Whether by DHS or FEMA or the CDP, I think all involved need to re-think the limited training opportunities for ICS and NIMS training. They should begin offering more opportunities for ICS training so it may be given, and hopefully implemented, to more emergency responders in the event of a disaster. Ultimately there needs to be more people working on the same 'national-level' training system and thusly allowing better multijurisdictional interoperability during such large-scale incidents.
The FEMA Mission is "to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.”
By bringing more ICS training to the table, we are better able to accomplish this national mission!
Comments (35)
While I totaly agree with need for training. The resources are there. FEMA's Independant Study Program is available to anyone who wants the training. EMS, Fire, and Police need to provide the time for their employees to take the training.
When I worked in the healthcare setting I provided training for 29 local hospitals through their Hospital Compact group. Hospital administrators made the training time available for their staff. Fire, Police and EMS must do the same.
Agree. . . Additionally, using NIMS and ICS whenever and wherever possible (during both routine and emergency operations; making it a standard procedure) will build competence, confidence, and standardize operations. . .
The problem with the online FEMA Independent Study program is that many courses (including _all_ the NIMS/ICS courses) simply throw a bunch of information at the student, followed be a multiple choice test that was never designed to be educationally sound. I won't try to condense a graduate level program in educational course design into a message here, but I will offer a simple litmus test for any question you see on any test: What does the student DO with this specific knowledge? For the NIMS/ICS training courses, the answer is almost always that the student should know XXX because we said "XXX" during the lesson material.
One result is that we have a large number of "NIMS Trained" people who believe that being "NIMS Compliant" consists of each and every agency and NGO renaming all their positions to match the ICS organization chart. This and dozens of other misconceptions are fostered by the fact that there isn't any practical application anywhere in ICS-100,200,700,800
Locally-conducted training led by a live instructor sometimes (not always) manages to digress from the textbook long enough to explain how ICS actually works.
The online courses are great, it's the classes like 300 and 400 that local responders need help with. A training program needs to be established for volunteer fire and ems responders that can be taken on a weekend or evenings. The majority of responders in this country are volunteer, and are already juggling full time jobs while continuing to respond to calls. To ask those individuals to take off work to be able to attend manditory training needs to be addressed. We need to make these training requirements as user friendly as possible. We have to retain the currrent emergency responder volunteers we have, and the continued training mandates make it very hard to get the next generation of responders to take interest in the department. They may want to serve, but they simply can not take off work to attend these classes. If you think times are tough now, think what would happen if we lose our volunteers, and have to find more tax dollars to support full time emergency responders across this country.
Agree, we have delivered classes on both shift friendly and weekend schedules for volunteers. It is not a problem that can't be solved.
The online forums are great and by no means was I trying to take away from their effectiveness for those that can utilize them, however there are many emergency responders that would benefit more in classroom-based training of the online courses. We have classroom training sessions for them in my area.
Also the additional training for the 300 and 400 are also problem areas, by not being offered often enough. More importantly (and the unclear point of my original post) was the ICS Train-the-Trainer programs that are limited.
We need more trainers able to provide training out there for those who aren't able to access the online classes or learn better in classroom settings, trainers for the 300-400 series AND offer mainly more of the Train-the-Trainer courses.
Surprisingly, we are still finding many in government and the private sector that do not think that NIMS/ICS applies to them or that they can just use pieces of it or change it to their liking. AAR/IPs continue to show ICS use as a weakness.
Is there an online link to this training or a link to find the training localy?
Your state or county may offer training for free. Check with the training officer. There are thousands of certified instructors at this point and many offer classes.
@stephanie check http://www.training.fema.gov/IS/ and look at what's available. You can also check with your local county and/or Emergency Management Agency. Good Luck and Get Involved.
Reworking the ICS 300-400 class to shorten it to no more than 3 days is essential. The time commitment to bring a sizable local group of emergency responders together for an entire week is simply not possible even in a larger metro city area.
Based on our experience you need to first take a hard look at who needs the intermediate and advanced level training (300/400)as this should be a small subset of the first responder community. Second, as recommended by FEMA, they should take 300 first and wait a year or so to take 400. We also encourage this, you need to have some time with 300 certification before you go for 400. Despite this, most requests we get are for combined 300/400). It does take a full week to go over the course cirriculum but then again no one should be taking them at the same time.
PS: Instructor lead training, including table top activities, is much better than on-line training. You need the interaction and reinforcement especially at the higher levels.
I agree the classes do need to be reworked to fit a tighter time frame so that the material can reach more responders that need it. However our jurisdiction already struggles to make it fit into 4 days as it is though. So I am not sure how this may be done. We need more Trainers ultimately for the 300/400 who can offer more training opportunites for those candidates in our respective jurisdictions instead of just day classes.
Independent Study means independently study. I have witnessed a state trainers provide all the answers in a class setting. Everyone went home and passed the tests. The applications or even understanding of ICS principals was less than stellar. This creates a frustrating environment to work in. Except for those courses that may vary due to disciplines (ie ICS 300 / 400) Classroom training for IS courses should be stopped.
