The Red Cross Preparedness Guard (PG) is a system for recruiting and mobilising citizens that the Red Cross might contact for help if there is a crisis. This is a list of volunteers that have agreed to be contacted for support on short notice during emergency situations. The volunteers should be people that are interested, are willing to participate in courses once or twice a year, and that can take care of themselves and others. The list could also include existing members already engaged in other tasks who, in addition, wish to volunteer in PG during a crisis. PG supports a wish to organise efforts in the local communities, to enable competent volunteers to help in situations and to avoid potentially unwanted spontaneous volunteers.
The recruitment of citizens varies from one local branch to another, depending on the needs and availability of people. Some have recruited people through stands, other have a more targeted approach, or draw on already affiliated people to the Red Cross. Overall, people are recruited locally.
The Preparedness Guard can contribute to enhance preparedness possibilities in a local region and capitalise on social networks and relationships. One case implementation of PG is also planning to have social gatherings for the volunteers to strengthen these social networks and relationships. In all, an aim of the PG is also to empower governance and leadership of volunteers in emergency situations.
Volunteers gets a basic level of coursing, primarily first aid courses and introduction to the Red Cross principles, and could get the possibility of additional courses, for example leadership courses. PG is a low-hanging participation opportunity for citizens that wish to help in case of crisis, but do not have the time or the capacity to volunteer on a regular basis. The Preparedness Guard could also be linked to municipalities through "Collaboration agreement with municipality on preparedness".
Specific capabilities and physical resources that can be provided by the volunteers can also be listed. Typical activities that volunteers can help with in a crisis through this solution are transport of people, material, equipment, for example in relation to support centres. Also, the collection of clothes, foods and other vital resources have been done for victims that have had to evacuate. Other tasks have been to provide food for first aid professionals and other volunteers.
Depending on the size of the community in which the solution is implemented, different recruiting strategies must be used. In larger communities, a more thorough assessment process of volunteers is needed, for example existing volunteers who have already been approved to work as volunteers are recruited rather than ordinary citizens. In a small community people are often familiar with one another so capable volunteers may easily be assessed.
It is necessary to have a person from the more established groups of volunteers with relevant coping skills to organize the volunteers from the preparedness guard in emergencies.
Some material conditions and resources are needed. Through cooperation agreements, the municipality is expected to pay for costs (food etc.) related to mobilizing the preparedness guards during emergencies. Administration of the list and the training of citizens is somewhat resource intensive.
Age of population where the solution is implemented is an important factor for what type of actions that are required from the volunteers, for example care, shopping, or transport.
The volunteers were often 50+ and Caucasian, white and some who volunteers/organized from before in other areas. In psychosocial care, gender plays a role as these volunteers are often 50+ women Caucasian.
The relationship between NGO and first responders and authorities is important. In Norway, the emergency first responders are often interested in collaborating with the Red Cross as an NGO, and there is an established level of trust between these actors. In areas where there is no collaboration the formal authorities will not contact volunteers.
Perception of responsibility is also important with regards to the expectations citizens have to the Red Cross. In Norway, the RC are expected to be visible and to participate in emergency situations.
It is resource demanding to recruit and manage many people at the same time. Because there can be a challenge of dropouts, it may also take a lot of time each year to recruit new people. Before implementing the Preparedness Guard, one should consider resources available for management and perhaps limit the number of people that are recruited as volunteers.
Social bonds and topography or spatial proximity also influence the type of coping actions that are needed during an emergency. For example, in the case of energy blackouts, transport and provision of food and other goods to remote areas or areas harder to reach may be arduous. Also, elders that have strong social bonds and elders that are isolated will have different needs of support in an emergency. Another aspect of social bonds is that in some communities there might already exist networks of friends or neighbours with skills or equipment that could be valuable for a given crisis. These networks may be utilised both for recruitment and during emergency.
In terms of actual preparedness, and for the Preparedness Guard to be effective, it is necessary to have the right volunteers available for a long enough time. This is important for the solution to be able to grow and for the system not becoming person dependent.
It is important to guide the expectations of the volunteers that are a part of the Preparedness Guard. Some volunteers might be interested in more than just being on the list. Therefore, the perception of responsibility is essential, and that the role of the volunteers are clearly communicated.
Level of trust is important for the use of the Preparedness Guard. Based on experiences, volunteering for the authorities is not considered something that people want to do. The message and legitimacy will be different if the Preparedness Guard is organised by authorities. The impression is that the one next to you should also work for free. Therefore, volunteer centrals arranged by the municipality for example, have worked modestly and never been a great success.
The evaluation's main findings from 2014 point out that the big question is "what should the volunteers be used for?" which for local associations may appear somewhat unclear. Furthermore, the evaluation points out that;
The experiences from this pilot has been evaluated. The evaluation showed that:
Overall, an accumulation of 12 years of experience shows successful results.
The Preparedness Guard has not yet been formally established in Trondheim Red Cross (TRC). However, because of the Covid-19 pandemic, citizens contacted TRC and volunteered to help. They were given a basic level course online. Some of these volunteers, along with existing members of TRC, have been working at the vaccine center to coordinate groups of people being vaccinated. TRC has seen the need to follow up these volunteers after the effort at the vaccine center ends.
In one area there were many more volunteers than expected (260 people of 5-6000 inhabitants). This made it difficult to administer and get everyone through training. It was also a challenge that the responsible did not have a plan to organize the volunteers. In this case they needed to find new people to administer the preparedness guard, and in the end only a 100 of the 260 ended up joining.
A yearly course is held for all volunteers at a set date, and it can be a challenge that many volunteers are not available to participate.
It has sometimes been a challenge to get the municipality to sign an agreement for being responsible for the costs that need to be covered in an emergency (e.g., food).
It may be challenging to update the register, for example to remove dead/sick/uninterested. There is currently no formal process for updating the system/list of persons. Instead, it is based on local administrations own ad hoc work process.
Mainly white middle-aged people sign up, and it has been a challenge to involve minorities
The biggest challenge is to have the right volunteers in the system for a long enough time to make the solution to flourish and not become person independent (relates to a general issue with volunteering, where there is a high turnover rate).
In many places it became too resource demanding recruiting and managing so many people at the same time. A lot of dropouts, and then it takes a lot of time each year recruiting new people. The bigger cities have been better at limiting the number of people recruited for the Preparedness Guard.
It demands work to keep the list updated. Necessary to ensure a consistent effort and focus from the local organisation.
Some volunteers might be interested in more than just being on the list and therefore get disappointed when nothing happens. Guiding the expectations is important.
Previously, TRC regarded the Preparedness Guard primarily as a recruitment activity. To avoid a high number of volunteers without the necessary qualifications to become a "high-quality" volunteer, they decided not to promote campaigns of the Preparedness Guard.
TRC has not had a system for following up volunteers offering to help with a specific crisis, such as the volunteers after the terrorist attack on Utøya in 2011 or the refugee crisis in 2015. This has affected the potential of recruiting new members and volunteers. Also, during the Covid-19 pandemic this issue has become apparent, after a great number of new volunteers have been participating in organising vaccine centre. The implementation of the Preparedness Guard aims to mend on this issue.
Some volunteers for the Preparedness Guard will only be associated with this activity, whereas others would also be members of other TRC groups. TRC hope to recruit members from other activities to ensure that they are qualified and held to TRC standards. These groups of PG volunteers will have different needs for follow up activities.