See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232546078

EFPA and Work on Disaster, Crisis, and Trauma

Psychology

Article in European Psychologist · January 2011

DOI: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000092

CITATIONS READS

4 117

3 authors, including:

Ayse Nuray Karanci

Middle East Technical University
68 PUBLICATIONS 900 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Secondary traumatisation in news cameramen View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ayse Nuray Karanci on 29 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Report

EFPA and Work on Disaster, Crisis,

and Trauma Psychology
Salli Saari,1 A. Nuray Karanci,2 and William Yule3 , EFPA Standing Committee on
Disaster, Crisis, and Trauma Psychology
1
Student Health Service, Helsinki, Finland, 2Department of Psychology, Middle East Technical
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

University, Ankara, Turkey, 3Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, UK

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Abstract. In response to increasing concern about the effects of crises, disaster, trauma and, more recently, terrorism, EFPA established first a
working party and then a Standing Committee to advise on the part psychology can play in preparing for emergencies and responding to them.
The Committee has drawn together evidence and views from across Europe and the wider international scene. It has worked closely with the
European Commission and has embarked on further training for members from recently acceded countries. It has recommended better ways of
liaising across countries so that in the event of cross-border incidents, more efficient and effective responses can be assured. In turn this has
implications for the training of psychologists and other professionals involved in emergency planning and response. Currently, there is a move to
develop quality standards for such training.

Keywords: EFPA – disaster, crisis, and trauma psychology, PTSD, disaster psychology, crisis psychology, trauma psychology

Formation of the Task Force/Standing
Committee – A Brief History
The past few years have seen a rapid development in
the field of disaster and crisis psychology, both in terms of
interventions and preventive work in relation to crisis
situations (Bisson, 2008; Dyregrov, 1997; Dyregrov,
Straume, & Saari, 2009; Dyregrov & Yule, 2006; Kowalski
& Kalayjian, 2001; Reyes & Elhai, 2004; Saari & Palonen,
2007; Vernberg et al., 2008). Development in this field has
been somewhat uneven in different parts of Europe, depend-
ing on local circumstances and the actual existence of disas-
ter and crisis situations. Therefore, the EFPA General
Assembly decided at its meeting in Dublin, July 1997, to
create a Task Force on Disaster and Crisis Psychology.
The aims of the Task Force were to:
• collect the experiences from each European country on
the present situation and the recent developments in
disaster and crisis psychology,
• gather information on the necessary training for this
special field and how it needs to be arranged and
planned for the future,
• contact European Union officials and to find out if there
are any all-European plans within the Union which
would be of importance for the development of skills
and practices in disaster and crisis psychology,
• make recommendations as to the steps that should be
taken in each EFPA Member Association and country
to develop this field of psychology,
• publish a report in the form of a booklet on the situation
and experiences of disaster and crisis psychology in
Europe.
Two years later in 1999, in its report to the General Assem-
bly in Rome, the area of disaster and crisis psychology was
defined as ‘‘. . . the prevention, by early psychological inter-
ventions, of long-term reactions, symptoms, and problems
created by disasters and critical incidents. This preventive
work also includes the follow-up of disaster victims.’’ The
aim of the work is to reach the survivors of traumatic inci-
dents. Such incidents include all major or smaller accidents,
fires, drowning, suicides, violent deaths, and violent inci-
dents, as well as major natural and technological disasters
and terror events.
In disasters, the survivors are primary psychological
victims; however also the people left behind following a
death – children, parents, other relatives, friends, colleagues,
school friends, and teachers of the casualties – are victims.
Other victims are eyewitnesses to the incident, rescue staff –
firemen, emergency staff, policemen, ambulance drivers,
doctors, nurses – and other health personnel. Those who
have caused the accident or incident and people close to
them may also be victims. A sudden, unexpected death or
even a near death situation has a strong psychological
impact on all those people, who were close to the dead per-
son, or who witnessed the event. In other words, the entire
community immediately surrounding the victim can be
counted as psychological victims of the disaster. The guid-
ing principle of early intervention is that help must be

