centers, emergency communications centers, auxiliaries and fire service organizations or associations, and search and rescue teams or similar organizations without fire suppression responsibilities.

DHS/FEMA received 6,025 SCG applications for $9.9 billion in federal funds. As of October 1, 2010, 119 SCG grants were awarded, totaling $207.461 million to fire departments within the United States. A complete list of SCG awards is available at http://www.fema.gov/rules-tools/assistance-firefighters-station-construction-grants .

In response to concerns over the adequacy of firefighter staffing, the 108 th Congress enacted the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Act as Section 1057 of the FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 108-136 ; signed into law November 24, 2003). The SAFER grant program is codified as Section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229a). The SAFER Act authorizes grants to career, volunteer, and combination fire departments for the purpose of increasing the number of firefighters to help communities meet industry minimum standards and attain 24-hour staffing to provide adequate protection from fire and fire-related hazards. Also authorized are grants to volunteer fire departments for activities related to the recruitment and retention of volunteers. For more information on the SAFER program, see CRS Report RL33375, Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response: The SAFER Grant Program , by Lennard G. Kruger.

On May 13, 2003, the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) released the first independent evaluation of the Assistance to Firefighters Program. Conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Leadership Development Academy Executive Potential Program, the survey study presented a number of recommendations and concluded overall that the program was "highly effective in improving the readiness and capabilities of firefighters across the nation." Another evaluation of the fire grant program was released by the DHS Office of Inspector General in September 2003. The report concluded that the program "succeeded in achieving a balanced distribution of funding through a competitive grant process," and made a number of specific recommendations for improving the program.

At the request of DHS, the National Academy of Public Administration conducted a study to help identify potential new strategic directions for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program and to provide advice on how to effectively plan, manage, and measure program accomplishments. Released in April 2007, the report recommended consideration of new strategic directions related to national preparedness, prevention vs. response, social equity, regional cooperation, and emergency medical response. According to the report, the "challenge for the AFG program will be to support a gradual shift in direction without losing major strengths of its current management approach—including industry driven priority setting and its well-respected peer review process."

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 ( P.L. 110-161 ), in the accompanying Joint Explanatory Statement, directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the application and award process for fire and SAFER grants. Additionally, FEMA was directed to peer review grant applications that best address the program's priorities and criteria as established by FEMA and the fire service. Those criteria necessary for peer-review must be included in the grant application package. Applicants whose grant applications are not reviewed must receive an official notification detailing why the application did not meet the criteria for review. Applications must be rank-ordered, and funded following the rank order.

In October 2009, GAO sent a report to Congress finding that FEMA has met most statutory requirements for awarding fire grants. GAO recommended that FEMA establish a procedure to track EMS awards, ensure that grant priorities are better aligned with application questions and scoring values, and provide specific feedback to rejected applicants.

During 2014 and 2015, the DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted an audit of AFG grants for fiscal years 2010 through 2012. On June 9, 2016, the DHS OIG released its report finding that 64% of AFG grant recipients over that period did not comply with grant guidance and requirements to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of grant funds. The report recommended that FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate develop and implement an organizational framework to manage the risk of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. According to the report, FEMA has concurred with the OIG findings and has taken corrective actions to resolve the recommendations.

Meanwhile, the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2012 ( P.L. 112-239 ) directed GAO to prepare a report to Congress that includes an assessment of the effect of the changes made by P.L. 112-239 on the effectiveness, relative allocation, accountability, and administration of the fire grants. GAO was also directed to evaluate the extent to which those changes have enabled grant recipients to mitigate fire and fire-related and other hazards more effectively. In September 2016, GAO released its report, entitled Fire Grants: FEMA Could Enhance Program Administration and Performance Assessment. The report concluded that FEMA's fire grant policies and the awards made in FY2013 and FY2014 generally reflected the changes to the fire grant statute made by P.L. 112-239 , and that FEMA enhanced its assessment of program performance by establishing and reporting on measures of effectiveness of the grants. However, GAO also concluded that those performance measures do not include measurable performance targets linked to AFG and SAFER program goals, and that "aligning the fire grants programs' use of data on, and definitions of, critical infrastructure to award fire grants and assess program performance with the more objective, quantitative approach used by DHS and GPD [the Grants Program Directorate] for other programs and nonfire preparedness grants could enhance GPD's efforts to integrate the fire grants program into larger national preparedness efforts and more objectively assess the impact of fire grants."

In November 2016, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) released its Fourth Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service , which seeks to identify gaps and needs in the fire service, and assesses the extent to which fire grants target those gaps and needs. According to the study:

For respondent departments, fire service needs are extensive across the board, and in nearly every area of need, the smaller the community protected, the greater the need.

While some needs have declined, many others have been constant or have shown an increase. Gaps remain across the board in staffing, training, facilities, apparatus, personal protective equipment, and health and wellness. Evidence of the need for staffing engines; training for structural firefighting, Hazmat and wildland firefighting; and updated SCBA and personal protective clothing is concerning.

Roles and responsibilities of the fire service are expanding apparently at the same time appears that resources are being cut. EMS and Hazmat are now common responsibilities while active shooter response, enhanced technical rescue and wildland-urban interface firefighting are up and coming challenges for many departments.

AFG and SAFER grant funds are targeted towards areas of need. As other resources are cut back, more departments turn towards these grants for support. If anything, these grant programs should grow in order to address the considerable multifaceted need that continues in the fire service.