I firmly believe that classroom training in a multi-disciplinary environment, and with a good instructor, is far superior to on-line training. I am not talking about giving out the answers, I am talking about meeting the course objectives in an environment that reinforces the training through discussion and tabletop activities.
NIMS and ICS have great merit and work well when the science is know, like the fire service.
I thoroughly agree All Hands. There is much more room for interaction and explanation in a classroom setting, especially if the student base is a multidisciplinary group. And it is just ridiculous to give answers away to a whole test. I understand difficult questions and polite hints given by scenarios... but I too have had instructors who only covered the questions on the test by directly going over the, which left me and my classmates understanding a quarter of the material as a whole because we had no foundation. I will help a student individually, if needed, but as an instructor, all of the material is covered and never are the answers revealed until after the exam. That's one of the reasons our 300 and 400 all have group projects that all students work on throughout. We still need more fully trained instructors able to provide the 300 and 400 classes though.
I agree, the online courses are convenient, but as Brandonc stated above, the key is the interaction in a multidisciplinary group.
While there is acceptance of NIMS at the state level, quite often getting the buy-in of the local agencies can be quite difficult. In some local areas, there seems to be a gap between the administrative level of counties, not placing the proper emphasis on the NIMS system. And the agencies under them, who will ensure the ICS 100 and ICS 700 are done, but then that is where the requirements and the support end.
I think it would be wise for FEMA to set a firm timeline of requirements for each level of First Responders, Elected officials, and support agencies, and require counties to have a compliance officer to ensure that the standards are in fact met, coordinate training in the county, and make it 100% clear that if a county is not in compliance, the area may not be eligible for grants and their resources will not be included in any mutual aid efforts to disaster areas.
It would be nice to see FEMA certify Trainers through a Train the Trainer Program to get more qualified instructors out in the field.
FEMA has done this. They provided NIMS compliance tools such as the NIMS Compliance Assistance Support Tool (NIMSCAST) and the The Five-Year NIMS Training Plan. These should be used to manage implementation and compliance with NIMS. FEMA has provided guidance on timelines, levels to be trained etc. for many years. Many jurisdictions have been in compliance for years while others are obviously still struggling with it.
My town's EOP was completed almost 2yrs after the deadline. Although it was accepted by the a local administrating agency, the document is cut and paste, questionable workability and remains untouched until eligibility of federal grant funding is jeopardized. This is compliant?
Beyond the Public Safety Corp to Emergency response are organizations with resources and disciplines required after the first response ie VOAD's, NGO's and faith based groups. These organization's functions do not require ICS, NIM's perhaps beyond an interface level and may be more familiar Emergency Support Functions and manage by objectives. This is compliant.
In short, understanding organization operations will provide better solutions to survivors functionality than to force feed all with an ICS sandwich.
I'm sorry there is more than enough available training. What is missing, I think, is imagination. We cannot all be IC's, who wants all those disasters, however if we try, we can play act every chance we get, at every meeting or event or just about anything else we do, Again the system is already in place, stop looking for work-arounds do the work yourself.
@ Guidam... The question is not about a lack of overall training, but instead the lack of the Train-the-Trainer courses provided by CDP and FEMA to train qualified instructors to teach the material in the respective local areas. I agree that a great deal of the trainers I have seen to lack a bit of imagination with their training, because the material could be considered "dry" by some. I personally have no desire to be an incident commander, as this is off topic; I will leave that being said. And Yes the system is in place, a fully functional system, to obtain training (under the 5-year plan), and there are no work-arounds, atleast that I am aware of to obtain that T-t-T training without going to the CDP or FEMA directly. So without that, we are unable to do the work ourselves... unless we teach the material without being certified, which I would assume would not be your advice.
We have definitely taken a giant step backward when the Center for Domestic Preapredenss Indirect Training Program was killed in October of 2011. This program trained, ICS 100-400 trainers in communities so that they could take offciial, ICS training to their community members at little or no cost. There has been no meaningful subsittute and no direction for the thousands of trainers left hanging out there on their own with no means to provide recognized training or certificates.
Training is great, but it is the beginning to becoming a proficient and competent incident management professional regardless of your position in the organization. Being trained in ICS-100/200/300/400 does not make you a competent Planning Section Chief or any other position. Completion of on-the-job training, documented performance in a position through position task books (PTB), and then certification by your organization to have the authority to serve in that position is the end game. FEMA and the EM community at large should begin to shift the focus from general ICS training to ICS position specific PTBs that have imbedded training requirements to become certified as a NIMS ICS professional.
So your point is that the only way to be qualified for a position is to have experience in that position and the only way to get experience is by being in the position.
PTBs are great in the Fire Service where they were invented -- they can also work in other agencies large enough to have redundant positions as well as either frequent recurring incidents or a budget for massive functional training programs.
Experience is the BEST teacher -- but if we required experience to fill every position, most of the local EMA positions in the country would be vacant.