 2011 Hogrefe Publishing European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(2):141–148

DOI: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000092
 142 S. Saari et al.: EFPA and Work on Disaster, Crisis, and Trauma Psychology
provided immediately after the event, mainly during the first
3 days. An active search must identify the victims of the
disaster or critical incident. Every psychological victim in
any disaster has the right to receive psychosocial support
and services (Bonanno, Brewin, Kaniasty, & La Greca,
2010; Chatterjee, 2005; Reyes, 2006; Rubonis & Bickman,
1991; Saari, 2005, Sümer, Karanci, Kazak Berument, &
Günesß, 2005; Yule, 2006).
There are some special psychological methods used in
early interventions. The best known of these is psychologi-
cal debriefing. Its purpose is to prevent aftereffects such as
posttraumatic stress disorders by systematically reviewing
in detail what has happened and what are the impressions,
thoughts, and feelings of the victims. Debriefing also aims
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
to reinforce group spirit and a feeling of solidarity, to acti-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
vate social support and coping, and to normalize reactions.
Early trauma intervention also includes the follow-up of
the reactions and guidance to therapeutic services if needed.
In trauma therapy, psychologists have recently developed
new special methods and techniques, such as the Eye Move-
ment Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR). Also, the
process of developing long-term intervention methods such
as grief groups and trauma seminars has been promising.
Today, psychosocial support and services include interven-
tions in all phases of the crisis process, from early interven-
tion to trauma therapy (Report of the EFPPA Task Force on
Disaster and Crisis Psychology, 2001).
Thus, from its earliest discussions, the Task Force recog-
nized that disasters and crises had widespread impacts on
many people and structures throughout society. Psychologists
are recognized as having important roles in advising civil
emergency personnel in planning (and taking decisions under
extreme stress), as well as in immediate, short- and long-term
interventions to mitigate any psychological effects on survi-
vors, emergency responders and their families. From an early
stage, the Task Force realized that much of what came to be
termed ‘‘psycho-social’’ help would continue to be delivered
by volunteers and professionals other than psychologists, but
it saw the need for such personnel to have adequate access to
the latest psychological knowledge and skills. In common
with others at the time (e.g., Reyes & Elhai, 2004), the Task
Force viewed the early potential of ‘‘Psychological Debrief-
ing’’ as generally positive. Later, as more hard evidence accu-
mulated (e.g., Vernberg et al., 2008), this evaluation was
moderated, although the Task Force viewed much of the sub-
sequent controversy as ignoring scientific results.
Among the first tasks of the Task Force had been the col-
lection of data on the situation of, and recent developments
in, disaster and crisis psychology across Europe. A survey
was sent to EFPA Member Associations and the replies
received from 12 countries indicated that the field was
undergoing rapid change. Therefore, the Standing Commit-
tee has continued to collect data on developments across
Europe. Having recognized that there was a growing body
of psychological knowledge on disasters and crises, a major
issue was how best to educate psychologists throughout Eur-
ope to develop the skills to contribute to developments in
each country. The Task Force, later Standing Committee,
started collecting data on training and reported it in 2001.
With European officials and national legislative bodies
European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(2):141–148
realizing that there was a need for better training for all those
responding to disasters, the issue of how to formulate quality
standards for psychological interventions in disasters and
crisis was addressed from the first working periods of the
Task Force.
The Operation of the Task Force/
Standing Committee
During its early years, the Task Force worked mainly by
email. It held face-to-face meetings only at the European
Congresses. At the London Congress in 2001, the Task
Force organized its first symposium in training and quality
standards for psychological interventions in disaster and cri-
sis psychology. The 2003 General Assembly in Vienna wit-
nessed a new period in the work of the Task Force. The
Member Associations nominated as members in the Task
Force 10 experts in the field and the Task Force started to
have 2 two-day meetings each year. The work of the Task
Force changed a great deal when it started its collaboration
with the Council of Europe during the working period from
2003 to 2005. At the 2003 General Assembly the Task
Force was charged to form a ‘‘Network’’ on Disaster and
Crisis Psychology. Each Member Association nominated a
person to the Network. The tasks of the Network were to
disseminate information and experiences and to enhance
the work of EFPA and the EFPA Member Associations in
the field of disaster and crisis psychology.
The EPFA Executive Council asked the Task Force to
produce a report to the EFPA Executive Council for presen-
tation to the European Council. ‘‘. . . concerning matters that
European authorities should consider in prevention and han-
dling of crisis and disaster situations. This would include: A
basic statement on the importance of professional and scien-
tific Disaster and Crisis Psychology in today’s Europe; a
short outline of conclusions from scientific research and pro-
fessional practice relevant to this field; concrete proposals
concerning the European and national legislation, organisa-
tion and training in this field.’’ This report was accepted in
the 2005 General Assembly in Granada. The Task Force
proposed that the report for the European Council would
be a common policy paper of EFPA in the field of disaster
and crisis psychology.
Disaster, Crisis, and Trauma Psychology (DCTP) is seen
as one of the most important development areas in psychol-
ogy. In recognition of this, the 2005 General Assembly
accepted that DCTP is such a key area in EFPA activities
