Use of FEMA task books for CAP qualifications?

[ammotrucker]

I know that this question is going to bring the wrath of this forum down on me, but the question is still pertinent.

While we are mandated to become ICS compliant, why is it that we still do not use the national standard of EMI All Hazards task books for our ratings?  Now I know that many will say we are our own organization and that the CAP task book work just fine, but it still does not set well with me that we are not fully complying with the mandate.

I work with different agencies on a daily basis, and have great respect for the men and women that do there jobs daily under these parameters, and I do not see CAP matching up in any way shape or form.  Now before you start condemning me, I understand that CAP is a volunteer organization, but shouldn't we still want our members to be fully compliant and just as professional as the next agency.  Yes, I know that we do not have all the bells and whistles that the cities, counties and states have to offer.  But, with accepting a rating on your CAPF 101 should you not be just as proficient as the next guy whether or not he is a paid professional as long as you have the same rating? 

I am the Interoperable Communications Training Coordinator for Florida DEM.  I am a CAP IC2.  Do I think that I am qualified to handle a non-CAP IC role in a Type 2 event?  Not in your lifetime. I know my limitations and I would never accept the job and I don't believe that any CAP member should be rated in a Type 1 / 2 positions, as we are not going to be placed in a situation of needing to be rated as a Type 1 or 2 anything on a non-CAP event. 

Now getting to the ratings of CAP members should we not also accept the NIMS rating system that would lower the ratings of our member to Type 3 / 4 / 5 to be more inline with what in reality is something we might be able to accomplish?  At least in the MBS positions?  Should we not want our COML to understand the same problems that the average first responder needs to deal with?  Some will say NO.  I disagree.

So bring on the criticism, and let get this issue in the open.

[SarDragon]

I think you are mistakenly equating the 1, 2, and 3 from CAP with the similarly numbered FEMA levels.

It is an accepted idea that CAP ICs will never be the HMFIC for any incident that has more than CAP personnel involved. CAP ICs control only CAP people, so a difference in titles between CAP and other organizations is not, IMO, significant.

[Mark_Wheeler]

Personally I use the LOGS position checklist so I don't miss things.

Mark

[RiverAux]

Alhtough they've only got these for a few positions, we probably should be looking at including as many of the tasks as actually make sense for CAP into our own requirements --- which haven't changed much since they were adopted in the early 2000s. 

And while CAP probably isn't going to IC too many situations, I think it is entirely possible that CAP members can and will fill supporting ICS positions, especially when dealing with local agencies.  For example, I know of incidents where CAP members served as ground branch directors and comm unit leaders for local agencies and were in charge of people from other agencies in those roles. 

[Larry Mangum]

A change to bring CAP Ratings, more inline with FEMA Resource Typing,was done awhile back, but got shelved for the time being. I can also tell you that it is still being discussed, but is competing with other requirements and priorities for the needed resources.

An example of what was looked at was going to 5 levels of IC's and there not being any 1 and very few 2's in CAP at all.

[RVT]

I think you are mistakenly equating the 1, 2, and 3 from CAP with the similarly numbered FEMA levels.

I think he's intentionally equating them, as I would also do.  Basically what I just read is that CAP incident commanders are not actually qualified to be incident commanders by anyone else's standard.  This is a fairly significant thing.

[RiverAux]

While I've said we should adopt what makes sense, I don't think we can assume that EVERYONE else is using those taskbooks either. 

[lordmonar]

What tasks books?

Everything that I have heard is that that specialty training is left up to the agency with jurisdiction.  FEMA has only mandated the ICS structure to help interoperability......they are not in the buisness of certiftying training as far as I know. 

I do think that yes we need to be professional in our training and we need to get involved with FEMA type rateing....But IIRC FEMA has not even finallised those yet.  And in the draft they still did not identify specific training requirments.  (at least for the Wilderness SAR and Airborn SAR qualifications).

If you think that CAP personnel should be as good and proficiant as "professional" people....well that is just not going to happen.  Like you said we are a volunteer organisation.  We will be a good as we can....but we will never be as good as someon who does this for a living.

Also remember....that we will only be one small part of the big picture.  Our IC's will only be and IC for a CAP operation.  Once it goes big we will be in charge of CAP air operations.....maybe....just maybe....we may be in charge of all air operations...but not very likely.

