CERT Organization
A local government agency, often a fire department or emergency management agency, agrees to sponsor CERT within its jurisdiction. The sponsoring agency liases with, deploys and may train or supervise the training of CERT members. The sponsoring agency receives and disburses federal and state Citizen Corps grant funds allocated to its CERT program. Many sponsoring agencies employ a full-time community-service person as liaison to the CERT members. In some communities, the liaison is a volunteer and CERT member.
As people are trained and agree to join the community emergency response effort, a CERT is formed. Initial efforts may result in a team with only a few members from across the community. As the number of members grow, a single community-wide team may subdivide. Multiple CERTs are organized into a hierarchy of teams consistent with ICS principles. This follows the Incident Command System (ICS) principle of Span of control until the ideal distribution is achieved: one or more teams are formed at each neighborhood within a community.
Some CERTs form a club or service corporation, and recruit volunteers to perform training on behalf of the sponsoring agency. This reduces the financial and human resource burden on the sponsoring agency.
When not responding to disasters, CERTs may
- raise funds for emergency response equipment in their community;
- provide first-aid, crowd control or other services at community events;
- hold planning, training, or recruitment meetings;
- conduct or participate in disaster response exercises.
Some sponsoring agencies use Citizen Corps grant funds to purchase response tools and equipment for their members and team(s) (subject to Stafford Act limitations). Most CERTs also acquire their own supplies, tools, and equipment. As community members, CERTs are aware of the specific needs of their community and equip the teams accordingly.
Read more about this topic: Community Emergency Response Team
Famous quotes containing the word organization:
“Unless a group of workers know their work is under surveillance, that they are being rated as fairly as human beings, with the fallibility that goes with human judgment, can rate them, and that at least an attempt is made to measure their worth to an organization in relative terms, they are likely to sink back on length of service as the sole reason for retention and promotion.”
—Mary Barnett Gilson (1877–?)