CERT Expectations

Next week I will start a local CERT course- six evenings and a Saturday exercise. Hopefully, I will be of greater use when our next disaster occurs and my efforts will be more coordinated and effective. A lot of my motivation for taking this course comes from the discussions on this board.

What are realistic expectations for this training? Any suggestions for preparation? Any insights? I realize training at this level does not transform anyone into Captain Rescue, but allows an informed citizenry to respond immediately and be on the same page with trained personnel on some dark and smoky night.

First off, good for you for signing up for the training!

Our city did not have (I just moved) a CERT team, although the training was essentially the same for our CEPA (Community Emergency Preparedness Academy) training. Although the curriculum is pretty much standardized, the details of the content can vary widely depending on who is teaching each segment. I had some interesting, informative sessions, and some were either way too basic or just delivered in a boring manner, so it's hard to say what you might expect.

I thought all the hands-on segments were interesting, from first aid and AED training, to practicing with fire extinguishers, to the mock drill at the end that tries to incorporate the various skills and knowledge you have learned.

Actually, I think the part I enjoyed the most was meeting some like-minded folks from the community and getting to know them over the weeks. They were all ages, from retired folks down to teenagers brought by their parents. Nothing in the training really required any advanced preparation or study. Wear comfortable clothes for days where you may be kneeling or doing any hands-on training, like first aid and AED.

Keep an open mind, soak up the info, and have some fun meeting other folks!

It is a good thing to take, I have taken the course myself and the thing you need to be prepaired for is what they are looking for from you may be different than what you believe they will be asking.

In my Cert Class there were doctors, nurses, EMT's and much more, but being a CERT member we do a lot of SAR type stuff but not much hard core stuff. The Medical is very simple as they are expecting you to not have much to work with and there is a limit to what you can and can't do in a disaster. You do learn how to use a Fire Extinguisher, and what the town or city you live in has as a response for emergencies.

But, as far as giving to the community and connecting to it,, it really is a great thing.. You will find out what the plans are and what to do when a serious emergency hits. You will also become one of the helpers and not part of the mass of people not knowing what to do or what is going to happen when a disaster knocks on your community’s door.

You will be amazed at how much your team’s presence in those vests will reassure a community that has had an emergency.

I'm active in the NERT (Neighborhood Emergency Response Teams) in San Francisco, CA, mainly focusing on emergency packet and voice communications on 2m and 70cm. One good thing about these volunteer programs is that you'll learn to work with all kinds of people, many that don't think at all like you do. Many people will have strengths that complement yours. Be prepared to be a bit frustrated at times. Problems and solutions that are obvious to anyone on this list can be unimportant to almost everyone else. The same works in reverse. Many people will be deeply involved in issues that you've never thought about.

I think it's a great program here on the Ring of Fire. Have fun and remember you're a volunteer. You don't have to do anything that doesn't feel right to you. Be safe so you don't become part of the problem.

Best,
Lynn, W6JAE

As a CERT Trainer I can tell you what our expectations are.

1 Prepare you to assist yourself during an event.
2 Prepare you to assist your family during an event.
3 Prepare you as a team member to assist your neighbors during an event.
4 Prepare you as a team member to assist your community during and event.

We do not pressure anyone to get more involved than they are comfortable with. So if you want to take the class for personal reasons that is OK with us.

Our town has a rather severe flooding problem and until the flood control project is done we (OEM / CERT) have many folks to assist. If for each 16 hour class we run 10 people do not need assistance during an event that would be an excellent return on our efforts. If that ends up helping the family that would be even better.

We can always use additional members in either OEM or CERT it just depends on what level and type of involvement people want and are comfortable with.

Enjoy, you will learn a few new things and a few new ways of thinking about different events and most of all...

Have a great time!

Jim

What others have said. You'll learn some good stuff and meet great people. It was reassuring to see so many people in my area enthusiastic about getting prepared. You're gonna love it. Well, at least I did.

I've also signed up for the CERT course, too. I found the downloadable documents and PowerPoints on the CERT website. How much is hands on, and how much is just going over what seems to me relatively simple stuff from the PowerPoints & the documents?

I'm particularly interested to find out, because CERT does ask for quite a bit of your time. I'd go nuts listening to people explain stuff that you can easily learn if you're a good self-learner. While the documents indicate some partner exercises, they really seem simple enough that I'm not sure how much I'd benefit from doing them with someone.

It's good to know that the degree of my community involvement is up to me. I'd like to help if I can, but I don't know what I'll be in for.

I anticipate that much of the material will indeed be fairly simplistic. I have a good background in mountain and technical SAR, including cave and swift water environments and I have decent experience in fractures and blunt force trauma injuries. But here we are looking primarily at urban situations, where I have a lot to learn (down power lines and the like). Also,I am kind of rusty...

I suspect (and hope) that there will be value in meeting people, interacting with them, and sharing priorities and procedures to be used in an emergency, so that when rescue professional arrive on scene , they will merely be dealing with chaos, instead of total chaos.

We must compare notes following the course. Thanks to all for your comments.

I am currently taking the CERT course through our county Emergency Management Organization and will be part of the community team in my development. The curriculum has the following titles for each week:

1. Course overview and disaster preparedness
2. Disaster fire suppression (we used a simulator to fire actual fires)
3. AHA Heartsaver CPR/AED (we went thru the AHA course and used the "dummies" and training AEDS) (This is my latest class)
4. Triage/Terrorism
5. Light search and rescue
6. Psychological aspects of disasters
7. Course summary
8. Practice skills/Graduation

According to my community leader, this course certifies me to be a team leader, or fill any other team position (including Comm, since I am a HAM). Hope this helps.

This looks like it's based on the curriculum on the website (http://www.citizencorps.gov/cert/training_mat.shtm), with some stuff in a different order:



The website contains links for downloadable materials. Are these the materials you have been given? If so, how much more information/skill does the class add to the materials?

It looks like you can download instructor's guide, too.

Bingley,

I'm downloading the material from your link. We have not been provided the Participant Manual, or any handouts for that matter, through the first 3 classes. We have seen some of the info via slides and I've been taking notes.

The fire suppression class was given by a local fire dept instructor and was about half academics (some of the info in the web site slides) and half actually fighting small fires with a fire simulator. That was very effective I believe.

The CPR/AED was the American Heart Assoc course which was follow the video and then perform the actions (a step-by-step approach). So that was virtually all hands on training, plus some side info from the instructors. They touched on the "hands only" technique, but taught the version which includes "breaths". The AHA class was a bit different from the military and Red Cross classes in the past, but it gave all the same info. Went out and bought a couple of face shields to carry with me.

I'll be going over the downloaded material above T make sure I get all the info and can ask questions if I have any.

Thanks for the links and hope this helps.

You can also find PowerPoint slides on the same web page. From what I can tell, the slides seem like a simplified version of the manual. Maybe if you read ahead, you can impress the teacher and ace the class!

It's good to know there are practical components to the course.

Edit: I had the wrong point of view!

READ - Read the materials before going to class. If you have any questions, write them down as you're reading them. Keep them available as they will most likely be answered.

PARTICIPATE - This training is for the CERT __TEAM__. If the instructor is explaining something one way, and you understand it another and can help another student, please do! If you don't understand something ASK!

KEEP INVOLVED - This is basic level training. You don't have any experience with it probably. Make it a priority to go to any additional training, and if your State has a CERT Day GO! This is an orientation to Disaster Operations and how you will help. Most of the skills you learn could be learned somewhere else, but in this course they are taught with the disaster environment in mind (Note: CPR is not performed in a disaster environment). So, this course is only the beginning and will help you figure out what skills you want to learn. Speak to the CERT Team leader and/or EM Staff about this.

