CAPability readiness reporting?

[Holding Pattern]

Is there an existing readiness report for squadrons to give to local emergency services coordinators and politicians to raise awareness that we have resources available that can be used in emergencies?

Something like:

We have x cadets and y senior members that have completed FEMA IS100,200,700,800
We have x cadets and y senior members trained in GTM/UDF/XYZ
We have x ground vehicles, y aircraft, and z radios with an immediate operational zone of (defined zone)

Obviously, the above is oversimplified, but I bet that it could help.

[PHall]

This would be great, if we were "First Responders", which we are not.

[RRLE]

I don't know the forms number off-hand but NIMS has a standard way to report capabilities and assets. If CAP doesn't conform to those reports it would undermine any attempt to fit into NIMS and ICS.

[lordmonar]

This would be great, if we were "First Responders", which we are not.

All the more reason to keep those who need to request our services to know of our current capabilities and readiness status.

[Fubar]

I don't know the forms number off-hand but NIMS has a standard way to report capabilities and assets. If CAP doesn't conform to those reports it would undermine any attempt to fit into NIMS and ICS.

We need to be operationally NIMS/ICS compliant before we worry about reporting.

[Holding Pattern]

I don't know the forms number off-hand but NIMS has a standard way to report capabilities and assets. If CAP doesn't conform to those reports it would undermine any attempt to fit into NIMS and ICS.

We need to be operationally NIMS/ICS compliant before we worry about reporting.

ICS form 219 specifically states:

Preparation. Information to be placed on the cards may be obtained from several sources including, but not limited to:

...

Agency-supplied information or electronic resource management systems.

With that now out of the way, does anyone here have a reporting idea for my stated question?

[The Infamous Meerkat]

This would be great, if we were "First Responders", which we are not.

I'm not sure what your comment was intended to say here, Sir. Is your opinion that CAP should not conduct ES missions at all because we don't qualify as First Responders? Most First Responders I know already have a hard time trusting volunteers agencies because they question the commitment of the members to the mission. Personally, I'd say your post solidifies that perception of a lack of professional commitment and an unwillingness to be better than the lowest common denominator.

Why was his suggestion of reporting our metrics of capability to our customers a bad one?

Starfleet, My response to your question: I've never seen one and my squadron ESO has so much on his plate that he's been unable to work on it. What I considered doing was an attachment to the CAPabilities Guide, making a local version of it for the counties my squadron would likely handle without assistance from other squadrons. More than the classes and such, I would say reporting what level of resource you can bring to the table would be more useful to a public service agency, as most LE groups are pretty under informed about ICS. They do, however, understand what a Type 3 Communications Team or a Type 2 Wilderness Search Team is and how they can use it. This requires continuous updating and effort, as things are always changing, but I think you're on the right track.

Somebody commented that we need to be NIMS compliant first. Agreed. Unfortunately, NIMS isn't always NIMS compliant either.

[lordmonar]

The answer is that you need to get with the local Emergency Services Coordinator and find out what sort of readiness data he/she wants and what format the data is best communicated to them.

[Fubar]

ICS form 219 specifically states:

I thought we were talking about the nationwide database of assets agencies use when looking for help. I don't recall the name of the system, but it's very popular in the fire service, although everything from military to NGOs have assets listed in there.

My point was we shouldn't worry about getting our information in there until we can operationally integrate into ICS during an incident.

To your point, during an incident T-Cards could certainly contain CAP equipment on them, although since only CAP folks can touch the equipment, it would probably be better managed through a CAP liaison. Again (I'm not trying to harp here), since we don't really integrate into the incident's command structure, CAP typically manages all their own resources and there's no need to share specifics with whatever agency we're working for.

[Fubar]

Somebody commented that we need to be NIMS compliant first. Agreed. Unfortunately, NIMS isn't always NIMS compliant either.