that the Task Force was reconstituted as a Standing Commit-
tee on DCTP. Following the General Assembly in Granada a
number of recommendations were made to Member Associ-
ations. The Task Force emphasized the importance of
actions of Member Associations in the field of disaster
and crisis psychology. Every Member Association was
advised to take the initiative to set up some special organi-
zation for those psychologists working in the field of disas-
ter and crisis psychology as quickly as possible. One model
of organization is the Danish model of having its own asso-
ciation for disaster and crisis psychologists (The Danish
 2011 Hogrefe Publishing
 S. Saari et al.: EFPA and Work on Disaster, Crisis, and Trauma Psychology
Society of Psychotrauma). All EFPA Member Associations
are encouraged to nominate a delegate to the Standing Com-
mittee, which maintains contacts with every EFPA Member
Association. Each Member Association should ensure that
every psychologist has basic knowledge in DCTP.
Recent Work of the Standing
Committee
The Standing Committee currently has 22 members: Bernard
Caruana (EC Liaison); A. Nuray Karanci (Turkey) Convener;
Magda Rooze, Vice Convener (Netherlands); Eva Muenker-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Kramer (Austria); Zoran Simic (Croatia); Stelios Georgiades
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(Cyprus); Jana Malikova (Czech Republic); Anders
Korsgaard Christensen (Denmark); Salli Saari (Finland);
Dominique Szepielak (France); Georg Pieper (Germany);
Vassiliki Boukouvala (Greece); Isabel Fernandez (Italy);
Nida Zemaitiene (Lithuania); Marc Stein (Luxembourg);
Marianna Straume (Norway); Nubbia Reggini (San Marino);
Hana Scibranyova (Slovakia); Robert Masten (Slovenia); In-
geborg Porcar Becker (Spain); Eva Håkanson (Sweden);
Katharina Lyner (Switzerland); William Yule (United
Kingdom); and Ingrid Blessom (EFPSA). The wide member-
ship means that the work of the Standing Committee reflects
the experiences and work in those 22 European countries,
which in turn has affected the status and work of disaster
and crisis psychology in these countries.
The Standing Committee has continued to meet two or
three times per year. Its work is summarized in reports to
the EFPA General Assembly. There have been many varied
disasters both in Europe and further afield that have had con-
sequences for citizens in Europe. The Asian Tsunami of
December 2004 may have seemed a long distance away,
but many Europeans were on vacation in affected countries
and the resulting crises underlined the need for all-European
countries to have up-to-date procedures for helping those
affected at the scene and their relatives back home (Saari
& Palonen, 2007). The threat of terrorism has exercised
many emergency planners and the Standing Committee
played a central role in the joint EFPA/British Psychological
Society project: the Psychological Assistance for the Victims
of Terrorism (PAVOT). Its report was presented in the
European Parliament in December 2008.
A majority of the population fear terrorist attacks (Cox &
Ghodse, 2007; Whalley & Brewin, 2007). Researching in
this area is difficult given the unpredictable nature of terror-
ist events. However, what is clear from the evidence is that
victims want and need psychological aid, both first aid and
in the longer term to ensure that they can return to fully
functioning normality (Foa et al., 2005; Miller, 2002). The
report from the PAVOT project made over 40 recommenda-
tions that, if enacted, should help prepare European Coun-
tries better to respond to these increasing threats. It
emphasized the need to respond to all those directly and
indirectly affected, not just a small proportion of severely
distressed survivors. Consequently all member states should
have in place means for screening large numbers of
survivors and providing evidence-based help. The need to
 2011 Hogrefe Publishing
143
evaluate interventions through valid research was empha-
sized. Psychology has a central role in training all profes-
sionals likely to be involved in responding to help the
victims of terrorism.
The rapid development in the field of DCTP has contin-
ued. Disasters such as bus accidents, airplane crashes, mining
accidents, large entertainment event disasters, such as the
2010 Love Parade stampede in Germany, natural disasters
such as earthquakes and floods, terror events such as bomb-
ings and school shootings in Europe have posed great chal-
lenges for disaster and crisis psychology. This development
has raised both professional and political interest in the need
for psychological support and services for the survivors in
many European countries. Another important development
has been the cross-border (e.g., tsunami, airplane crash)
disasters in which the citizens of one country are exposed to
disasters abroad and the organization of the provision of
psychological support in these events. Furthermore, the need
to develop measures of preparedness for psychologists and
community members and mitigation activities to reduce the
impact of such hazardous events and to be prepared for them
has increased. In conjunction with this state of affairs, the
development of guidelines for the delivery of psychosocial
support, standards of training for disaster and crisis psycholo-
gists, and the organization of disaster, trauma, and crisis
psychologists in each country have gained momentum. It is
of great importance that the European countries learn from
each other’s experiences and expertise; this sharing of lessons
learned and knowledge is at the heart of the work of the
Standing Committee.
Development in this field is still somewhat uneven in dif-
ferent parts of Europe, depending on local circumstances and
actual experience of disasters and crisis situations. Low
resource countries can profit from higher resource countries
in this way. Also the role of psychologists in this field and their
operation within the national disaster management systems
vary in different European countries depending on the disaster
management systems, structures, and legislations. Creating a
European wide network of crisis and disaster psychology
begins with knowledge about the different systems and proce-
dures, as ultimately this will make it possible to bridge the gap.