TAKE FEMA INDEPENDENT STUDY COURSES - Do you want the big picture? You know that thing that helps you determine which option in a decision is more important? Some of these can help. http://training.fema.gov/IS/crslist.asp If you are looking to be a valued volunteer in the future, please take IS-100, IS-200, and IS-700. Feel free to take IS-800 or any of the ESF courses you're interested in. There are a few courses in there geared towards the general public.

Last but not least, if you have any questions, comments, etc. Feel free to message me.

Thanks ki4buc. I have found the course list because the IS-100/200/700 was mentioned in the first class. I'll be "taking" those soon. Have seen a few others that look interesting as well.

BIll_G, hikermor, and others,

So how closely did your CERT class adhere to the materials from the CERT link I provided? How useful was the class? Did you learn new skills? Would you say it's worth the 15-20 hours they ask of you?

My class is still a few months away, but I'm eager to hear about your experiences.

Bingley, here is my experience so far. We have our final class and exercise next week.

The short answer to your questions:
1. So how closely did your CERT class adhere to the materials from the CERT link I provided? Pretty close. Much more detail in the manual, though.

2. How useful was the class? I found it useful. If a disaster strikes here, I feel I can be of more help and better team member, which was the reason I got involved.

3. Did you learn new skills? Yes, primarily in the triage and search and rescue ares. Resfresher in the CPR, First Aid and fire suppression.

4. Would you say it's worth the 15-20 hours they ask of you? Was to me, but I think that will be a personal assessment when you're done. And it will stir me to learn more and prepare better.

Long answer:

We did not receive a/the manual. Even receiving copies of the .ppt slides would have been helpful with taking notes. I believe not receiving the manual was a financial decision. On the whole, our instruction covered the areas in the manual. The manual contains more detailed information however, including diagrams, lists and checklists.

Some of the Disaster Prep. information was covered more extensively and geared toward disasters we can expect in our area (tornados, hurricanes, wild/forest fires). The CERT organization was covered more from a local perspective vs the what the manual covers in Unit 6 of the manual. It was emphasized to document, document, document. Seeing the forms listed in the manual would have helped our understanding significantly.

The Fire Safety section was taught by a local FD. It covered the types of fires (ABC etc) and an exercise of extinguishing fires using a training device (which was quite good). The hazardous material section was less extensive (didn't cover the DOT placards for example).

The CPR section was about what I have experienced in the past, although taught using the Amer. Heart Assoc. (AHA) curriculum. They use video to set up the training and then stop the video so you can practice.

The First Aid section was the most disappointing for me (and some other folks in the class). It also was presented using an AHA curriculum. Maybe my military training is not what it should be compared to, but we did not cover items like burns or pressure points. The use of pressure on the bleeding wound was a major point of emphasis. Minimal time was spent on splints. We were told the local medical community wanted our training to be minimal. It would interesting to see what the local Red Cross curriculum is (I may search for a local class to compare).
Triage was covered pretty well. The manual would have helped, but I think they did a good job here. To me this is a challenging area. Determining whether to move on from a seriously injured individual to one that may be "saved". Also, our local medical community will not allow CERT to determine that someone is dead. So we cannot use the "black" tag. If we come across someone who we believe is "dead" we tag them with a double "red" tag. The medical assessment info is more extensive in the manual. We did not cover the Medical Treatment Areas outlined in the manual.

Light search and rescue was covered pretty well. We did not cover leveraging and cribbing at all. We were basically told we would net be involved in those operations (at least not on our own).

The psychological section was presented by a retired psychologist who did a good job covering what I think we may encounter with victims and workers. CISD was addressed in that there is a group of Drs who are avaialble to help CERT members as necessary.

Our terrorism instruction basically covered the types that are out there, staying observant, etc. Our post event involvement would probably be minimal, but we could be called upon.

Our county is in central Florida and has alot of "senior" communities. There are 39 established teams in the county. Our involvement would probably be just in our own community vs being available countywide. My community seems to have one of the more involved teams and support from the community management.

Sorry this is so long winded. Hope it helps.

Thanks Bill_G, this is an interesting summary and perspective. It goes to show how much the CERT training can be tailored to actual local response postures. It sounds as though the intention with your local CERT is that trainees would be called out after disasters to supplement and support first responders, but in no way are they taking independent action. By comparison, the CERT training I took was not intended to create a force of CERT trainees who get called out together to support first responders - it was intended more for individuals who might be stuck in the first 72 hours without first responders present. If we could organize and turn out with other CERTS great, but given the geography and the fact that this was only the second CERT session in our city, there wasn't a great expectation that CERTs would be plentiful enough to be an organized force in neighborhoods. In fact, the FD Captain who trained us said listen - if the Big One strikes, the first responders won't be in your neighborhood for at least 72 hours, you will be on your own, so you should focus on rescue and care of your family and immediate neighbors, and our overall training reflected those needs.

That, plus the local Fire Chief wasn't terribly keen on CERT as responders at any numbers. And while the local CERT has grown past 25-30 classes since I took the course, its still not at a critical mass to change anyone's minds I think. the last organized function I recall was to fill sandbags and keep flood water from encroaching on a non-critical structure - a city park building. Good to do, but hardly S&R and first aid.

Just for comparisions, some takeaways from my CERT training ~5 years ago:

1. First Aid - I would characterize our own training as rudimentary FA, pressure on bleeding, immobilization, safe lifting and evacuation from unsafe structures and situations. We covered burns extensively but were told you'll never had enough supplies to treat all the burns you may encounter, so do your best to stop burning, cover, and treat the burn as much as your supplies and conditions will allow until you can evacuate your patients.

2. Triage - this was very good, setting up a triage area at which to administer FA and evacuate the most seriously injured when you can. We were told to black tag the dead, and perform FA to the level of our training and supplies, which in a Big One EQ setting may be minimal. It sounds like the MEs and attorneys in your area don't want civilians making anything resembling an assessment of death, which I suppose could come back to bite you if a double red tag stayed alive in time to receive treatment - they don't want the CERT training to come back and bite them with a bad decision. The decision to black tag is made easier if the fact is you can't tell if they are dead, they will be, because you cannot get them to medical assistance in time to save them. Black tag or double red, you won't be spending much if any time with those patients. Move on to the living.

3. S&R - we did extensive leveraging and cribbing, to the point of recommending our own home cribbing kits (ex. a garbage can filled with 2x4 and 4x4 scraps, and a large pry bar, $15 at any hardware store). I don't know how often we will use that after a 9.0M quake, but we still operate under the golden hour principle that many of viable survivors will be extricated in the first hour after the event, so best get crackin.

4. Psychological First Aid was presented, but not in the context of a group of MDs who can come to our assistance with deployed CERTS. More like, you'll deal with people in psychological 'shock', acting irrationally, etc etc, so know the signs and how to calm and focus those affected. Self-diagnosis, and always seek assistance after the immediate disaster is over. I've been through the PFA process after a few disasters now, and personally I think you do the best you can, take time away from responding when you can, and follow up with someone to talk out everything that presents problems to you afterwards.

5. 39 teams in your county is really, really terrific. That gives you enough people to respond and really do some good. In our county CERT is much more spread out, not as organized - pretty much I am expected to turn out and provide for the safety of my family and neighbors with whoever else may be available to assist. I'd rather have 4-5 certs within a mile to help out with neighborhood sweeps, S&R, selecting and setting up a triage area, and monitoring our elderly neighbors for assistance needs (meds, cold/wetness etc). It will be alot more ad hoc. It sounds like you have a good CERT program though to build your experience and skills and really be a benefit to your community!

