ES Qaulification Badge Proposal

[Eclipse]

Such as?

Pretty much "everything" - CAP's GT curriculum is focused on missing aircraft and persons searching along with self-care
and the ability to operate safely in non-urban areas for up to 72 hours.  It really doesn't speak at all to DR beyond the
self-reliance and preparedness.  So a GTM can be assumed to be self-sufficient in a DA for 24 hours, but doesn't know much beyond that,
including...

Sanitation and hygiene when dealing with the general pubic in a DA without functional utilities.

Personal safety in a DA without normal police, fire, and public works response.

Proper use and assembly of sand bags (yes, you can do it wrong and make things worse).

Damage assessment of dwellings and other structures.

Shelter management operations.

PODs management

Food, water, and other resource distribution

House to house well-being checks.

More I'm missing.

[arajca]

You're complaining about it. Try fixing it.

That's an ad hominem.  I'm not tasked with, nor in a position to "fix" CAP's ES framework, nor is anyone asking me to.

That doesn't change the fact that anyone looking to make impactful, meaningful change, shouldn't be starting from the badges,
they should be starting from the "mission", and frankly what the "mission" is, isn't clear to anyone anymore.

Until NHQ sorts that out, these conversations will be like a company trying to do ISO 9000 and Six Sigma with one project team.

For example, I would argue DR is not a separate qual from GT, just a definition of protocol and ability, and CERT isn't a CAP "thing"
and we certainly shouldn't be giving it a CAP badge. These two items alone complicated enough.

And where did I say I was trying "to make impactful, meaningful change"?

[Storm Chaser]

Such as?

Pretty much "everything" - CAP's GT curriculum is focused on missing aircraft and persons searching along with self-care
and the ability to operate safely in non-urban areas for up to 72 hours.  It really doesn't speak at all to DR beyond the
self-reliance and preparedness.  So a GTM can be assumed to be self-sufficient in a DA for 24 hours, but doesn't know much beyond that,
including...

Sanitation and hygiene when dealing with the general pubic in a DA without functional utilities.

Personal safety in a DA without normal police, fire, and public works response.

Proper use and assembly of sand bags (yes, you can do it wrong and make things worse).

Damage assessment of dwellings and other structures.

Shelter management operations.

PODs management

Food, water, and other resource distribution

House to house well-being checks.

More I'm missing.

I think Eclipse covered it. Those are my thoughts as well.

[Shawn W.]

Sanitation and hygiene when dealing with the general pubic in a DA without functional utilities.

Personal safety in a DA without normal police, fire, and public works response.

Proper use and assembly of sand bags (yes, you can do it wrong and make things worse).

Damage assessment of dwellings and other structures.

Shelter management operations.

PODs management

Food, water, and other resource distribution

House to house well-being checks.

+1 to that. Such training would be great to have.

[Angus]

Such as?

Pretty much "everything" - CAP's GT curriculum is focused on missing aircraft and persons searching along with self-care
and the ability to operate safely in non-urban areas for up to 72 hours.  It really doesn't speak at all to DR beyond the
self-reliance and preparedness.  So a GTM can be assumed to be self-sufficient in a DA for 24 hours, but doesn't know much beyond that,
including...

Sanitation and hygiene when dealing with the general pubic in a DA without functional utilities.

Personal safety in a DA without normal police, fire, and public works response.

Proper use and assembly of sand bags (yes, you can do it wrong and make things worse).

Damage assessment of dwellings and other structures.

Shelter management operations.

PODs management

Food, water, and other resource distribution

House to house well-being checks.

More I'm missing.

The Red Cross covers most of this and in times of disaster is stretched pretty thin so having us trained in this to assist is a great idea.  There are a few provisos though, having been a part of ARC shelter management only our older cadets would be able to work, but that's not unlike what we have now with age restriction on GTL.  The classes are very interesting and the field training is actually kind of fun the way they set it up.  I highly encourage everyone to call their local ARC Chapter and see if they'd be willing to come and show you what to do.

[Eclipse]

The Red Cross covers most of this and in times of disaster is stretched pretty thin so having us trained in this to assist is a great idea. 

We've actually done both in my wing.  The former was a win for all involved and provided resources the local ARC didn't have.  It took
minimal onsite training in the basic principles, though it was agreed that it would have been better if we came in with the actual
ARC training vs. a game-day orientation.

