CPPT

[Huey Driver]

Hey all, I have a quick question. When was the Cadet Protection Policy implemented? I can't find an answer out there so far..

[SarDragon]

CAPR 52-10 goes back at least to 2 Jan 2001. I don't have anything farther back than that.

[Hawk200]

I took Cadet Protection back in '94 when I first joined as a senior, so before that, if that's what you're asking. If you mean for cadets, don't know.

[PA Guy]

CPPT was introduced in 1991.

[sardak]

I took initial cadet protection training in the early 90's, also.

CAPR 52-10, CAP Cadet Protection Policy, was first released 2 Jan 1999. This version states that it supersedes CAPM 50-16, Chapter 1, Section B, dated 1 Mar 94.  In the summary of changes, it states that CAPM 50-16, CAP Cadet Training Program, Chapter 1, Section B, CAP Cadet Protection Policy and Program was separated out to become this regulation.

The rest of CAPM 50-16 became CAPR 52-16, Cadet Programs Management, dated 31 December 1998. The summary of changes in this new reg is over a half page long. It starts out "Renumbered all cadet program publication series to 52..."

Mike

[flyboy53]

Early 1990s... I was in the MA wing at the time.

At first, you were actually taking the Boy Scout course and issued a second ID card. reflecting that it had been completed.

[FW]

In 1990, all senior members had to undergo a background check and submitt to finger printing.  In 1991, the first CPPT was implemented.  We needed this due to some very disturbing "discoveries" over the previous couple of years. 

On one hand, we lost thousands of members over this.  On the other hand..... best thing we ever did, at the time, to protect our cadets.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I joined in '93 and it was in place then.

However, material from the BSA was used for mine.  Later on, for a refresher course, I remember a video led by Captain Scott O'Grady.

[davidsinn]

I joined in '93 and it was in place then.

However, material from the BSA was used for mine.  Later on, for a refresher course, I remember a video led by Captain Scott O'Grady.

I had to endure that same video in 2006. Crappy video.

[Huey Driver]

Thanks for the quick replies everyone. I was just curious because I asked one of my squadron's senior members how long our squadron has been around and he told us it had been around for a while, then shut down by National in the very late 80's for some..cadet/ senior member "issues"... you know what I mean.  Now I'm pretty sure that those "issues" were the top factors contributing to CPPT. 

[SarDragon]

They started the fingerprint business before Aug '89, because I had to get them done while I was still with my unit in Japan. I don't remember any specific time frame, though. I'm guessing late '88 or early '89.

[FW]

Fingerprints were required for all new members in '89.  Deadline for all members to be fingerprinted was Jan 31, 1990.  It was a very interesting time back then...

[Ned]

FWIW, I was on one of the committees dealing with the issues then, and the primary motivator (beyond safeguarding our cadets, naturally) was the loss of insurance coverage for molestation issues.

Without insurance, all it would have taken to essentially wipe out CAP was one substantial jury verdict in a situation involving a cadet and a senior.

And it wasn't just us.  We were working closely with Scouting and groups like Big Brothers/Big Sisters to develop protocols and best practices in the youth development industry.

After a lot of hard work, the CPP was developed.   For all its strengths and flaws, it has served us well in the area of sexual abuse.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I think, other than the obvious educational aspects, CPPT is a good CYA move for CAP...that way a bad actor who does something like that can't say "you weren't warned."

[Therapst]

Fingerprint cards were required for all senior member applicants at least as far back as 1963.

[EMT-83]

In 1990, all senior members had to undergo a background check and submitt to finger printing.  In 1991, the first CPPT was implemented.  We needed this due to some very disturbing "discoveries" over the previous couple of years. 

On one hand, we lost thousands of members over this.  On the other hand..... best thing we ever did, at the time, to protect our cadets.

Why were so many members lost?

[FW]

Most thought the fingerprints were a violation of their privacy rights.  They left the organization rather than "go with the flow".  The rest may have refused fingerprinting because of what we may have found out.

[BillB]

Fingerprints were first required in the mid 1960's. But they were required in the 1940's and dropped in the 1950's, until reinstated in the 60's. Probably 1963 or 64.

[FW]

There was an extended period in our history when fingerprints were not required to join as a SM.  However, in 1989 it became a requirement for ALL members to be fingerprinted and undergo a background check.  Those who refused to be fingerprinted were removed from the membership roles by Jan 1991. 
PAWG alone lost about 1000 members in 1990 because of this.