Same goes for the rest of the staff positions.  No need to train to run the next Katrina or Northern Japan Tsunami.....that just wastes our time.  Focus on the single-tripple plane SAR and 2-3 ground team SAR operations.  We do ICS so that if we ever get asked to help out on something bigger.....i.e. Katrina we talk the same language.....but we will never be in charge.

[EmergencyManager6]

I Think Bob is referring to the All Hazards certifications.

COML
COMT
COMC
PLANS Chief
Logistics Chief
Ops Chief
IC....and so on...

The certifications are classroom plus a taskbook similar to what CAP uses.  A type III certification is issued at the State Level, Type II and I are national certifications.

I have seen many CAP types flow through these classes and have a blank stare on their face the entire time.  I agree that if CAP wants to get in line with the rest of the world, that we look at sending some of our 'Squared Away' folks to the training.

Again, you have to attend the training and demonstrate to a qualified person in real and exercise environment that you are 'worthy' before getting signed off.

It would be a good thing for CAP personell, especially the ones who would interface with first responders to at least have an understanding of the task books. More and more we see CAP putting IC's and Liaisons on a mission that only know whats in the 'CAP bubble' and not how the 'real world' does.

[DH]

I think the question is a very good one, but it's not as simple a question as it sounds.
The question is, "While we are mandated to become ICS compliant, why is it that we still do not use the national standard of EMI All Hazards task books for our ratings?"

First, we have to consider that becoming ICS "compliant", does not necessarily mean becoming "capable" of assuming any given position in the ICS structure of another agency. It means understanding the system and being capable of working within the system. To address the issue requires you to address not only qualification but "Authority" and "Responsibility". It is vital that ES members understand the ICS structure and how actions flow in the structure, but within the working of various "support" agencies, training requirements, equipment, qualifications, and responsibilities vary greatly. Even with these variables, the ICS structure remains the same.

There are CAP members who have COML and others ratings and do function within an Incident Management Team for some State, and Federal agencies.

[RiverAux]

I have seen many CAP types flow through these classes and have a blank stare on their face the entire time. 

These classes that you speak of haven't been making their way out to the field very well.  My state emergency management agency has never advertised any such classes (and I pay close attention). 

FEMAs EMI schedule only has such position-specific classes being taught in 2 states in the next six months.  And only about 5 more in the next 6-12 months. 

So, I think we might assume that not many agencies at all are using them so I don't feel too bad that CAP hasn't junked our curriculum in favor of them just yet.

[ammotrucker]

I think you are mistakenly equating the 1, 2, and 3 from CAP with the similarly numbered FEMA levels.

It is an accepted idea that CAP ICs will never be the HMFIC for any incident that has more than CAP personnel involved. CAP ICs control only CAP people, so a difference in titles between CAP and other organizations is not, IMO, significant.

If you walked into a joint event that CAP had been invited to as a CAP member and that organization asked you what you where qualified in/as.  You would most likely state that in my case I am an IC2 for CAP.  Does this not give the impresson that I would be an IC Type 2 in regards to the system, do you think that every organization in the world has that sevier a mentality that they would not take something at face value? In the heat of pressure!

Again, I would rather see our positions Type rated in line with NIMS and the EMI FEMA stucture.  Wheather or not we were proffessional, simple because we do not/should not overinflate our egos. 

If a CAP member is a COML then he should be doing the eqivilant work of a EMI/FEMA rated COML or don't give him the rating!!!!!!

[RiverAux]

I think we need to keep in mind the context of how this might come up.  Every little podunk fire department with 20 members and a 30 year old fire truck has someone that calls themselves an IC and might have done the same 300/400 courses our IC has.  No one is going to ask or expect that person to be able to run a 500 person incident. 

Like I've said, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't move to incorporate what makes sense for CAP, but there is no need to go nuts trying to meet a "national standard" that isn't really "national" quite yet.

[ammotrucker]

  Every little podunk fire department with 20 members and a 30 year old fire truck has someone that calls themselves an IC and might have done the same 300/400 courses our IC has. 
Like I've said, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't move to incorporate what makes sense for CAP, but there is no need to go nuts trying to meet a "national standard" that isn't really "national" quite yet.