Members of the Standing Committee have been very active in
their associations in their own country and internationally.
Lessons learned in different disasters and terrorist attacks
are reported and shared. A book reporting lessons learned
from various disasters in the EFPA member countries has been
produced by the Standing Committee and published by the
Council of Europe in 2010 (Council of Europe, 2010). With
the support of the Council of Europe, Standing Committee
members have been involved in training psychologists from
countries who have recently joined the European Union.
By holding committee meetings in different countries, a
better understanding of the particular challenges facing that
country has been achieved through formal and informal dis-
cussions with members of the local association. For example
in the period July 2009 to October 2010, the meeting places
have been Amsterdam (Netherlands), Ankara (Turkey), and
Helsinki (Finland). These meetings have been hosted by
the local Psychological Associations and during the meetings
the Standing Committee had an opportunity to form contacts
European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(2):141–148
 144 S. Saari et al.: EFPA and Work on Disaster, Crisis, and Trauma Psychology
with the crisis workers and organizations in these countries
and to support efforts of the psychologists in this field.
Furthermore, prior to the Ankara meeting, Professor William
Yule, member of our Standing Committee, delivered a pre-
sentation at the Middle East Technical University, Ankara,
to a large audience of psychology students and psychologists
titled ‘‘Mental Health in Children: Investing in our Future.’’
The presentation was received with enthusiasm and has led
to the facilitation of interest in the field. Similarly, prior to
the Helsinki meeting, Salli Saari, another Standing Commit-
tee member, in collaboration with the Psykologiainstituutti,
organized a full-day symposium on disaster and crisis psy-
chology. Professor Nuray Karanci, Professor William Yule,
and Georg Pieper from the Standing Committee delivered
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
presentations providing the opportunity to disseminate and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
share knowledge with psychologists and social workers from
Finland.
The current work of the Standing Committee can be
divided into nine areas, as follows.
1. Strengthening the Role of EFPA Member
Associations in the Field of Crisis
and Disaster Work by
• Developing the organization and status of DCTP in
Member Associations of EFPA
The formation of some kind of organization in DCTP in
each Member Association has been facilitated. The mem-
bers of the Standing Committee are the contact person for
each Association and for these divisions or special groups.
The construction of a national database of psychologists
with expertise (training, work experience, knowledge of lan-
guages) in crisis psychology is still continuing. The Stand-
ing Committee has developed a questionnaire to be used
for this purpose in Member Associations. Some associations
have already collected the information, but in most it is a
task for the future.
• Collecting data on psychologists with expertise in crisis
psychology with the aim of forming a network of them
in the Association
There has been pressure for the creation of a European level
database of psychologists who are ready to do crisis work
after disasters. The Standing Committee has discussed and
evaluated the need for this kind of database and concluded
that such a list may pose problems, due to different organi-
zational structures in each country and to possible changes
in the status of individuals in such lists. There are many
problems both in the availability and use of such a database.
In major disasters each country has its own disaster manage-
ment system and organization for psychosocial support and
services and psychologists should be a part of that organiza-
tion. However, we recognize that in the case of cross-border
disasters there is a need to have some contact persons from
each country, who can provide information on disaster and
crisis psychologists in that country. Therefore, currently
the Standing Committee is in the process of compiling a
European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(2):141–148
short list of expert names from each country. It is agreed that
it may be fruitful to have the name of the Standing Commit-
tee representative and two substitutes from each member
country. It can make the status and role of the Psychological
Association in crisis work more important if the Association
has its own database of crisis psychologists available to
national authorities in need of resources in disasters. There-
fore, the task of collaborating with national authorities
responsible for disaster management is a future task of our
Standing Committee members.
2. Dissemination of Experiences and Lessons
Learned From Disasters and Crisis Work After
Different Kinds of Major Disasters in Europe
The Standing Committee has members with a broad range
of experiences from various different kinds of disasters
(e.g., school shooting, tsunami, earthquakes, bombing, min-
ing accidents, airplane crashes, etc.). We believe that it is
important to evaluate these disaster events within the frame-
work of theories and guidelines for psychological support
and to make a synthesis of what is learned from them. This
information will be highly valuable for future management
and planning of psychosocial support activities. Thus, our
Standing Committee prepared the Lessons Learned docu-
ment, having 17 descriptions of major disasters from Europe
and their evaluations. The document is published in English
and a translation into French will be produced by the Coun-
cil of Europe. We are planning to update it as new disaster
events occur and to produce an analysis report which will be
placed on our website. A report on the Elazığ, Turkey earth-
quake (Karanci, Ecevit, & Oner, 2010), and on the collapse
of buildings from Spain (Parello-Scherdel, 2005), is avail-
able on our website (http://disaster.efpa.eu/recent-reports/).
3. Training of Psychologists in Crisis, Disaster,
and Trauma Psychology
• Basic training of psychologists in DCTP
The Standing Committee recommends to EFPA Member