That's certainly true! But then, most of this stuff is intended to be fairly flexible since disasters are rarely one size fits all. At least when it comes to public safety, they have some basic expectations that seem fairly universal (although milage may vary). When the incident commander of a fire requests a pumper truck from another agency, the IC expects the pumper will roll into staging, be assigned a job, and work within the ICS org chart. When a law enforcement IC requests a tactical team from another agency, there's an expectation that the team will roll in with a team leader (usually a sergeant), show up at staging and be assigned a task and fall into the org chart.

If either of these ICs requested CAP, we'd send a liaison who would report back to a CAP IC on what it is the leading agency would like us to do. We would then independently stand up our own ICS-like structure, completely independent of the incident's structure.

At least, this is how it's been explained to me, that CAP people and assets must remain 100% under the control of a CAP IC. We can't send a ground team for example to an incident and have that team report to the agency's GBD directly like they would expect. Imagine if the pumper truck from my example would only answer to their LT, BC, and Chief during an incident? They'd be told to go home.

Like most things, there's no simple answer to this. It's not that CAP doesn't want to play nice, but we need to maintain accountability to the Air Force for the millions spent on aircraft, vans, and fuel. I don't have any easy answers myself, but I do hope there is some sort of middle ground we can find that keeps the Air Force happy while making ourselves an attractive resource to public safety.

[Holding Pattern]

Somebody commented that we need to be NIMS compliant first. Agreed. Unfortunately, NIMS isn't always NIMS compliant either.

That's certainly true! But then, most of this stuff is intended to be fairly flexible since disasters are rarely one size fits all. At least when it comes to public safety, they have some basic expectations that seem fairly universal (although milage may vary). When the incident commander of a fire requests a pumper truck from another agency, the IC expects the pumper will roll into staging, be assigned a job, and work within the ICS org chart. When a law enforcement IC requests a tactical team from another agency, there's an expectation that the team will roll in with a team leader (usually a sergeant), show up at staging and be assigned a task and fall into the org chart.

If either of these ICs requested CAP, we'd send a liaison who would report back to a CAP IC on what it is the leading agency would like us to do. We would then independently stand up our own ICS-like structure, completely independent of the incident's structure.

At least, this is how it's been explained to me, that CAP people and assets must remain 100% under the control of a CAP IC. We can't send a ground team for example to an incident and have that team report to the agency's GBD directly like they would expect. Imagine if the pumper truck from my example would only answer to their LT, BC, and Chief during an incident? They'd be told to go home.

Like most things, there's no simple answer to this. It's not that CAP doesn't want to play nice, but we need to maintain accountability to the Air Force for the millions spent on aircraft, vans, and fuel. I don't have any easy answers myself, but I do hope there is some sort of middle ground we can find that keeps the Air Force happy while making ourselves an attractive resource to public safety.

I'd say having this outlined in a reg and as a civilian-friendly pamphlet is a really good start.

[lordmonar]

ICS form 219 specifically states:

I thought we were talking about the nationwide database of assets agencies use when looking for help. I don't recall the name of the system, but it's very popular in the fire service, although everything from military to NGOs have assets listed in there.

My point was we shouldn't worry about getting our information in there until we can operationally integrate into ICS during an incident.

To your point, during an incident T-Cards could certainly contain CAP equipment on them, although since only CAP folks can touch the equipment, it would probably be better managed through a CAP liaison. Again (I'm not trying to harp here), since we don't really integrate into the incident's command structure, CAP typically manages all their own resources and there's no need to share specifics with whatever agency we're working for.

Well I know for a fact that CAP readiness at least for aircraft is reported to 1st AF everyday.   Locally NVWG reports to NV DEM in their daily sit rep.

So we are being reported at least at those two levels.  Your AOR may vary.
Bottom line though is that that you need to make the connection with what ever level you want to report to.   There is no one size fits all......as no two states/counties/cities do EMS exactly the same way.   That is one of the reason NIMS and ICS was created in the first place......and as already stated....even with NIMS there are still lots of problems with inter-operability.