The AFG statute prescribes different purposes for which fire grant money may be used. These are training firefighting personnel; creating rapid intervention teams; certifying fire inspectors and building inspectors whose responsibilities include fire safety inspections and who are associated with a fire department; establishing wellness and fitness programs, including mental health programs; funding emergency medical services (EMS) provided by fire departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations; acquiring firefighting vehicles; acquiring firefighting equipment; acquiring personal protective equipment; modifying fire stations, fire training facilities, and other facilities for health and safety; educating the public about arson prevention and detection; providing incentives for the recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters; and supporting other activities as FEMA determines appropriate. FEMA has the discretion to decide which of those purposes will be funded for a given grant year. This decision is based on a Criteria Development Panel, composed of fire service and EMS representatives, which annually recommends criteria for awarding grants.

Since the program commenced in FY2001, the majority of fire grant funding has been used by fire departments to purchase firefighting equipment, personal protective equipment, and firefighting vehicles. Eligible applicants are limited primarily to fire departments (defined as an agency or organization that has a formally recognized arrangement with a state, local, or tribal authority to provide fire suppression, fire prevention, and rescue services to a population within a fixed geographical area). Emergency Medical Services (EMS) activities (at least 3.5% of annual AFG funding) are eligible for fire grants, including a limited number (no more than 2%) to nonfire department EMS organizations not affiliated with hospitals.

Additionally, a separate competition is held for fire prevention and firefighter safety research and development grants, which are available to fire departments; national, state, local, tribal, or nonprofit organizations recognized for their fire safety or prevention expertise; and to institutions of higher education, national fire service organizations, or national fire safety organizations to establish and operate fire safety research centers. For official program and application guidelines, frequently asked questions, the latest awards announcements, and other information, see the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program web page at http://www.fema.gov/welcome-assistance-firefighters-grant-program .

The FIRE Act statute provides overall guidelines on how fire grant money will be distributed. Previously, the law directed that volunteer and combination departments receive a proportion of the total grant funding that is not less than the proportion of the U.S. population that those departments protect (34% for combination, 21% for all-volunteer). Reflecting concerns that career fire departments (which are primarily in urban and suburban areas) were not receiving adequate levels of funding, the Fire Grants Authorization Act of 2012 altered the distribution formula, directing that not less than 25% of annual AFG funding go to career fire departments, not less than 25% to volunteer fire departments, not less than 25% to combination and paid-on-call fire departments, and not less than 10% for open competition among career, volunteer, combination, and paid-on-call fire departments. Additionally, P.L. 112-239 raised award caps (up to $9 million) and lowered matching requirements for fire departments serving higher population areas.

There is no set geographical formula for the distribution of fire grants—fire departments throughout the nation apply, and award decisions are made by a peer panel based on the merits of the application and the needs of the community. However, in evaluating applications, FEMA may take into consideration the type of department (paid, volunteer, or combination), geographic location, and type of community served (e.g., urban, suburban, or rural).

In an effort to maximize the diversity of awardees, the geographic location of an applicant (using states as the basic geographic unit) is used as a deciding factor in cases where applicants have similar qualifications. Table 4 shows a state-by-state breakdown of fire grant funding for FY2001 through FY2017, while Table 5 shows a state-by-state breakdown of SAFER grant funding for FY2005 through FY2017. Table 6 shows the percentage distribution of AFG grant funds by type of department (career, combination, volunteer, paid-on-call) for FY2009 through FY2014, while Table 7 shows the percentage distribution of AFG grant funds by community service area (urban, suburban, rural) for FY2009 through FY2014.

Firefighter assistance grants were impacted by the partial government shutdown. FEMA personnel who administer the grants were furloughed. For all three grant programs (AFG, SAFER, and FP&S) the application and awards process was delayed. For the 2018 awards round, the application windows for AFG and FP&S closed in October and December 2018, respectively, but the processing of those applications could not move forward. The opening of the 2018 round application window for SAFER grants was also delayed.

For grants already awarded (in the 2017 and previous rounds), grant recipients periodically draw down funds, either to reimburse expenditures already incurred, or in immediate advance of those expenditures. Grant recipients were unable to draw down funds during the shutdown, which may have disrupted the ability of the grantees to continue grant-funded activities, including personnel costs covered by SAFER grant awards, which extend for three years. This disruption may continue after the government shutdown has resolved due to a backlog of payment requests that need to be processed once furloughed FEMA grant personnel return to work.

AFG assistance is distributed to career, volunteer, combination, and paid-on-call fire departments serving urban, suburban, and rural areas. A continuing issue is how equitably and effectively grants are being distributed and used to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire-related hazards.

Another issue for Congress is whether AFG should be expanded to allow additional eligible uses of AFG grants. For example, H.R. 1823 , the Help Ensure Responders Overdosing Emerge Safely Act of 2019, would amend the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to include as an eligible use of AFG grants, "to provide opioid receptor antagonists, including naloxone, to firefighters, paramedics, emergency medical service workers, and other first responders for personal use."

Finally, a continuing issue is budget appropriations for AFG and SAFER. As is the case with many federal programs, concerns over the federal budget deficit could impact budget levels for AFG and SAFER. At the same time, firefighter assistance budgets will likely receive heightened scrutiny from the fire service community, given the local budgetary shortfalls that many fire departments may face.