Associations that undergraduate psychology courses should
include coverage of DCTP, as part of every psychologist’s
basic training program. A letter was sent to EFPA Member
Associations asking them to forward it to all universities
with psychology departments. The Standing Committee
strongly believes that every psychologist in Europe needs
to know the main principles in disaster and crisis psychol-
ogy, because other professions and people expect them to
be experts in this field. Therefore, having a disaster psychol-
ogy course in all psychology departments is highly recom-
mended. However, due to the autonomy of universities
and in some cases due to shortage of academic staff
specialized in this area the efforts are still continuing and
will be continued in the future. The Standing Committee
is aware that universities have autonomy and that it is very
difficult to influence their programs of study, but the aim of
 2011 Hogrefe Publishing
 S. Saari et al.: EFPA and Work on Disaster, Crisis, and Trauma Psychology
increasing the knowledge of psychologists in crisis work is
very important. The Standing Committee has also asked EF-
PSA and its Member Associations to support this initiative,
because students are usually very interested in studying cri-
sis and trauma psychology.
• Training for trainers: Guided training of psychologists
in DCTP in Eastern European countries funded by
Council of Europe, Euro-Mediterranean Major Hazards
Agreement
Development in the field of DCTP varies a great deal in Euro-
pean countries. There are countries that lack knowledge and
training, which also means that the survivors of disasters do
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
not get appropriate help. The Standing Committee has worked
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
actively with an international training project: ‘‘Training for
trainers: Guided training of psychologists in DCTP in Eastern
European countries.’’ The aim of this project was to choose
countries where there is a need for such training and then
invite at least two delegates from each country to the training
event. The training workshop, supported by the Council of
Europe’s EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement, was held
August 30–September 3, 2010 in Vienna, Austria. Eleven
trainers from Bulgaria, Ukraine, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Malta, Romania, and Slovakia participated.
The aims of the training were to: support interested East-
ern European countries in enriching their capacities in psy-
chotraumatology, disaster, and crisis psychology, and special
interventions like Critical Incident Stress Management
(CISM); to offer more special training (children, acute
trauma, etc.) specialties later according to the needs and
assessment of survivors; offer experience in building up
meaningful and practical structures based on the national
needs and backgrounds; prepare these experts to continue
the training with new colleagues within their countries so
that the training skills will be disseminated. The program
will continue to be delivered twice a year over three days
for the next two years to reinforce and deepen learning
and to give feedback on implementations in each country.
Support (mentoring, consulting) concerning strategies to
set up standards and concepts (as the members of the Stand-
ing Committee did by exchanging information with each
other) will also be provided.
The training team will be composed of a group of psy-
chologists from the EFPA Standing Committee on Disaster
and Crisis Psychology with broad experience in similar
training in other countries, in building up structures (organi-
zational psychology knowledge combined with disaster and
crisis psychology or in particular fields of disaster and crisis
psychology). The first workshop was very well received by
the trainees, all of whom expressed positive views on the
value of this training for their future work in the field.
4. Collaboration Projects With Council
of Europe and European Union
• Collaboration with Council of Europe
The Standing Committee has had fruitful collaborations with
the Council of Europe. An agreement on the publication of
 2011 Hogrefe Publishing
145
the Lessons Learned document prepared by our Standing
Committee in English and the translation of the document
into French was reached. Furthermore, support for the train-
ing of trainers program from eastern European countries was
confirmed. The website of the Euro-Mediterranean Major
Hazards Agreement (http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/MajorHa-
zards/) will provide a link to the website of the EFPA Stand-
ing Committee on DCTP.
• Taking part in the consortium for FP7-EU proposals
Standing Committee members are taking an active role in
the development of projects in the fields of disaster and cri-
sis psychology (e.g., enhancing crisis response abilities of
the public; Resilience in Europe against disasters).
5. Formation of a Review Team
for Evaluation and Consultation
of Post-Disaster Psychosocial Support
The Standing Committee proposed to form a review team
that could, if required, provide an evaluation and consulta-
tion in post-disaster psychosocial support in various coun-
tries. The support of such a review team could prove
problematic due to countries wanting to retain autonomy
over their needs and structures. Therefore, rather than having
a review team, it was agreed to prepare a list of experts from
each Member Association so that if need arises they will be
contacted via the Euro-Mediterranean Major Hazards
Agreement. Such a list is currently being compiled.
6. Contributions of the Standing
Committee on DCTP to the 12th
European Congress in Istanbul, July 2011
The Standing Committee has been invited to arrange a sym-
posium on disaster and crisis psychology at the 12th Euro-
pean Congress, July 2011, in Istanbul. The Standing
Committee has proposed to deliver two symposiums: one
on the role of Psychology Associations and psychologists
in post-disaster psychosocial support; and the second on
work and experiences from the 2004 Indian Ocean earth-
quake and tsunami.
7. Webpage of the Standing Committee
on DCTP
The Standing Committee has continued to develop its own
microsite as a part of the EFPA website with important infor-
mation on disaster, crisis, and trauma now available at http://
