Port Security Applied Policy Project - Belfer Center for Science and ...

Problem 2: Inaccessibility of the Port Complex
ALTERNATIVES
1) Identify high-risk locations and target them for enrollment, giving them priority
for CERT training.
The CERT Advisory Committee could prioritize high-risk locations throughout the
county, and set target percentages for training populations within these areas. Workers
and citizens living near these locations would receive priority status for CERT training.
Training agencies in these high-risk areas would then actively contact local organizations
that could recruit civilians for these classes.
Organizations in low-risk locations could still sign up for classes, but if civilians from a
higher-risk area wanted training, then these low-risk civilians would need to understand
that their classes could be rescheduled. Until their target percentages were trained, highrisk
populations would continue to receive priority status. Meanwhile, lower-risk
populations could also seek to cultivate basic emergency response skills by both enrolling
in the American Red Cross’s first aid classes and following suggestions outlined by the
Los Angeles County Emergency Operations Center’s Emergency Survival Program. 107
Strengths: This process would allocate limited resources more efficiently.
Drawbacks: This process may discourage interested volunteers who happen to live or
work in low-risk locations. If they sign up for classes that are later
cancelled, these potential volunteers may become particularly frustrated.
2) Within the existing process, give high-risk individuals priority enrollment.
The CERT Advisory Committee could identify high-risk populations and target
percentages. Instead of rescheduling entire low-risk classes, however, individuals from
high-risk areas could be permitted to replace low-risk students, beginning with the last
low-risk students who joined the class (i.e., low-risk students would be replaced in
reverse order of their signing up). Additionally, low-risk volunteers could be contacted
and a voluntary exchange could be arranged.
Strengths: While still not optimal for facilitating volunteerism, this system may be
less discouraging than Alternative #1 to those potential volunteers in
populations that are low-risk. It would prioritize high-risk target areas
while still allowing proactive organizations and individuals in low-risk
areas to receive training. At least some of the most proactive low-risk
members may be able to take the class, instead of being rescheduled.
107 Joyce Harris (Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management) phone interview by Seth
Jacobson, 24 March 2003.
40 Department of Policy Studies, UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research