We just finished the fourth week of our CERT course, so it is really interesting to compare notes. For sure, CERT is geared to local circumstances - in our situation, this means being primed for major earthquakes, when it won't be a question of being called out to deal with an emergency - it will be wrestling with local issues for at least the first 72 hours while the region begins to recover. Like you, our first aid is definitely rudimentary, and it wasn't represented as anything like a complete first aid course. The emphasis was on triage. After a lifetime of training in CPR, it was a little startling to wrap my mind around the concept of trying to open the airway twice, and, if unsuccessful, dropping a black tag and moving on to the next individual, but it does make sense under the proposed scenarios. It might not be so easy to accomplish in real life. What was really useful was discussion and practice of the signs and indicators of someone in the immediate (red) category. Triage is not covered in any first aid or EMT training I have ever been exposed to.

One phenomenon that hasn't been mentioned by others that affects us is tsunami potential(our harbor was damaged by last year's Japanese event). This was discussed in some detail - head for higher ground in the event of a local quake if you have a choice. The resulting tsunami could be upon us quite quickly, as in the 1812 event.

I find the instruction worthwhile and useful. I am glad I am putting in the time and effort, because I should be more useful and productive in the next emergency (provided I am among the survivors). They are emphatic about priorities - your self, your family, your immediate area and neighbors, and then the larger CERT operation, all of which makes perfect sense.

Our instructor is a very personable senior fire captain. In discussing the non-use of CPR in a major disaster, he offered that he has seen exactly seven successful resuscitations in some 300 attempts; this corresponds with my experience - both my situations were unsuccessful. CPR just doesn't add up, at least not initially, in a major event.

We did get a nice thick manual, although I don't think I will be carting it around to the next emergency. I expect I will go forward with some more CERT training after this course is finished. Hopefully we will assist each other in the next Big One, instead of turning into a snarling wolf pack the minute all the ice cream in the local supermarket melts.

The training is conducted, so far at least, by the County Fire Department. I think one of the benefits will be that participants will have a bit more insight into FD operations and, consequently, will be more effective in supporting their efforts. From what I have seen, we have a pretty good FD here in Ventura County and support for their work is time well spent.

Thanks for the thorough, informative, and helpful write-up! This should be a reference thread for those of us thinking about doing CERT, but are not sure what to expect. I for one am convinced that I should at least give the CERT class a chance, even though the manuals may be quite detailed.

Over the next several months I'll be doing various forms of training, including CERT, first aid, CPR/AED. Since Bill asked about the Red Cross course vs CERT's coverage of similar topics, I'll post a comparison after I'm done.

Edit:

I'm still planning to do ham radio. Some of you may remember my asking about it last year. Well, guys, it's still in the pipeline, but like most of us, I have a job and everything. So one step at a time.



Is life without ice cream worth living??? ;D

Since I first posed the question about CERT, let me try to answer it myself now that I've been through the CERT course. Was it worth it? Depends on what you're looking for.

The lectures in the course are long and dull. The content is not rocket science, and almost all the information can be found in the manual, available from the Citizen Corps website. People who are good at learning on their own could get through this more efficiently than sitting through the lectures. So, if you just want information and don't need someone to read it to you in order to learn it, you don't need to take the CERT course.

Moreover, much of the course material is CERT-oriented. Its main guideline is to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people in disasters of mass casualties. So that means you won't even learn CPR, which is something that CERT is not supposed to do. They'd rather have you save five people in the same amount of time it may take to save one person with CPR, which can take a while. I also think some of the CERT operational parameters have to do with legal concerns. Deploying civilians in disasters probably gets some government lawyers very worried. So CERT wants to limit what its team members are allowed to do.

The hands-on exercises were more useful, especially for relatively inexperienced people. They were trivial for those with prior training (as EMT, SAR, etc.). Again, don't go to CERT just to learn techniques for opening airways or for bandaging wounds. There are far better courses for this sort of stuff, even though this was what attracted me to CERT in the first place (free training!). You'd get a lot more from a Red Cross course, and certainly a lot more hands-on experience.

CERT can vary quite a bit by location. Some people have reported getting free equipment (the CERT pack with about $120 worth of contents). I didn't, because my county ran out of backpacks, and the next round of funding hasn't arrived yet. (That means I'm not so useful if a disaster strikes -- I'm willing to volunteer, but I would like to be outfitted, rather than having to spend hundreds of dollars of my own money.) I got a print out of the manual with a nice binder, but that's not worth 20 hours of my life.

So did I regret going to CERT? No, at the end it was worth my while, though it could have been better.

I learned from my teammates. Some are into HAM radio and electronics. Others are experienced with long-term preparation. And some have search-and-rescue, firefighting, or military commanding experiences. It was highly instructive for me to see the more experienced people analyze the potential problems in an operation -- immensely more useful than the official CERT curriculum, which I regard as a mixture of common sense, basic aid, and legal/operational concerns. Those who had held commanding positions in the military really knew how to orchestrate complex operations in disasters. These guys would be very effective at running CERT.

The course concludes with a disaster simulation, and it was well-done. The instructors got permission to stage the simulation at the training building for the local firehouse. We had a good number of well-trained victims, in addition to an assortment of mannequins. I was impressed by the variety of situations they were able to work into a single hour. That includes: baby in a wreckage, people trapped in a house, person trapped under a collapsed wall in a narrow passageway, victims with various sorts of wounds (including ones hidden from sight), confused foreign tourists, etc. This took a lot of work to set up, so kudos to CERT!

My team had trouble coordinating and prioritizing. As a part of the simulation, we each arrived on scene separately, sometimes alone, sometimes with a buddy. Getting an assessment of the situation and figuring out what you need to do is not instinctive when the disaster looks big and there are people crying out for help. Coordinating without some sort of radio communication was also really hard, since we were dispersed over an area. This can get into the way of a team's work. Besides these crucial factors, the rest were mostly individual errors and inexperience.

It wasn't a stressful environment, I have to say, not that we would have been ready for real stress. The simulation felt like acting. A bit on the fake side. But obviously even this simulation was challenge enough for a new team. So it was a good learning experience that gave me a view of what it's like to be a responder in a disaster.

I appreciate most of all the opportunity to get involved in the community's emergency management. At the end, this is probably what you should CERT for -- to be a part of the effort that might save your neighborhood/city/state. In my view, CERT is still a developing program. Right now they're training people and forming individual teams, but it looks like they still face the challenge of coordinating all these civilians who, might I add, have many other life priorities, keeping the teams together, motivated, up-to-date and competent in their training.

What kind of continuing training/education does your CERT team have?

Thanks for that summary, Bingley. I think most of us who have gone through similar training can relate to a lot of what you noticed. I think CERT is a gateway, a stepping stone. It's like Emergency Response 101 that everyone needs to take to graduate, and for those who are more interested and want to "major" in it, there are always more in depth classes/experiences out there afterwards.

And even in the same city, I'm sure that CERT or CERT-like training can vary considerably over time because I suspect that most instructors change every time the courses are offered. Let's face it, not everyone is a good instructor but all it takes is one great one to really make you appreciate the experience (especially if the material is new to you). Or just the luck of who your classmates are can make a huge difference, too.

The people who run CERT here are having us do some of the FEMA web courses. Many of them seem to be concerned more with organization than skills needed in the field. I'm still looking through them:

http://training.fema.gov/IS/crslist.asp?page=2

Anyone doing these, too?