disaster.efpa.eu/.
8. Recent Collaboration With Other
Organizations
In Amsterdam, Rein Baneke, Director of the Dutch Psycho-
logical Association, delivered a briefing about the state and
European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(2):141–148
 146 S. Saari et al.: EFPA and Work on Disaster, Crisis, and Trauma Psychology
developments of psychology. In addition, Leonie Hoijtink
gave a presentation on ‘‘Developing guidelines for psycho-
social care for uniformed responders (police, rescue workers
etc.)’’, a project conducted by Impact, the Dutch Knowledge
and Advice Centre for Post-Disaster Psychosocial Care,
Amsterdam. Similarly in Ankara, Turkey, Emre Özgen, Vice
President of the Turkish Psychological Association, gave a
presentation on the roles and structure of psychology asso-
ciation in Turkey. In Helsinki, Tuomo Tikkanen, President
of the Finnish Psychological Association, gave a briefing.
The Standing Committee took part in the consortium devel-
oping the proposal for the European Project UEPPI-NET
(Unified European Protocol and Network for the entire
psychosocial intervention process, before, during, and after
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
mass emergencies), which unfortunately was not funded.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The Standing Committee has discussed future collaboration
with various organizations in the crisis field, such as the
International Red Cross, World Health Organization
(WHO), The European Network for Traumatic Stress
(TENTS), etc.
9. Quality Standards for Training in the Field
of DCTP
Arising from our discussions with the Commission, the
Standing Committee has also given considerable thought
to Quality Standards for Training in the Field of DCTP
and has developed some guidelines based on previous work
in this area (Saari, 2006; Saynaeve, 2001; Weine et al.,
2002). Differing standards apply to different target groups:
(1) nonprofessionals (i.e., members of Nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), community groups, volunteers, and
journalists working with survivors of disasters); (2) emer-
gency service workers (including police, search and rescue
workers, religious workers, etc.); (3) primary health care
providers (i.e., doctors, nurses, and social workers); (4)
psychosocial professionals (psychologists, psychiatrists,
and social workers); (5) social workers, NGOs, and profes-
sionals working with communities. Table 1 gives the pro-
posed model of training for these different target groups
by the levels of training.
Considering the levels of training, the first level is pri-
mary expertise training in trauma and crisis psychology. In
this level, basic knowledge on traumatic crisis, trauma reac-
tions and related disorders, processes, death and grief need
Table 1. Trainees by levels of training
I. Primary
training in trauma
Trainers and crisis
1. Nonprofessionals X X
2. Emergency service workers X
3. Primary health care providers X X
4. Professionals X X
5. Social workers, NGOs, and X X
professionals working with communities
European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(2):141–148
to be provided with a focus on aims and processes of early
intervention. Methods of psychological support in this level
include psychoeducation, debriefing, defusing, and long-
term psychosocial support for both children and adults.
Experts are required to possess important values of human
rights, confidentiality, and trust. Stress management skills
and self-care strategies also need to be covered in this level.
The second level is intermediate expertise training in
trauma and crisis: multiprofessional psychosocial support
and services. Deeper knowledge and theoretical background
and skills on traumatic crisis; trauma reactions and related
disorders (e.g., dissociation; Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD); Acute Stress Disorder (ASD); and diagnosis);
processes and long-term reactions; death and grief; aims,
processes, and principles of psychological interventions;
evidence-based methods of psychological intervention both
early intervention and continued care; and stress manage-
ment skills and self-care are included. Also important in this
training level are: Human rights; confidentiality and trust,
cultural factors, public and national mental health services,
and disaster plans and organizations; management/coordina-
tion skills; skills of working with different agents and
services; following up of the effects of intervention. The
training is for supporting children and adults with both indi-
vidual and group programs included.
The third level is advanced expertise training in trauma
and crisis, which provides further specialized knowledge
in the field and for training and supervising others. Prerequi-
site for the third level is Level 1 and 2 training. Knowledge
and skills required are: theory and methods of teaching,
communication; disaster management system, and pro-
cesses; evaluation and diagnosis of both traumatic events
and the reactions; evidence-based specialized posttraumatic
therapies; knowledge on social and cultural factors; commu-
nication with the media and with other stakeholders; follow-
ing up of the effects of intervention. This level also covers
both children and adults with both individual and group pro-
grams included.
The fourth level includes special expertise training in
disaster risk mitigation and preparedness methods for the
public. This level addresses the predisaster phase, and aims
to build up skills for increasing community awareness in
risk mitigation and preparedness for professionals working
with community groups. It aims to provide specialized
knowledge and skills for training community groups in
the concepts and practices of risk mitigation (awareness of
Levels of training
II. Intermediate III. Advanced IV. Disaster
training in trauma training in trauma mitigation and
and crisis and crisis preparedness
X X
X X
 2011 Hogrefe Publishing
 S. Saari et al.: EFPA and Work on Disaster, Crisis, and Trauma Psychology
hazards and vulnerabilities) and methods of reducing risks
and being prepared. Knowledge and skills that are required
in this level include: risk assessment (hazards and vulnera-
bilities); disaster management system and institutions; com-