That's the kind of thing that should be included in, and coming out of the ARC MOU vs. "encouraged to work together".

The latter has on occasion involved cadets in overnight shelters, and while nothing has happened to date, generally raises the
ORM hairs on the back of seniors' necks.  Not everyone displaced in an incident is a nice person.

The more far-reaching challenge with organizations like the ARC, SA, and the local health agencies running POD Sites, in my direct experience, is that while they are excited to get ahold of our contact lists to try and solicit volunteers, they aren't especially interested in us being there in a CAP capacity, in uniform, with all that entails.

[Angus]

The Red Cross covers most of this and in times of disaster is stretched pretty thin so having us trained in this to assist is a great idea. 

The latter has on occasion involved cadets in overnight shelters, and while nothing has happened to date, generally raises the
ORM hairs on the back of seniors' necks.  Not everyone displaced in an incident is a nice person.

For shelters unless it's different State by State with what ARC has, our cadets wouldn't be allowed to stay in the shelters with the displaced residents.  It was a liability, heck even some ARC volunteers wouldn't be allowed to stay again based on age.  If I remember you had to be a minimum of 16 to stay as a volunteer.  Also some of the staffing jobs even trained seniors wouldn't be allowed to handle.  Mainly the intake of the clients into the shelter, this was for confidentiality purposes. 

[Eclipse]

^ Yep. Thus the !! questions raised.

[Angus]

While I was with ARC before I stepped back with them since they knew I was in CAP and knew the right people, there was talk about what we could and couldn't do.  Younger cadets were definitely able to come in and help with the setup of the shelter and help with some minor staffing during the day.  Seniors could help with setup and maintenance but also be able to stay and help work the overnight. 

The fun stuff for cadets was out in the field conducting DA.  We had been looking at using joint teams, even had a couple of SAREX's that were joint. 

[Gunsotsu]

Sanitation and hygiene when dealing with the general pubic in a DA without functional utilities.

Personal safety in a DA without normal police, fire, and public works response.

Proper use and assembly of sand bags (yes, you can do it wrong and make things worse).

Damage assessment of dwellings and other structures.

Shelter management operations.

PODs management

Food, water, and other resource distribution

House to house well-being checks.

More I'm missing.

Sounds an awful like a CERT course to me. Even though you don't see the benefit, this is exactly what much of the course covers. The problem is the training varies so much from municipality to municipality. I'm fortunate that the CERT courses I've taken, including the advanced training, are taught by my city's fire department and office of emergency management. There lies the problem, other city's around me aren't as lucky.

[Eclipse]

Sounds an awful like a CERT course to me. Even though you don't see the benefit, this is exactly what much of the course covers.

Missing the point.

If you're involved in CERT, great, prepare, help when asked, enjoy the experience.  It's intended to be a local situation, with
neighbors helping neighbors.  Thus the "C".  "CERT", as a concept, is not supposed to be "deployable", even though some organizations
have tried to stretch the idea into that.

If you're going elsewhere, it's not "C", is it?

CAP is a national organization which has a much further reach, significantly more resources, and a much slower time-to-task due to the
nature of mission approval and the dispersal of the membership.  There aren't that many different ways to slice the DR orange, and many
of the things which need to be done look the same and are the same between the different level of organizations and assets.

That doesn't mean "CERT", as a "thing" belongs in the CAP parlance, and certainly not as an ES qual.  Training in similar tasks, fine,
but just as typing CAP assets within SARTECH isn't going to get us one single additional mission, this won't either, but it sounds like a "thing",
and some members randomly get more work vis their CERT then in CAP, so so it leaks into the discussion.

What will get CAP (back) to the table are:

1 - more people.

2 - Experience ES staff maintaining ongoing positive relationships with EMAs

3 - more people

4 - NHQ getting involved in selling CAP as the high-level asset with 3 & 4- letter agencies that it's supposed to be, instead of a day-10 afterthought.

5 - more people

6 - MOUs that detail required call-outs and response, not "encouraging cooperation"

7 - more people

8 - proficient, repeatable, scale-able execution that matches the rhetoric. If your wing's ES legacy starts with "that one time...", or doesn't
include ops within the last FY, you're doing it wrong.

Also, we need more people.