[MSG Mac]

Since any commitment of CAP personnel/equipment  to emergency agencies requires Wing approval and a memorandum of understanding between CAP and the local agencies, this should be worked at that level. Once a formal relationship is in place, then you can establish and present your CAPabilty report.

[RRLE]

ICS form 219 specifically states:
Preparation. Information to be placed on the cards may be obtained from several sources including, but not limited to:

Your comment on the above:
With that now out of the way, does anyone here have a reporting idea for my stated question?

Not so fast - Form 219 also states:

Purpose.  Resource Status Cards (ICS 219) are also known as "T-Cards," and are used by the Resources Unit to record status and location information on resources, transportation, and support vehicles and personnel.  These cards provide a visual display of the status and location of resources assigned to the incident. 

Form 219 is an "at incident" information recording device. It is not a planning/sharing tool that CAP would need.

What I was referring to, and what CAP doesn't have, is NIMS Typing, Credentialing and Inventorying.

[FW]

Is there an existing readiness report for squadrons to give to local emergency services coordinators and politicians to raise awareness that we have resources available that can be used in emergencies?

Something like:

We have x cadets and y senior members that have completed FEMA IS100,200,700,800
We have x cadets and y senior members trained in GTM/UDF/XYZ
We have x ground vehicles, y aircraft, and z radios with an immediate operational zone of (defined zone)

Obviously, the above is oversimplified, but I bet that it could help.

Wings/Groups/Squadrons can develop such lists for respective customers.  It shouldn't be that difficult.  Squadrons with ES capabilities should develop a list and pass it up the chain.  Higher HQ can consolidate and add where necessary.  It's been done in many wings already (at least back in the day when I dealt with this stuff).  In the meantime, I would suggest your squadron develop a list for use.  It may become the "benchmark" for your wing...

[Holding Pattern]

ICS form 219 specifically states:
Preparation. Information to be placed on the cards may be obtained from several sources including, but not limited to:

Your comment on the above:
With that now out of the way, does anyone here have a reporting idea for my stated question?

Not so fast - Form 219 also states:

Purpose.  Resource Status Cards (ICS 219) are also known as "T-Cards," and are used by the Resources Unit to record status and location information on resources, transportation, and support vehicles and personnel.  These cards provide a visual display of the status and location of resources assigned to the incident. 

Form 219 is an "at incident" information recording device. It is not a planning/sharing tool that CAP would need.

What I was referring to, and what CAP doesn't have, is NIMS Typing, Credentialing and Inventorying.

And this sends me exactly in the right direction I needed. Thanks!

[isuhawkeye]

a 219 is not the proper tool to use for an agency to represent its capability.  The 219 is for tracking individual resources on an incident.  Each team, or piece of equipment would have one completed upon in processing.  an agencies capability report should be in a briefing, or pamphlet, or other simple marketing tools.  Remember you bring a lot more to the table than just a squadrons capabilities.  you get to draw from a very large and robust organization. 

[Holding Pattern]

a 219 is not the proper tool to use for an agency to represent its capability.  The 219 is for tracking individual resources on an incident.  Each team, or piece of equipment would have one completed upon in processing.  an agencies capability report should be in a briefing, or pamphlet, or other simple marketing tools.  Remember you bring a lot more to the table than just a squadrons capabilities.  you get to draw from a very large and robust organization.

Yes, the above poster to my last post clarified the 219 purpose and sent me the link to IRIS and other reporting tools. We have a large and robust organization that (in my case) has a squadron that doesn't get called up to do terribly much. When it becomes an exercise for me to think about how we could have been useful in the x number of incidents last year that we weren't called out on, it becomes time for me to focus on the question: "Well, why weren't we called out?"

Then I thought: "Well, what ARE our capabilities?"

And then I realized I didn't have a good answer to that question. And if I don't have that answer, chances are pretty good our emergency coordinator doesn't either. And if they don't know, the one and only thing we'll ever get utilized for is our aircraft (which actually did get a mission last year.)