I thoroughly agree with 'community member' above about the dissolution of the CDP's ICS Train-the-Trainer program; it is a *large* step in the wrong direction and a U-turn is drastically needed. It was only recently that I was approved by my county and department to attend such training and it was in the works for the first of this coming year. I would be very interested in hearing what any alternatives are now, if any of you have any knowledge, please throw it out here – and thanks in advance!
NIMS needs a "150" course or something very low level that puts all responders on the same geospatial positional format page; that being US National Grid. USNG is presently the #1 ranked idea on this Think Tank. For an example of a simple (15) minutes or less course, see this one: http://www.floridadisasterengineers.org/USNG_Files/FDE_posting1/USNG_GENERAL/USNG_SCA_Lesson_10.ppt
Communities can turn to the local fire service and/or State Forestry Fire Service. These agencies operate under the ICS system (have for years) and have access to wildland fire and structure fire certified ICS instructors that train based on the FEMA or NWCG curricula.
Taking a step toward accomplishing the goal of training, the States and EMI and CDP non-resident and resident programs are still open. However, all instructors in both those programs must be qualified to ODP Information Bulletin No. 193 October 20, 2005 standards. We are still able to deliever ICS-300 and ICS-400 internally within the organizations by leveraging our training resources.
Most states are providing the courses, and soon it will be totally left to the states. If they aren't offering the training, push your State Training Coordinator.
Valid point. However, the impediment is the motivation. Especially when one considers the private sector.
One would expect that since government entities are mandated to conform to the NIMS concept, that they, above all,would be following the training guidelines. To this date, in general, they (the first responder community) has yet to meet governmental expectations.
And, without government acknowledgement of the cost to the private sector, the ease of learning about ICS will not occur. There is NO clear value to the P/S and it detracts from the bottom line. Thus, if the Fed.s want to get the P/S on-board the NIMS program, Congress needs to pass a bill that will either encourage the P/S take an active role in emergency preparedness, or mandate their compliance as they have done in several critical infrastructure verticles already.
Secondly, FEMA needs to enforce the existing PPD's, etc. to ensure that the public sector first responder community, are up to speed. About which, there is substantial indications that they are not.
In any event, the two camps are motivated by different stimuli: one for profit, one by mandate.
Where are all the trainers who were trained to teach ICS? It seems many took the 449 class but they have not been teaching many classes from what I have seen.
While I totaly agree with need for training. The resources are there. FEMA's Independant Study Program is available to anyone who wants the training. EMS, Fire, and Police need to provide the time for their employees to take the training.
Taking a step toward accomplishing the goal of training, the States and EMI and CDP non-resident and resident programs are still open. However, all instructors in both those programs must be qualified to ODP Information Bulletin No. 193 October 20, 2005 standards. We are still able to deliever ICS-300 and ICS-400 internally within the organizations by leveraging our training resources.
Completion of on-the-job training, documented performance in a position through position task books (PTB), and then certification by your organization to have the authority to serve in that position is the end game.
The question here would be weren't the AHJs reading the FY-'07,'08, and '09 NIMS OBJECTIVES BULLETINS and evaluating their training needs by their hazard analysis ? The NIMS OBJECTIVES required the AHJs to use existing resources such as programs, personnel and training facilities to coordinate and deliver NIMS training requirements.
Question: Where are all the trainers who were trained to teach ICS? It seems many took the 449 class but they have not been teaching many classes from what I have seen.
Answer: Great question. The Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan, which is a product of the T&EPW, will serve as a living document that is updated annually. The Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan will include a schedule that accounts for training and exercises occurring within the each State or Urban Area over the ensuing 3 years. The Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan is the roadmap for accomplishing priorities described in the State or Urban Area homeland security strategy. Included in the plan should be the Training and Exercise Schedule for the ensuing 3 years. For example, schedules created in 2012 represent training and exercise activities expected to occur from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014. In 2013, The State or Urban Area should create a 3-year training and exercise schedule that represents training and exercise activities planned for January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015. The TEP is produced on the building block approach to developing capabilities
To satisfy the juridiction’s hazard/analysis requirement. To that extent, the trainers you observed in the E/L/B-449 courses are not delievering instruction continuously in ICS-300 and ICS-400.
A closer look at the TEP might indicate delievery of courses such as Local Floodplain Manager Roles and Responsibilities (G194.1), National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Rules and Regulations in Depth (G194.2), Preparing for Post-Disaster Responsibilities (G194.4),
Residential Coastal Construction (G277), Flood Insurance for the Local Floodplain Manager (G282.1), Hydrology and Hydraulics for the Floodplain Manager (G282.2). Further, some of these instructors retired or changed agencies. Some have estabilished vendor delievery companies and others serve as contract instructors to NFA, CDP, and EMI.
All IS courses should be offered at the High School to all Senior class level students who are interested in Emergency Management field or community positions as employees or volunteers.Since it is no cost to them the school or the parents until they access the credit for the start of college. It would give them at the very least exposure, knowledge, and college credits.