munication and interactive teaching skills to collaborate with
various stakeholders, NGOs, public and private agencies,
media workers and special groups (e.g., elderly, disabled,
etc.); and capacity building and empowerment methods
for the public.
Suggestions for future work for the development of
Quality Standards for Training in the Field of DCTP
include formation of a subcommittee to work on this area;
examination and the evaluation of existing guidelines and
training programs; developing and refining the suggested
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
guidelines; developing manuals for each level of training;
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
giving training using the guidelines and the manuals; and
monitoring, evaluation, and revision of manuals.
Looking to the Future
Despite generally increasing affluence worldwide, the num-
ber of natural disasters seems to grow. Most disasters
directly affect resource-poor countries but there is no short-
age of floods, fires, earthquakes, and technological disasters
across Europe. It is important that up-to-date findings can be
made available quickly and with confidence to all planning
authorities. All countries are very much aware of the dan-
gers of terrorism and sadly there is increasing experience
of how to mitigate the psychological aftermath. But what
can psychology do to help detect and even prevent acts of
terrorism? The increase in cyberterrorism poses ever new
challenges. The implications of all these developments for
the Standing Committee fall into two main areas: Implica-
tions for EFPA and implications for the Council of Europe
and the European Commission.
Some progress has been made in helping Member Asso-
ciations establish structures within their national organiza-
tion to act as a focus for DCTP. As national groups are
developed, they can be linked through the Standing Com-
mittee to form a network that can serve the needs of Europe.
As noted earlier, the EFPA General Assembly endorsed the
proposal that all-European psychologists should have some
basic training in the subject. While many universities resent
being told what to teach, EFPA has it in its power to insist
that such training forms part of the EuroPsy. A start has been
made on disseminating experiences and findings on the
EFPA website; this is essential work and needs doing well.
It is costly to keep such webpages up to date and so needs
proper funding from some European source. Equally impor-
tant, European psychologists should be at the forefront of
adding to knowledge in this area. EFPA should be sponsor-
ing good quality research and seeking funding. While EFPA
naturally lays emphasis on the psychology of disasters, it
recognizes that many different professions are involved in
civil emergency planning and response. It is therefore
important that the work of EFPA and the Standing Commit-
tee is made available to other relevant organizations. Thus,
EFPA should continue to develop contacts with the civil
 2011 Hogrefe Publishing
147
protection organizations in the European Commission. The
reports to the European Council make a start in this
direction.
References
Bisson, J. I. (2008). Using evidence to inform clinical practice
shortly after traumatic events. Journal of Traumatic Stress,
21, 507–512.
Bonanno, G. A., Brewin, C. R., Kaniasty, K., & La Greca, A. M.
(2010). Weighing the costs of disaster: Consequences, risks,
and resilience in individuals, families, and communities.
Psychological Science, 11, 1–49.
Chatterjee, P. (2005). Mental health care for India’s tsunami
survivors. The Lancet, 365, 833–834.
Council of Europe. (2010). Lessons learned in psychosocial care
after disasters. EUR-OPA, Council of Europe.
Cox, J., & Ghodse, H. (2007). Mass violence and mental health.
International Review of Psychiatry, 19, 179–182.
Dyregrov, A. (1997). The process in psychological debriefing.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 10, 589–604.
Dyregrov, A., Straume, M., & Saari, S. (2009). Long-term
collective assistance for the bereaved following a disaster:
A Scandinavian approach. Counselling and Psychotherapy
Research, 9, 33–41.
Dyregrov, A., & Yule, W. (2006). A review of PTSD in children:
A commissioned review. Child and Adolescent Mental
Health, 11, 176–184.
Foa, E., Cahill, S., Boscarino, J., Hobfoll, S. E., Lahad, M.,
McNally, R. J., & Solomon, Z. (2005). Neuropsychophar-
macology, 30, 1806–1817.
Karanci, A. N., Ecevit, M., & Oner, I. (2010). March 08, 2010
Basßyurt-Karakoçan (Elazığ) earthquake: Psychosocial eval-
uation report. Retrieved from http://disaster.efpa.eu/recent-
reports.
Kowalski, K. M., & Kalayjian, A. (2001). Responding to mass
emotional trauma: A mental health outreach program for
Turkey earthquake victims. Safety Science, 39, 71–81.
Miller, L. (2002). Psychological interventions for terroristic
trauma: Symptoms, syndromes, and treatment strategies.
Psychotherapy: Theory, research, practice, training, 39,
283–296.
Parello-Scherdel, C. (2005). Collapse of buildings. Retrieved
from http://disaster.efpa.eu/recent-reports.
Reyes, G. (2006). International disaster psychology: Purposes,
principles and practices. In G. Reyes & G. A. Jacobs (Eds.),
Handbook of international disaster psychology (Vol. 1, pp.
1–13). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Reyes, G., & Elhai, J. D. (2004). Psychosocial interventions in
the early phases of disasters. Psychotherapy: Theory and
Practice, 41, 399–411.
Rubonis, A. V., & Bickman, L. (1991). Psychological
impairment in the wake of disaster: The disaster psycho-
pathology relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 384–
399.
Saari, S. (2005). A Bolt from the blue: Coping with disasters and
acute traumas. London, UK and Philadelphia, PA: Jessica
Kingsley.
Saari, S. (2006). Proposal for quality standards for psychological
intervention in disaster and crisis. Presented at the EFPA
Standing Committee on Disaster, Crisis and Trauma Psy-
chology Meeting, May, Strasbourg.
Saari, S., & Palonen, K. (2007). Coping with the psychological
consequences of the tsunami. Finnish Red Cross profession-
ally led peer support project for the relatives of the deceased.
Finnish Red Cross.
European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(2):141–148
 148 S. Saari et al.: EFPA and Work on Disaster, Crisis, and Trauma Psychology