So if I put together a readiness report, go to the local city council meetings once a year (with permission from the chain of command, of course) and take 3 minutes to announce our readiness status and available resources, this will result in politicians remembering we exist.

If I then forward the report and transcript to the emergency coordinator, they will remember we exist.

And there is almost always a reporter paying attention to the minutes of those meetings, which means the reporters might remember we exist.

If we exist in the minds of politicians, reporters, and emergency coordinators, we will be in danger of getting donations, free publicity, and missions.

And yes, ideally, we put together something useful enough that I can convince the other squadrons in our Group to start using it and create a Group report as well, and perhaps it succeeds to the point of becoming a standard for our wing.

And maybe along the way I find some more IT officers that have been hiding and get us all to work on some bigger projects together.

[LTC Don]

As long as work as hard as we do, to make a simple thing as complicated as possible, well then, we are maintain continuity of effect. 


The concept is 'Resource Typing'.
https://nimstools.preptoolkit.org/

http://www.fema.gov/resource-management-mutual-aid

If either of these ICs requested CAP, we'd send a liaison who would report back to a CAP IC on what it is the leading agency would like us to do. We would then independently stand up our own ICS-like structure, completely independent of the incident's structure.

At least, this is how it's been explained to me, that CAP people and assets must remain 100% under the control of a CAP IC. We can't send a ground team for example to an incident and have that team report to the agency's GBD directly like they would expect. Imagine if the pumper truck from my example would only answer to their LT, BC, and Chief during an incident? They'd be told to go home.

Like most things, there's no simple answer to this.

Yes, it is quite simple, and not hard to fathom, at all, nor to work with:

It is correct that CAP maintains control of it's resources at all times.  This is true of any agency. How is this handled in ICS? Under the Unified Command concept, any agency that reports in to assist, must provide an Agency Liaison Officer (ALO) to represent the agency to the IC.  The actual asset reports in to the responsible IC Staff position, but maintains contact with the respective ALO. CAP maintains it's on command and control through it's assigned ALO.  In a long-term incident, CAP IC staff works to keep the manning and coordination managed with the ALO and the customer. CAP has an ALO qualification and is probably the most ignored qual in OPS QUALS.

Every county/parrish in the country with an Emergency Management office must conduct exercises during the year to keep certifications and accreditations.  All CAP has to do is ask to be a part of those exercises, and for the most part, would probably be quite welcomed. This is the only way CAP will ever 'turn the battleship' and become accustomed to working Unified Command at the local level.

CAP works amazingly hard at making things as difficult as possible. 

[sardak]

It is correct that CAP maintains control of it's resources at all times.  This is true of any agency.

Correct.

How is this handled in ICS? Under the Unified Command concept, any agency that reports in to assist, must provide an Agency Liaison Officer (ALO) to represent the agency to the IC.

WRONG. There is no such position as ALO in NIMS, ICS or CAP. ALO was a term invented by CAP when 60-3 came out in 2001 and CAP finally, correctly, deleted the term in the 2008 revision. There is no SQTR for it and no reference to it in 60-3. Unfortunately, the Mission Base Task Guide, which hasn't been updated since 2005, still refers to the ALO.

A Liaison Officer (LO), which CAP does have a SQTR for, is the person at the ICP to whom the Agency Representatives (AREP) from the incoming agencies report. Per CAPR 60-3 para. 1.3(d), the CAP AREP (for which there is no SQTR) must be IC qualified. There may not be an LO at every incident, in which case the AREP reports to the IC or other designated individual.

The actual asset reports in to the responsible IC Staff position, but maintains contact with the respective ALO AREP.

Correct, and the operational asset may also receive tasks from that IC staff position, not the AREP, depending on the incident.

...Under the Unified Command...

LOs and AREPs can also be utlitzed on an incident even when Unified Command is not being used.

Mike