Multi-agency ICS integration

[UWONGO2]

Greetings,

My wing recently participated in a multi-agency exercise that was designed to test interagency cooperation. One aspect of the drill generated a significant amount of discussion and without revealing the path that was chosen, I'd like to present the two options that were considered for discussion here.

BACKGROUND:

The drill was a search and rescue operation. CAP was asked to provide ground team personnel to the lead agency that served as the IC. A number of search and rescue teams from throughout the state provided people and equipment. The lead agency did not have any ground team assets of their own. Because of this, they tasked one of the well-respected organizations to provide someone to serve as the Ground Branch Director.

DISUSSION:
CAP was presented with two options:

1) Integrate CAP ground teams with the other agency's teams. The ground branch director had several teams at his disposal. While teams were formed by agency (instead of putting all personnel into one large pool and forming teams as needed), each team, including CAP's teams, would report directly to the Ground Branch Director. The CAP IC/Liaison would serve as the overall CAP IC, however the teams would be getting their taskings directly from the GBD.

2) Provide CAP assets through the CAP IC to the Agency GBD. The GBD would directly control the other agencies that were participating by directly controlling them, but communicate taskings for CAP ground teams by advising the CAP IC of the needs. The CAP IC would then relay to the CAP GBD, who would then contact the GTL.

Each approach has it's pros and cons, such as with option #1 it would allow CAP to "partner" alongside other state SAR agencies that are a lot busier than we are. Several folks wanted to strengthen already growing relationships with these other agencies by working shoulder to shoulder with them. On the other hand, several folks were concerned the language in CAPR 60-3 that states, "The CAP IC exercises full authority over all CAP personnel for matters pertaining to the mission; the CAP IC is often not the overall IC, and often serves as an agency representative in the incident command structure," precludes the option of having CAP GTL's reporting directly to another agency's GBD.

Option #2 obviously keeps everyone's mitt's off of our ground teams, but presents some challenges locally at the scene when there several agencies working under the same leader directly, sharing communications, and the CAP teams are working independently (but still for the same boss ultimately), more or less out of the loop of what the other groups in their area are up to (all of the teams were deployed to the same area). There was also a discussion that centered around the time delay that would be introduced by the extra layers of CAP control and if that would make us appear slower than the other participating agencies. Those extra layers also provide additional checks to ensure the taskings are consistent with our mission capabilities.

I look forward to your comments.

[lordmonar]

My own opinion is that the CAP IC should be there as an AL......then the CAP ground teams (as complete teams) assigned to the GBD.....be he CAP or not. 

CAP should provide GBD's to the agency GBD to advise and make sure that CAP regs and policies are followed.

All CAP personnel would sign in to the CAP mission through the CAP IC and then sign into the multi agency mission through their procedures.

[Eclipse]

#2 is the only option allowed under our program rules.

For issues of safety and liability, CAP's teams need to be under the C2 of CAP commanders.  This would be especially true of
A & B missions.  I doubt the USAF would allow #1.  Under a C we might be able to do it, but the ORM issues are too high, and
it's unnecessary.

The CAP IC / AL needs to be vetting and approving the taskings, and I can't see any reason why they would need to be tasked directly.
There's also no reason that the ground-level operations would need to look any different to the outside world.  "Do this for us, please."

Remember we've also got paperwork and documentation requirements that are surely to be different from other agencies.  I'd hazard
many don't have any, while ORM, 109's, etc., would still be required and must be vetted by CAP for a release.

[RiverAux]

I read 60-3 to allow option 1 as well as option 2. 

[sardak]

Attached is ICS-300, Chapter 3, Slide 3.14 which answers this question. If CAP can't play by this, then they don't get called.  The slide reads:
---------------
Operations:  Are directed by one person, the Operations Section Chief, who controls tactical resources. 

There is still unity of command.
   
Resources (personnel and equipment) stay under the administrative and policy control of their agencies.  Operationally, they respond to tactical assignments under the coordination and direction of the Operations Section Chief.
-------------

Mike

[UWONGO2]

Sorry for not participating, I've been meaning to visit more often.

I read the slide and I agree, the Operations Section Chief is the one in charge. Does it matter if he passes his orders along to the team leader or to a CAP IC/LO who tells the OSC, who tells the GBD, who tells the GTL?

Efficient? No, but it seems like the the control still ultimiately falls to the Operations Section Chief.

I see issues more at the tactical level, where teams will be working beside one another but our guys will be answering to a different chain of command (that ultimately reaches the same person).

[sardak]

Sorry for not participating, I've been meaning to visit more often.
I read the slide and I agree, the Operations Section Chief is the one in charge. Does it matter if he passes his orders along to the team leader or to a CAP IC/LO who tells the OSC, who tells the GBD, who tells the GTL?
Efficient? No, but it seems like the control still ultimately falls to the Operations Section Chief.
I see issues more at the tactical level, where teams will be working beside one another but our guys will be answering to a different chain of command (that ultimately reaches the same person).

Yes, it does matter, because that is NOT how ICS works.

First off, the person that CAP sends to someone else's incident is an Agency Representative, not an LO. The LO is the person on the command staff of the host agency to whom the agency rep reports. CAP created the position of "Agency Liaison" when it revamped ES and created CAPR 60-3 in the late 90s/early 00s. This combined the titles of two ICS positions with opposite functions. Talk about confusion.

The AL quals and SQTRs were finally dropped and changed to the correct title of simply Liaison Officer (on SQTR and 101 card) although the task guide still refers to the position as Agency Liaison. Read task C-2000 which uses this incorrect term but describes the duties of both the Agency Representative and Liaison Officer correctly.

CAP does not have an Agency Representative (AREP) "qualification" because this person needs to have IC qualifications, so 60-3 para. 1-3(d) was reworded to make it clear that an IC is sent as the AREP.  It is the responsibility of the CAP AREP to "ensure that all CAP resources are used in accordance with approved polices and procedures." (verbatim from 1-3(d))

This does not mean that CAP has its own structure parallel to the rest of the incident. It means that the CAP AREP tells the LO, incident IC or unified command (not the OSC) what CAP's limitations are. These are relayed to the OSC [and PSC] via the proper chain of command (not the CAP AREP) who then assign CAP resources to tasks within their limits. This is no different than how any other assisting or cooperating agency operates, and  is the point of the third bullet on the referenced slide.

If CAP still insists that it has to have its own structure (I would send them home) an OSC could create a CAP Group with the CAP GBD in the role of Group Supervisor. This GBD would report to, and take direction from, the OSC. In most cases, all this does is add a level of management and complexity unnecessary to incident operations.

Mike