Saynaeve, G. J. R. (2001). Psycho-Social Support in situations mental health and psychosocial interventions for trauma
of mass emergency. A European Policy Paper concerning exposed populations in clinical and community settings.
different aspects of psychological support and social accom- Psychiatry, 65, 156–164.
paniment for people involved in major accidents and Yule, W. (2006). Theory, training and timing: Psychosocial
disasters. Brussels: Ministry of Health. interventions in complex emergencies. International Review
Sümer, N., Karanci, A. N., Kazak Berument, S., & Günesß, H. of Psychiatry, 18, 259–264.
(2005). Personal resources, coping self-efficacy, quake
exposure as predictors of psychological distress following
the 1999 Earthquake in Turkey. Journal of Traumatic Stress,
18, 331–342.
Vernberg, E. M., Steinberg, A. M., Jacobs, A. K., Brymer, M. J., A. Nuray Karanci
Watson, P. J., Osofsky, J. D., . . ., Ruzek, J. I. (2008).
Innovations in disaster mental health: Psychological first Department of Psychology
aid. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, Middle East Technical University
381–388. Eskisehir Yolu
Whalley, M. G., & Brewin, C. R. (2007). Mental health follow- Ankara 06530
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ing terrorist attacks. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190, 94– Turkey

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

96. Tel. +90 312 210-3127

Weine, S., Danieli, Y., Silove, D., van Ommeren, M., Fairbank, Fax +90 312 210-7975
J., & Saul, J. (2002). Guidelines for international training in E-mail karanci@metu.edu.tr

European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(2):141–148  2011 Hogrefe Publishing