I've done a number of them and frankly they're lame. But we needed them to maintain our funding. Our Admin committee chair believes that we need to continue getting these to make sure we're covered against lawsuits.

Thanks for the follow-up Bingley. It's become apparent that CERT training is different around the country. We had CPR training, but the end-of-course exercise was no where near as involved as yours.

As far as continuation training, our community holds 2 "exercises"/yr and 2 indoor training sessions. The head of our team has, over the years, gotten the community management involved and supportive of CERT, including a line item in the budget to purchase supplies/equipment. We have 2 trailers that come out for each exercise and/real world situations. One acts as a untility trailer carrying gear, our generator, etc. The larger one acts as the comm center and carries the CERT Team kits (first aid, radios, etc), as well as replacement medical supplies, hard hats, etc. Prior to an exercise/actual event (likely a hurricane) these are prepositioned near the community center and chained down, ready for us when needed. The last indoor training involved CPR, a review of the first aid kits, and a couple of stations including infection control and bandaging.

I have my ham license, so I can fill any team position since I'm a trained CERT person. I have taken IS100 and will likely take more FEMA courses as time goes by. I agree with chaosmagnet about them being "lame." Not the most challenging courses. Just takes time.

Forgot to mention -- one thing that bugged me about my CERT course was the small-town mentality that surfaced from time to time: "We've gotta be careful of outsiders coming to our town off the highway exit." No kidding -- one of the instructors said something to this effect. I wonder what makes the crimes committed by local residents more acceptable than those committed by these highway travelers. Not that any of this is a concern of CERT. On the other hand, I was impressed they included someone to play a lost foreign tourist during the disaster simulation.

I guess I'll do a the FEMA course to see how lame it is. The local CERT office wants us to go through them, probably partly for the legal reasons, but also partly to keep us occupied while providing us with some sort of continuing training. I really would prefer a lot more hands-on stuff or disaster simulations.

My location is trying to solve two problems, among others: (1) how to equip the teams (now that we're out of grant money, we don't have the CERT kit/bag to take home); (2) how to maintain communication after the lines go down (it looks like quite a few people want to get their HAM license). Also, I am getting the feeling CERT's role in disaster management may be somewhat undefined. There is a concern that other responders/agencies won't know what CERT is. This seems like an organizational problem that shouldn't be too hard to solve, so what's the hold up?

We do have a trailer, like Bill's team. But the trailer gear seems more oriented towards teaching. We are talking about getting team gear. I'm a bit miffed that the previous CERT teams have mostly disappeared, taking their govt-funded kits with them. They should really return this stuff if they want to leave.

I'm looking for further training opportunities. I'm finishing the Red Cross First Aid/CPR/AED course for professional rescuers. I'm going to do wilderness first aid. I can do an EMT course, but I don't know anything about it. Is the information generally applicable (like first aid), or do I pretty much need to be around an ambulance to make use of the knowledge taught in such a course?

I'm a bit miffed that the previous CERT teams have mostly disappeared, taking their govt-funded kits with them. They should really return this stuff if they want to leave.

[/quote]The philosophy in my area is a it different. Our instructor mentioned that they were in "catch and release" mode - train people, give them some equipment and they will be able to assist in a big disaster. They are thinking about civilian aid during a major disaster (like a severe earthquake) when the pros are overwhelmed and local amateur efforts are the only assistance available for many victims.

I can't say I was impressed with the gear provided. We got a rather small backpack, a cheap hard hat (more useful for identification than for protection), a high visibility vest (good item!, one cheap disposable mask (not even N95), and a decent pair of gloves. Most ludicrous of all was a clunky incandescent D-cell flashlight with cheap alkaline batteries (a sure leakomatic). My second string EDC is better than that.

I have done some mild upgrades to the equipment, providing a chin strap for the helmet, which will be good for identification, at least. I will also bring a personal helmet if I am in a situation where I need decent pro. I also scrapped up some real N95 masks and stuck them in the pack. We do have annual training exercises and I plan to attend.

This is interesting. Here they are adamant that we are not to do anything without being activated. In other words, we have to receive an order as a team before we can do anything. During the course, they were emphatic that we cannot self-deploy. (I assume the reasons were as much legal as logistical.) So the catch-and-release model would probably be totally out under this command structure.

Also, apparently one team was composed of college students from a fraternity. I guess once they graduated and moved away, the gear disappeared with them. I only hope they'll get involved in the CERT of their new locations.

The local office of emergency management tries to stay in touch with all CERT teams, but some have dwindled to just one person, and some team leaders have gone incommunicado or disappeared, and consequently they have been replaced.

I agree with you about the gear. I do feel that if we're willing to put in the time and possibly put ourselves in the way of danger, they should outfit us, preferably with decent gear. Each team member needs his/her own backpack with stuff. But each team should also have some gear, too, especially if we're expected to do cribbage and such. Don't we need our own water supply & food as well?

The kit I trained with had the same stuff you complain about: subpar hardhat, flimsy mask & goggles, dated flashlights, debilitatingly oversized gloves, not to mention the lack of a real compass and a knife. On the other hand, I did notice improvement from one generation of gear to the next, so some people are working on this. The newer backpacks, for example, are more efficient than the older style. (Or at least they look more efficient. I trained with the older one.)

One thing I do know: I need to add a belt-mounted small fixed blade. I ended up using my folder a lot, and it's a pain to draw, open, use, then close and "reholster" every other minute.

My comments here are my own and are not reflective of any official stance by Emergency Management. I have posted before regarding the role of CERT and my limited expectations of utilizing CERT resources. I would view CERT as a community/neighborhood effort to help out neighbors immediately after a major event which may overwhelm First Responders in accessing your neighborhood.

Pete

As you say, working on our own to provide assistance to our neighbors after a disaster is a big part of our mission. A second part of our mission is to provide a trained force of volunteers to supplement first responders, such as for search efforts and operating shelters.

Another big part of our mission is to conduct training and outreach to help our neighbors prepare for disaster, and so lessen their reliance on first responders.

The problem I have with any utilization as a supportive supplement to search and rescue operations, is I have no idea if you really have the necessary training, equipment and physical stamina to be of benefit and not a liability. For example there are Firefighters that I would be hesitant to utilize because they do not have the proper training. At best I might use them to move rubble piles, haul equipment, check buildings/homes that have no apparent damage, but I will not put them into situations for which they do not have proper training, to do so is asking for injuries or worse. To feel secure in utilizing personnel in an urban/suburban environment post event, I would want to make sure they have at least the minimum amount of training that is expected of our personnel. At minimum, this includes Firefighter I (108 hrs), First Responder (40hrs), Rescue Technician (27hrs), Structural Collapse Technician (80hrs) plus all of the various FEMA ICS (100, 200, etc.) courses. These courses along with at least quarterly training and an annual medical clearance (complete physical including stress test and N95 fit test) are required to ensure the individual can function and not be a liability. In my justification, all team members are volunteer (we have career members, but as part of the team, they do so as volunteers) and it can be a challenge to recruit and retain members for the once or twice in a lifetime call. Fortunately, we also perform water and mountain rescues, of which we get enough to hold onto members.

Pete

Man, I would agree with this - I don't know any CERT training course that anticipates CERT participating in first responder activities - that requires training that CERT doesn't provide.