[Holding Pattern]

Sounds an awful like a CERT course to me. Even though you don't see the benefit, this is exactly what much of the course covers.

Missing the point.

If you're involved in CERT, great, prepare, help when asked, enjoy the experience.  It's intended to be a local situation, with
neighbors helping neighbors.  Thus the "C".  "CERT", as a concept, is not supposed to be "deployable", even though some organizations
have tried to stretch the idea into that.

If you're going elsewhere, it's not "C", is it?

CAP is a national organization which has a much further reach, significantly more resources, and a much slower time-to-task due to the
nature of mission approval and the dispersal of the membership.  There aren't that many different way to slice the DR orange, and many
of the things which need to be done look the same and are the same between the different level of organizations and assets.

That doesn't mean "CERT", as a "thing" belongs in the CAP parlance, and certainly not as an ES qual.  Training in similar tasks, fine,
but just as typing CAP assests within SARTECH isn't going to get us one single additional mission, this won't either.

What will get CAP (back) to the table are:

1 - more people.

2 - Experience ES staff mainatingin ongoign positive relationships with EMAs

3 - more people

4 - NHQ gettign involved in selling CAP as the high-level asset with 3 & 4- letter agencies that it's supposed to be, instead of a day-10 afterthought.

5 - more people

6 - proficient, repeatable, scale-able execution that matches the rhetoric. If your wing's ES legacy starts with "that one time...", or doesn't
include ops within the last FY, you're doing it wrong.

Also, we need more people.

Are you trying to say that we may possibly need more people?

[Eclipse]

I think we should certainly consider the idea.

[Angus]

I think we should certainly consider the idea.

Which is great for our recruiting.  Membership has been on the decline so it would be nice to see it ticking back up again. 

[Eclipse]

I would say "decline" is being somewhat benevolent to the situation considering an ~10% loss of membership since October,
which doesn't account for members still on the books who are simply not participating but are still being counted as "active".

[Angus]

Well this is a family board figured I'd clean it up a bit.  If were at the O-Club I'd be a bit more verbose.   

[Gunsotsu]

What a wonderfully narrow idea of what a community entails. I'll be sure to let the local OEM and the state OEM know they can't pull available assets from qualified CERT programs in other localities for their callouts. Put away the Garand, I'll get off your lawn now.

[Eclipse]

I'll be sure to let the local OEM and the state OEM know they can't pull available assets from qualified CERT programs in other localities for their callouts. Put away the Garand, I'll get off your lawn now.

com·mu·ni·ty kəˈmyo͞onədē/
noun
1. a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common.

Define "other localities" - the town next door is reasonable and falls with the definition above and my characterization.

CAP call-outs are rarely that in today's reality of wing size vs. member distribution.

[Spaceman3750]

I actually don't mind the idea of a local squadron working with their local EMA/OEM and setting up a CERT team, especially considering that CAP recognizes the qual, but it should be done in coordination with Wing ES and possibly the NOC so that the NOC and the wing duty officer/ultimately responsible IC know what to do with the call when it comes in. Does 60-3 actually define what a CERT team is in a CAP context or just a ground/UDF team? Can you deploy as just a CERT team or do you have to be a ground team that also happens to be CERT qualified?

It doesn't work in the paradigm of many wings "everyone come here and we'll assemble a team" or "Call around and find people and let me know when you have a team", but the squadron is the community-level unit of CAP and done right it could be a great way to work in the local community.

[Eclipse]

There is currently no definition of a "CERT Team" in a CAP parlance beyond the below.

CAPR 60-3. Page 27:
"Note 4: New training programs and levels in certain specialties are currently in development. In
order to allow enough time for proper testing and fielding of new curricula and to avoid delaying
the release of this regulation, these new specialties were included in the regulation even though
CAP is not ready to implement all of these specialties at this time. As these new or revised
specialties are implemented, transition guidance including grandfathering, equivalency, and
currency procedures will be posted on the NHQ CAP/DOS website and personnel will be
notified via the chain of command. "

I would argue CERT type activities require at least GT3.  UDF has no training beyond hard-tarmac searching.
It is not "mini-GTL" as some people assert.

The idea that you would allow slick-sleeve members, especially cadets, or people with a wet GES into a DA to "help",
as has been done in the recent past, ignore the huge ORM on that kind of activity, and risks everyone involved, including those
CAP seeks to help.