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>.