Maybe the fact that we are a Nationally Recognised Organization should have some bearing on the arguement - As we are not a prudunk organization.  And being that we are a National Organization why should we not take a frontline position to at least position ourselfs with it?  I do not seeing being pro-active as something that is bad!!!!

Also, you are using the same agruement that most members had when I stated pushing in 2007 ICS testing for the 100-800 series.  We don't need it now so why do it.

[RiverAux]

Please see my previous posts in this thread wherein I said that we should adopt what make sense for us. 

[PHall]

  Every little podunk fire department with 20 members and a 30 year old fire truck has someone that calls themselves an IC and might have done the same 300/400 courses our IC has. 
Like I've said, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't move to incorporate what makes sense for CAP, but there is no need to go nuts trying to meet a "national standard" that isn't really "national" quite yet.

Maybe the fact that we are a Nationally Recognised Organization should have some bearing on the arguement - As we are not a prudunk organization.  And being that we are a National Organization why should we not take a frontline position to at least position ourselfs with it?  I do not seeing being pro-active as something that is bad!!!!

Also, you are using the same agruement that most members had when I stated pushing in 2007 ICS testing for the 100-800 series.  We don't need it now so why do it.

Show us a reason or requirement for us to do the extra training.  The agencies we "work" for haven't requested it, so what is the "need"?
We have many other things to do with our limited "volunteer" time. So please justify why we need to do yet another training requirement.

[JeffDG]

  Every little podunk fire department with 20 members and a 30 year old fire truck has someone that calls themselves an IC and might have done the same 300/400 courses our IC has. 
Like I've said, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't move to incorporate what makes sense for CAP, but there is no need to go nuts trying to meet a "national standard" that isn't really "national" quite yet.

Maybe the fact that we are a Nationally Recognised Organization should have some bearing on the arguement - As we are not a prudunk organization.  And being that we are a National Organization why should we not take a frontline position to at least position ourselfs with it?  I do not seeing being pro-active as something that is bad!!!!

Also, you are using the same agruement that most members had when I stated pushing in 2007 ICS testing for the 100-800 series.  We don't need it now so why do it.

Show us a reason or requirement for us to do the extra training.  The agencies we "work" for haven't requested it, so what is the "need"?
We have many other things to do with our limited "volunteer" time. So please justify why we need to do yet another training requirement.

A smart organization doesn't wait for a customer to ask for something, they anticipate customer needs and fulfill them before the customer even knows they have it.

[Eclipse]

A smart organization doesn't wait for a customer to ask for something, they anticipate customer needs and fulfill them before the customer even knows they have it.

Well said.   I don't agree with the OP, but if we want to solicit new customers, or enhance our relationship with the existing ones, we don't
wait for them to ask for something, we prep in advance and then send notice of our value-add.

The challenge is in deciding what value to add, and that requires top-down coordination and partnership with our customers on a level that simply does not exist today.

Those of us worth our badges should be proficient (and maintaining skills) in the missions we have today, and preparing for the missions we anticipate getting 5 years from now.

I have no idea what that means in a practical sense, but someone at NHQ should be working that math.

[jks19714]

The question in my mind is just how much commitment to ICS is left within FEMA itself.

A number of important documents on the NIMS website are still sitting in "draft" state or haven't been updated since their original issuance.  If we are getting value from after-action reports (exercise or real-world), it would be reasonable to expect that this information would be fed back into the system.  It doesn't look like that is happening and very few AARs seem to making their way back to the responder community.

Take a look at the number of "NIMS alerts" in the past two years and you will see what I mean.

john

[EmergencyManager6]

The question in my mind is just how much commitment to ICS is left within FEMA itself.

A number of important documents on the NIMS website are still sitting in "draft" state or haven't been updated since their original issuance.  If we are getting value from after-action reports (exercise or real-world), it would be reasonable to expect that this information would be fed back into the system.  It doesn't look like that is happening and very few AARs seem to making their way back to the responder community.

Take a look at the number of "NIMS alerts" in the past two years and you will see what I mean.

john

Actually there are boatloads of AAR's for exercises and real world events.  It is actually required for exercises that use federal funding.  They are mostly 'secure' on the federal HSEEP system for exercises or in HSIN and other DHS portals  for real world.  the players that need them indeed have access to them.