I think that at the extreme, in terms of S&R and First Aid, CERT can act as what I call 1 Hour responders, which are persons who dig into rubble in the hours immediately after a major event when First Responders are overwhelmed and unavailable. It is neighbor attempting to rescue neighbors, and family rescuing family members: it will go on regardless of the availability of trained response, so CERT at least gives its trainees some of the knowledge necessary to perform a safe and timely rescue. Some knowledge, but not all - you need the training that Paramedicpete describes to know what to do and what not to do. Family going after family however tend to blow away all the training and safety, and families are more likely to enter unsafe structures in an attempt to save lives of family members. Some lives will be lost if members of the public and/or CERT engage in light S&R, that's a fact, but maybe not as many as assumed. In the meantime, some studies are showing that rescues in those first hours after a disaster can save lives.

The same can be said about rendering first aid - you can only practice to the extent of your training and licensure. I might pull a victim from underneath a collapsed structure, but I can't do very much for their crush injuries except triage, and maybe immobilize and alert actual medical assistance for help.

I am a couple zip codes over from the municipality where I took my CERT training years ago - in the event of a major EQ, I'm not reaching for my lime green CERT vest and helmet and organizing with other CERTs, they are few in our city. I'm pulling out my garbage can full of pry bars and wood blocks for cribbing and blocking, and possibly putting that to use. And my bags full of bandages, triangle bandages, 4x4s, tape, gloves, and tarps, and attempting triage of wounded. The 'best' disasters will be when I look a little foolish for being prepared - but no way can I provide the same assistance that an actual First Responder can give. The 'worst' will be when I put all this stuff to use to the extent of my training.

Any of us who have firefighter training are likely either firefighters (and with their departments) or retired and likely don't have the physical capabilities they'd need to do your kind of work.

Moving rubble piles, hauling equipment, check buildings/homes that have no apparent damage, those are the sorts of things we can do. We can also assist in search efforts outdoors or in large (undamaged or lightly damaged) buildings.

One of my jobs as a team leader is to articulate our capabilities to first responders who may not know them, and to be able to say no if we're asked to do things we aren't trained or equipped to handle.

I forgot to mention: We can triage the wounded in a mass casualty event, sending the red tags to the professionals and taking care of the yellow and green tags ourselves.

In the event of a disaster (think EQ) our training sets clear priorities - first yourself, then family, then neighbors, and then try and form up as some sort of green helmeted entity. I can visualize green hard hats clawing their way out of the rubble and gradually forming themselves into coherent teams.

I think CERT makes sense in that after a major disaster, there will be attempts by the public at self rescue- training the general public can only improve the quality of the efforts and reduce the toll, especially when you consider the alternative - just do nothing and let John Q. Public fend for himself.

Pete,

Although I understand your concerns, I would disagree strongly with you about the usefulness of these programs. This attitude takes me back to 911 when ARC turned down volunteers to help passing out water bottles - they were not ARC certified! Should you send a CERT team into a badly damaged multi-story building? Of course not, but there will be lots of places you can use them. You have included several of them in your discussion. Can they carry timbers to the scene of first responders doing a rescue? Certainly. Food and water distribution, walk or carry survivors to triage areas. All these and many more are well within their capabilities and reduce the load on the professionals. Many more are within their capabilities under the supervision of a well trained person. They are a force multiplier and can allow the use of the trained personnel for only those situations where their training is needed.

I have been on many wild land fires and major disasters where the availability of untrained volunteers was a great help. CERT training would have made them even more useful. The professionals need to plan on how to include them and use them as their training allows. Just remember that their CERT training may not be the only thing they bring to the party.

Respectfully,

Jerry

Jerry,

I do believe the program is useful and productive. I believe the greatest benefit is in helping out neighbors immediately following a disaster and performing those functions that mitigate potentially further damage, such as turning off utilities, clearing undamaged structures of injured individuals, helping with communications and probably a whole host of non-hazardous assistance.

The problem I have is with “A second part of our mission is to provide a trained force of volunteers to supplement first responders, such as for search efforts”. Many of you who have taken the course have indicated in your own posts there is significant diversity of training, equipment provided and expectations from community to community and course to course. This is enough for me to take pause as to whether or not to use you to supplement First Responders. Even your example of moving timbers, something that would seem relatively benign can lead to issues. Do you have the proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), such as steel toed boots, leather gloves, long sleeved shirt and pants, a proper helmet that will not fall off your head? Do you have any acute or chronic injuries that could be exacerbated if you are lifting heavy timbers? Do you know how to lift heavy timbers? If you get hurt or your actions result in someone else getting hurt, what is the liability in using you? Have you undergone a criminal background check? Can I leave you to search a residence that may contain valuables without worry? These are questions and concerns that would, in my mind limit the areas in which I would feel comfortable using you as a supplemental resource under my direction.

Lono indicated: “By comparison, the CERT training I took was not intended to create a force of CERT trainees who get called out together to support first responders - it was intended more for individuals who might be stuck in the first 72 hours without first responders present.” and “if the Big One strikes, the first responders won't be in your neighborhood for at least 72 hours, you will be on your own, so you should focus on rescue and care of your family and immediate neighbors, and our overall training reflected those needs.” and “the last organized function I recall was to fill sandbags and keep flood water from encroaching on a non-critical structure - a city park building.”

Chaosmagnet listed: “Moving rubble piles, hauling equipment, check buildings/homes that have no apparent damage, those are the sorts of things we can do. We can also assist in search efforts outdoors or in large (undamaged or lightly damaged) buildings.”

Again, I do appreciate everyone’s efforts, it takes time to obtain the training and do believe the program has merit. Just don’t be surprised or offended if you show up after an event and First Responders are somewhat hesitant to utilize or integrate you into or under their operations.

I would like to hear more real world examples both from CERT members and various First Responders who have responded to events in which CERT members have been utilized and what their experiences have been.

Pete

I would agree with Jerry Fountain. I have seen many situations where non-First Responders productively aided the operations. On one memorable occasion my very own DD, all of thirteen years old, was part of a crew of untrained volunteers that pulled on the rope of a Z rig as we brought out the remains of a drowning victim at the end of a very long, dramatic, and deadly day. On another occasion, three of us guided and provided OJT for about ten hikers and climbers as we lowered a stretcher and victim about two hundred feet to a LZ over non-trivial terrain. Their actions were quite competent.

I also recall vividly the time I violated protocol, firing a line gun to place a rope across a flooding stream and secure two victims stranded on a sloping rock by a classic southwestern "wall of water" flood. Normally one of the deputies who were present on virtually every operation would have handled the line gun, but they were both on the other side of the canyon when the water came down, quite out of the picture. I figured I was the closest thing to a trained individual with access to the appliance (I had a LE commission in the NPS at the time, and reasonable firearms training) so I stepped up and pulled the trigger, so to speak. It was a clear violation of the policies then in force but the ladies were rescued successfully.

I would say that untrained individuals can materially assist emergency operations, but proper oversight and supervision is absolutely necessary.

As a member of an active and vigorous mountain SAR group for several years, I was struck at how often the diverse occupations of the group contributed to greater effectiveness. We had members who were physicians, mathematics professors, biochemists, engineers, students, and even an archaeologist or two. One of our most stalwart members was a dendrochronologist (ten bonus points if you can identify what he did). What we shared was a common interest in the outdoors and in aiding others. The different occupational specialties often provided novel approaches and solutions

Dendrochronologist= Age dater by way of Teeth/Bones

You've confused Latin with Greek. You're thinking of dens (stem dent-), tooth in Latin. This word here is Greek: dendron (stem dendr-), and it means tree.

Some CERT folks know the classical languages -- otherwise whom will you rely on when you come across a warning like "liberate tutamet ex inferis"? (Extra points for those who can identify the right movie. Incidentally, the script misspelled one Latin word.)

Hikermor, you're talking apples and oranges. Around here SAR are the first responders in wilderness areas, and are also used for urban search missions. They are well-trained and well-equipped. They pass criminal background checks. They have ongoing training as a requirement to continue doing SAR. Depending on the SAR unit, I believe most are credentialed. We can rely on SAR to do things like set up a helicopter landing zone, safely splint a broken leg, and they are trusted to evacuate the deceased with dignity. Whether CERT volunteers can do any of these is a matter of luck or occasional training, but CERT itself doesn't train or prepare its volunteers to perform such functions.

What you did in the water rescue example was done in exigent circumstances, a good call when going outside of protocol appeared necessary to save lives. Well done - I'm positive everyone was glad it worked out, especially the rescued.

In an earlier thread I expressed some surprise that civilians were actually assisting with a cribbing operation over fire hoses around a plane crash in MD. Pictures don't tell the whole story of anything, but laying blocks for a fire rig isn't a task that I would expect civilians to do, even under supervision. Hauling the blocks from the rig to the hoses sure. Definitely I wasn't there, so no way would I second guess the responders, they definitely had a quite active scene and lots bigger fish to fry. Nothing wrong per se, but it does tend to stand out.

First responders are right to be skeptical of CERT and similar training. As cautious as we may be, we make (more) mistakes in following protocols, and even in our own safety. I did that the other day when responding to a fire scene for the Red Cross, coming straight from a trip to Home Depot, I was wearing tennis shoes and not my boots that I put on when going out on every other fire call (and my spare pair wasn't in my vehicle, which is another story). I had to enter the structure to do a damage assessment / walk-thru - the fire fighter noticed my tennis shoes, and reminded me that they wore steel shanked boots to protect themselves, and in this particular fire I should probably go no further than a specific area. There's a first time for everything, and that was my first fire scene in unprotected tennis shoes. I felt like a piker. My co-responder was actually dressed in flip flops! Basically I was only one nail away from adding to the disaster rather than responding to it.

Lono, Pete:

I don't think we are that far apart, just taking a Half-Full, half-empty view. My major point is that many professional groups do not PLAN for the use of untrained or less well trained personell and therefore do not use them or misuse them to their own detriment. In my mind there should be a plan to use all available resources, from semi professional (SAR, CAP, NG, etc.) to those with some training to those without any training. Disasters are, by definition, too big for the local first responders. Getting as many as possible trained to whatever level you can and preparing to use them is good planning.

Since CERT is a local project, normally run by a local professional group (often apparently the local FD), those first responders in an area should know what the level of training is and have a plan on how they will utilize those resources.

CERT is, as several pointed out, also very importantly about taking care of themselves and their neighbors until first responders get there.

Respectfully,

Jerry

I think Jerry has it right. While I haven't any direct experience with CERT, my understanding is that it is meant for extreme and extraordinary circumstances.

Most agencies do occaisional training for catastrophic events with mass casualties. For example here in Anchorage in June there will be a simulated airliner crash at the airport. This will give the Fire Dept and others the chance to practice responding to a big event, well beyond the usual. Good training, no doubt, but the assumption in this kind of drill is usually that the basic response system is intact. And that help could be summoned from off duty personel and from neighboring agencies.

However, there can be situations when our regular official trained agencies are overwhellmed. For example consider a M9 earthquake under LA, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, or Anchorage. Not only could damage be very widespread, but many of the official responders themselves might be casualties. Not all firehouses are built to withstand a major quake. In this case, the Fire Dept could be totally overwhelmed. Help from official sources could be many hours, or more likely days in coming.

In regards to Pete's and other's comments regarding CERT people not having comparable training to professional firefighters, or lacking OSHA/NFPA complient gear, the point is that in extreme circumstances people will respond anyway, to do what they can with what they have. In this case even minimal training is better than no training. And I think Jerry's point is well taken that agencies should give some thought and do some pre-planning as to how they might utilize those semi-trained CERT folks in extreme circumstances.

Like hikermor I have seen some instances of untrained people being successfully used in emergencies. Some years back we had a highly publicized search for two young boys. They had disapeared from their neighborhood which bordered on a large, very wild park area. This was during a period of serious cold weather with little or no snow. A major search was stood up using all of the available trained volunteer SAR people. As the search hit the news, large numbers of the general public came out to "help" search. This, of course complicated our efforts. Many of these people were rather poorly equipped for the conditions, were not "clue conscious", made it harder for the search dogs, etc etc. However, the point was that there was absolutely no practical way to stop them from going out. What we ended up doing was forming them into teams led by our trained folks. The team leaders gently but firmly weeded out those who were grossly unprepared. They impressed on people the importance of working as a team, and following the plan set by the IC. While it didn't work perfectly, and there were some inevitable problems, overall it went pretty good. None of the ad-hoc searchers became casualties themselves. (Sadly, the two boys were eventually found, under the ice, in a small pond very near their house.)

Since then, there have been a couple of major avalanche body recoveries where we have used large numbers of untrained public in probe lines. There has been some realization in the SAR comunity that we ought to do some training and pre-planning for using this kind of untrained resource. Unfortunately, up to this point this has been all talk. I'm hopefull that one of these days, we (official agencies and volunteer SAR teams) will take some concrete steps to better prepare for instances where we use untrained public to help, since these situations will surely occur again.

I would agree that professional First Responders are properly skeptical of civilians with CERT-level training. It was constantly stressed in our course that the subject just discussed for the past half hour was frequently the focus for extensive courses, often weeks long, for professional personnel. When the professional units are functioning and coping, civilians should only play a minor role - after all, their tax dollars are doing beneficial work. It is when the pros are overwhelmed that CERTs need to do whatever they can.

One reason I was drawn to the CERT training was the realization that, although I am quite comfortable with outdoor and wilderness situations (at least in the Western US), I am much less knowledgeable about the hazards present in the urban scene. I still have a lot to learn, but the brief exposure in CERT certainly opened my eyes a bit.

AKSAR, there must be some pertinent incidents from the massive 60s era earthquake that struck Alaska. I am also reminded of the rule of thumb that frequently just as many people die in post hurricane clean up efforts as perish in the actual 'cane itself. Would CERT training or something similar help here?

It seems people in this thread have interpreted in different ways what it means for CERT to "supplement" the first responders. The CERT training manual can offer clarification:



Some posters say, well, after a disaster, people are going to help anyway, so CERTs are OK even though they are less qualified than professional responders. I don't entirely agree with the logic. There are certain useful things that people with organization and training (even if not a lot) can do safely, if they know their limitations. So it's not the case that there will be no standard anyway, so you guys with poor training can do whatever you want. I'd say CERTs should stick to the things they can do, and avoid the things they can't do and the things that will put them or others in danger.

My main complaint is with the training. The course I went through really didn't have enough hands-on exercises. People aren't going to be able to do things months or possibly years after the class, without actual exercises to drill in the skills. They will also need regular reviews a few times a year. Otherwise it's hard for me to see how they will (1) retain the knowledge about the stuff they're supposed to do, and (2) avoid doing stupid things in times of stress.

I'm actually worried about this. This is the flaw of a volunteer, civilian, community-based program. People have varying degrees of commitment, they drop in and out. The funding is limited, so the trainers obviously do not have a full-time job of coming up with training opportunities.

On a pertinent note, the course I took emphasizes what we can't do/should stay away from. This annoyed some people for whom this meant they would not be able to use the training they received in other spheres of their lives (firefighting, military, etc.). But it makes sense to me because CERT has to work for the lowest common denominator.

If I have to sum up my feelings, this is what I have to say. From what I've seen, CERT is a work in progress, and I'm sure its definition and interaction with the professional responders will change as it develops.

By the way, someone earlier mentioned that CERTs could haul lumber. That's kind of a surprise to me, and it actually sounds to me like outside of what CERT does. But maybe this is a reflection of the differences in training.

One final thought. I don't get why CERT puts so much emphasis on documentation. We have lots of forms to fill out, and we have to fill them out for the victims we treat in disasters, the houses we search, etc. There's gotta be something legal going on. Pete mentions that searchers should have a criminal background check, otherwise they cannot be trusted to go through houses with valuables after a disaster. I wonder whether this is a way to address this concern without going through the expenses of a background check.

Pete: for examples of CERT actually doing stuff, see "CERT in Action" on the Citizen Corps website: <http://www.citizencorps.gov/cert/certinaction/index.shtm>.

As I said before, I've had no direct association with CERT. However, I have had a good deal of experience as a member of, and working with other volunteer SAR teams. I happen to think volunteerism is a good thing. This thread has made me more curious about CERT.

That seems to be the case, from what I've seen. As others have noted, CERT seems to vary a lot from place to place (and change over time). This is fairly typical of volunteer SAR teams as well. Much depends on the motivation and commitment of members. It also helps when there are actual real world call outs from time to time. I was chatting with a member of another volunteer team in our area, and he observed that there is a happy medium of call-out volume. Too few call-outs and people get bored and loose their motivation to maintain training. Too many call-outs and folks get burned out, and tired of taking time off from work.

How often and in what capacity a volunteer team (of any sort) gets used will depend a lot on what sort of relationship has been built up with the local official first response (FD and LE). Here in Alaska we live in a vast land with few people, and an environment that can be severe. Local authorities are spread very thin, and Alaskans have a long history of volunteerism. I've been told that the Denali CERT team (based up in Healy near Denali National Park) works with the NPS rangers with searches in the park. Down on the Kenai, South of Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula CERT seems to be very active, are trying to obtain grants for some significant equipment (eg. portable shelters), and are becoming part of the local response scene. See their newsletter.

It is possible the paperwork is more to help the Incident Management Team do their job. They can't properly allocate resources unless they know which areas have already been searched. Incident management requires a two way flow of information. ICS can involve a lot of forms. When I first got involved as a volunteer SAR responder I tended to think ICS wasn't that important. And I'd be the first to admit that ICS classes are rather boring.

It is true that in a small incident you can get by with a minimal command structure. But once an incident grows beyond a certain size, or goes into multiple operational periods, the command structure becomes crucial. After having experienced a few major events I've learned just how crucial it is that the Incident Management Team does a good job. As I get older and slower climbing the hills, I'm transitioning more into IMT roles. Awhile back I completed ICS-300, which was useful, but not that exciting. More recently I completed MLPI (Managing the Lost Person Incident). It was intense, and interesting. Hopefully it will help us do a better job in future incidents.

It goes back to the premise of CERT, do the greatest good for the greatest number (and then move on). I think alot of people resist that notion on a personal level - both because their needs may go unaddressed, and because they don't want an objective unemotional decision to be made about allocation of resources after a disaster. Most of the folks in CERT get that, but not everyone.

Yes, CERTs can haul lumber, such as to a cribbing site to effect rescue, or on request of the FD to crib or bridge a fire hose. Hauling lumber is a matter of picking up and putting it down where its needed. Its akin to filling and stacking sandbags - it makes sense if you have someone knowledgeable about where and how to stack sandbags to prevent water incursion. What you do with the lumber may depend: are you without first responders, but extracting an injured person from beneath a collapsed wall? Is the scene safe? CERT says, go ahead and crib and get the person out of there. If the FD is there, drop your lumber, get out of the way, and await additional instructions. You may have saved everyone valuable time by hauling lumber to where its needed, but you might waste the time away if you get in the way or attempt a rescue outside your training.

Paperwork / documentation. There does seem to be lots of it, because rescue situations are involved, and CERT anticipates that you may be involved in dozens of rescue situations before first responders arrive. Things not documented will be forgotten. Every house that your CERT team ventures into to check for injured has to be documented - or the first responders will have to do it again. Every victim with injuries should be documented, or the EMTs and ERs will have to start from scratch understanding their patients. Competent searchers and competent medical rescue can save first responders precious, live-saving time. Ad hoc or untrained CERTs who go cowboy and go out and do alot of SAR but don't document their path through their neighborhood will leave the arriving IC with a dilemma: do I send fire fighters out to re-do the SAR in an area, or do I use them to continue the SAR in another, unexplored area? Documentation is key: a CERT leader is responsible for ensuring that they make an effective light SAR, such that victims aren't left undetected in rooms, or garages, or underneath partially collapsed structures. And - they have to document it, as best they can.

When you finished CERT, did you print out an area map of your neighborhood, and document the location of gas and water shut offs, electrical lines, and possibly the location of the elderly, MDs, heavy equipment operators etc etc? In Washington State they have a great program called Map Your Neighborhood which dovetails with CERT training really well: go door to door, explain your interest, and that you want to organize the neighborhood to ensure everyone can be accounted for and assisted after a disaster. You document the shut offs, meet your neighborhoods, and tell them what to expect - knock on the door for starters, to make sure they are ok. I did this for the surrounding 2 blocks, and it was an eye opener - most neighbors were very gracious, many thought I and my brother (a neighbor) bordered on the slightly nuts, and a few took us to be akin to door to door salemen, and shut the door on us. Interesting bit, when I told them that in the event of a serious disaster such as a major EQ, we would be marking the outside of each structure with the code indicating that it had been searched or not (you all saw the search documentation protocol in Katrina), at least a dozen took signficant issue with that - "don't mark up my house!"

Anyway, back to CERT relevance: you keep the neighborhood map, you document your searches, and when the FD arrives, you hand it to the IC (better yet, your neighborhood IC hands it to the incoming FD IC, along with triage and medical reports etc etc), and you provide a debrief on the extent of searches, and what areas weren't fully searched, and probably will require another look. You tell them where you found victims moved to triage, you tell them where you left victims beneath rubble, and you tell them where the deceased are. Probably most important, you've documented your search, you are able to relate this to actual street addresses, and by the exterior markings you left on the front door or outer structure. The FD can deploy rescuers where needed. What happens next is up to the IC, but most will look at your work and consider it accomplished, and deploy resources elsewhere as first priority. Because you have been comparing map to map, and the IC is able to mark off areas on his map as if (for the most part) his FFs did teh search. Or so our local FD Lt told us during CERT training.

That's the ideal anyway, but seldom the reality with CERT. I've never seen a local CERT train to assess a neighborhood situation after a disaster: I think it would be a good training exercise after the final mock training in the CERT training.

Ah, this is where it gets interesting. Is it your understanding that the forms we fill out will go to the first responders? Have you been explicitly told that? My team discovered that the forms will go up the chain of command, but does not go to the first responders. We were told this is not an example of causing more work for people. For example, medical responders will evaluate the victims from scratch anyway, because CERT assessment and treatment, being of a amateur skill level, cannot be relied upon. My team was frustrated by this policy, because that makes documentation somewhat pointless except for legal/political reasons. The forms are more about controlling the CERT teams, less about helping the victims.

What you say above (and below in a paragraph I do not quote) indicates your area is run differently. Very interesting.



No. My team has members drawn from different counties, and we "cover" those counties, along with a number of other CERTs. We can also get sent to regions in the state that don't belong to us. Some of my team members live more than an hour away from me, so obviously we don't have the same "neighborhood." One of the things we have to worry about is how to find a meeting point after a disaster, when communication is down, roads/road signs might be damaged, and the deployment location may be so rural that it does not have a useful address. So it sounds like your CERT program is much more neighborhood-based? That seems like a good idea.

The most sobering concept I encountered in CERT training was the triage protocol- if the victim's airway is occluded, make two attempts to open it. If unsuccessful, drop a black tag and move on. Do not attempt CPR in the overwhelming disaster to which this protocol applies. Think about it a bit - it makes perfect sense. Our instructor pointed out that CPR requires massive application of resources for what is typically an unsuccessful outcome. He stated that he had been present at something like 300 CPR scenes, and had witnessed or participated in exactly seven successful resuscitations.

The level of training achieved in the initial CERT course is well short of mapping neighborhoods, although I have been paying much more attention to electrical lines and the like following training. It should be interesting to see how the CERT concept evolves and matures in the future; doubtless it will be more successful in some jurisdictions (especially those prone to EQ?) than in others.

It is worth mentioning that CERT is not the only pool of "semi-pro" resources available to First Responders in a massive disaster. In our county, many county employees are designated as Disaster Service Workers. For specific tasks, they, and their equipment, will be extremely helpful.

In my course, somebody (a wise guy, I suppose) raised the question: what if everyone is fine except for one little girl who needs CPR? Well, we can't do CPR as CERT, the answer came back, if even you knew how to do it.

I would have to say that is an extremely absurd answer, because the question poses the typical rescue situation, a small number of victims and lots of rescuers. In that case, I would doff my CERT green hard hat pretty quick. But then the question poses a non-CERT type situation.

I personally have had very consistent results at CPR. Both of my victims were DOA. But one victim received CPR for over an hour (pupils were undilated and his color was good) as our team worked in relays to render aid. Our victim had suffered a witnessed and massive attack and was essentially dead when he hit the ground. CPR definitely does suck up resources.....

Let me disabuse you of a few of your preconceptions here:

- that you will be convening with your CERT team. What team do you mean exactly? The CERT team I trained with lives 3 zip codes over, in another city. In a disaster, I won't be able to get there from here. If my town had a CERT program, we would be spread over miles of territory. The idea that we could cover any one of our chosen neighborhoods in something less than 72 hours is a fallacy. No, we are on our own in a disaster, unless we organize our immediate neighborhoods - then we have a chance of local response.

- that you may join up spontaneously with CERT trained people in your neighborhood and effect a successful search for victims. Really? Where are all the hidden CERTS in your neighborhood today? If they were easily identifiable, you would be able to locate CERT trained people in your immediate neighborhood - talk ahead of time, and plan a response. 99% of CERTS don't pursue this. The fact is there are few if any CERT trained individuals in your neighborhood. I defy you to name three in your immediate neighborhood. And claim that you have any planned response between you. what you want is a map of your neighborhood resources - folks who have chain saws and lift equipment to extricate the trapped, with EMT, nursing or MD experience to possibly establish an effective triage base. With heavy equipment operating experience, etc. And you want all these folks at home during a disaster, not off on their day jobs, and able to turn out and help in responding with you. Best of luck.

- the more you do ahead of a disaster, possibly the less you will need to do after. Knowing where the gas and water shut offs are for your neighbors may be the most productive use of your time in the first hour after a disaster - they won't have to burn alive. And knowing the circumstances under which you should shut them off would be the second. CERT rescue is predicated on two of you or more rescuing together. If you rescue, odds are you will be rescuing with untrained neighbors: can you go forward with untrained helpers, or do you know when to stop and save your own lives? CERT first aid is predicated upon the ability to deliver effective first aid. If you deliver first aid, odds are you will be doing it ad hoc - with spontaneous volunteers with either more training than your or less. Are you trained and equipped to assist with the likely injuries you'll encounter: burns, crush injuries, broken bones, shock, shock and more shock? You are better off with almost any off duty RN, EMT and the occasional MD from up the street than with any layman CERT volunteer. Without preparations you are not so very far advanced than the non-CERT trained who are combing the rubble for their families and friends.

Where are you located, in relation to your neighborhood response right now? Where are you located, in relation to your 'CERT team'? The probability is, you're pretty far from either. You may be alone in responding to a disaster with the skills you have now. You may be expected to rally frightened and untrained neighbors to respond to a disaster. You will be short of supplies, unless you think ahead. You won't know the capabilities of your neighbors unless you ask now, ahead of time. Your world as you know it should be the immediate six square blocks around you. If you can't concentrate on that, you're not doing what you are trained to do for CERT. You will have to get by with far from optimal team members with far from optimal training and supplies. And if you blow off all the paperwork and documentation required for rescue and assistance scenarios, you might as well go cowboy and go riding across the county looking for your CERT team. Because you've missed the point of local disaster assistance - making do with minimal means for the earliest hours. No wonder so many stay inside during a disaster...

I'm sorry - for most CERT 'teams' trained in US communtities, the immediate response post-disaster means you turning out to assist your family, and then, marginally, your community, meaning your neighborhood - because you typically won't turn out with other CERTS after a disaster. Not til the pertinent part of the disaster is passed. Because you, the CERT volunteer, while trained in "triage", don't currently have any real first aid training, or supplies, do you? And because you, the CERT volunteer, while trained in "search and rescue", don't have any of the equipment necessary to extricate someone from a collapsed structure - or the will to recognize when that structure isn't sound enough to safely spend the lives of your volunteers to attempt an extrication?

CERT training is full of contradictions, not the least of which is the fact that it instructs trainees in so much and does so little to equip them for eventualties. I think if you are smart, you will identify areas in which you are deficient in manpower, training and equipment, and work to overcome those as best you can. Meantime, be honest with yourself, and don't let your mild training dissuade you think you're ready for actual response.

Your message is very condescending, Lono. I was conveying the requirements and the parameters of the training I received, which is evidently significantly different from yours. These are not my own individual "preconceptions" (the word you're looking for is "misconception"), but the mandates of the emergency management that provided the CERT training. We're organized quite differently from whatever it is that you're doing over there. Not being able to pick that up just isn't too bright, is it?

Even though I find myself in agreement with some of your ideas, I cannot effect them here, because the office of emergency management runs CERT a certain way -- the way you evidently really do not like.

Until you (1) show some civility, and (2) read others' posts with a bit of care, you are not worth talking to. I'm not sure what's wrong with you at the moment, because you've made reasonable contributions before. If you are having a hard night for personal reasons, why take it out on the forum? I hope you feel better in the morning!

Bingley,

Thanks for the link, it helps to understand some of the activities that CERTs have been involved with and at least for me, sort of reinforces some of the roles that the CERTs would be useful to fill.

Pete

Bingley, I apologize if my post appeared condescending towards you, that was not my intent at all, I do apologize for that. No amount of smileys can apparently communicate when we are saying something without malice of thought towards others.

What I meant to communicate is: what is your CERT response plan, right now? Do you have an actual plan to get together with other CERT volunteers in the event of an emergency? Do you have supplies, are you equipped? Do you have CERT leadership capable of presenting a plan for CERT Volunteers? If the answer to any of these is No, then I submit, all the good stuff you learned in CERT hasn't been implemented yet. You still have to organize, and in typical CERT numbers available in communities, you will probably be organizing at the neighborhood level. That is both feasible and useful to do right now - you can Map Your Neighborhood, involving youth organizations like the Boy Scouts, and promote more CERT training and preparedness among your neighbors. And unless you organize a response and make it feasible to deploy in a disaster, its all only so much sunshine blown up our arseholes. You will become just another guy who took CERT training, a long time ago... that's swell, as far as it goes.