[brenaud]

I joined in '93 and it was in place then.

However, material from the BSA was used for mine.  Later on, for a refresher course, I remember a video led by Captain Scott O'Grady.

I had to endure that same video in 2006. Crappy video.

Not only did I endure the old videos (CPPT as well as the one for Orientation), as a squadron PDO I also inflicted them on quite a few members.

[NIN]

In 1988, when I transitioned to Senior membership, I was stationed in Korea and had to go get my fingerprints from the post PMO. (the sergeant at the desk gave me the stupidest look when I _asked_ to have my fingerprints taken..)

On my return, we had the so-called "Cadet Leader Identification Cards" (CLIC for short), which you got once your background check was successfully processed. It took anywhere from 2 1/2 to 6 months for that to happen.  I was back from Active Duty literally 4 months when I was asked to take over a squadron until the deputy commander, who had just made the cadet-to-senior leap, got his CLIC card back from NHQ.  I was commander from April until August of 1989 of that unit, so it took ~4 months for his.

I don't recall when the actual CPP was implemented, since I was able to waive the full Level I with my Mitchell and I don't remember how I got CPP training.  But I do remember having to show that BSA video when I did Level I training, so it certainly dated from the early 1990s. 

The other thing is: when I got back home from Active Duty in January of 1989, I'm pretty sure the CPP was published and already well in effect, because my wing was already VERY cognizant of CPP issues (the "no-lone-zone", etc) and we were all briefed quite immediately, but there was still a lot of confusion, and a very, very serious tendency for people to throw "the CPP flag on the play" even when it wasn't clearly CPP, mostly because it was so new.  A good friend of mine had stayed in CAP in my squadron while I was overseas and I remember having a chat with her on my return and her concerns about how it would be very easy for someone to get torpedoed by CPP, and how everybody was basically on tenterhooks trying to implement it at encampments, and O-flights, and all that.

In the spring of 1989, my unit held O-rides one day and the only seniors present were me and the orientation pilot. So when he got in the plane and taxied away, suddenly I'm standing there with 2-3 other cadets going "uhhhh, crap.. didn't think this one thru too good, did we? Now what?"  so I'm pretty sure it was in place by then, too.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

It can cause operational difficulties, to be sure.

There are times when I have proctored tests for cadets and it is not conducive to a good study/testing environment because of having to leave the door open when there may be background noise outside.

As well, even something as simple as a latrine break...whenever I go, I knock on the door, but cadets don't always do so.  It is awkward, to say the least, for a cadet to walk in when I am in the latrine alone and I have to direct him to leave.

But given the alternatives, it's something we just have to live with.  It is far preferable to a child being damaged - those scars don't go away - or for a potential false rumour against a CAP adult member leading to jail time or almost inevitably the CAP member either getting kicked out of or having to leave CAP.

[Eclipse]

The is no such thing as the "no lone zone" or any other variant.  Don't confuse personal CYA / ORM with anything mandated by the program.

[Ned]

It can cause operational difficulties, to be sure.

There are times when I have proctored tests for cadets and it is not conducive to a good study/testing environment because of having to leave the door open when there may be background noise outside.

As well, even something as simple as a latrine break...whenever I go, I knock on the door, but cadets don't always do so.  It is awkward, to say the least, for a cadet to walk in when I am in the latrine alone and I have to direct him to leave.

But given the alternatives, it's something we just have to live with.  It is far preferable to a child being damaged - those scars don't go away - or for a potential false rumour against a CAP adult member leading to jail time or almost inevitably the CAP member either getting kicked out of or having to leave CAP.

I'm a little concerned that some members may be mislead by your actions without more context.  While I am confident that your actions were appropriate under the circumstances at the time, it is important to remind readers that there is no rule that requires some sort of mechanical application of CPP  - like "never being in the latrine with a cadet" or "the door to the room must always be open when a senior and a cadet are inside."  Those kinds of interpretations belong in the realm of CAP Urban Legends.


That is why we have experienced, mature CP leaders like yourself to exercise good judgment within the boundaries of the regulation.

Ned Lee

[NIN]

The is no such thing as the "no lone zone" or any other variant.  Don't confuse personal CYA / ORM with anything mandated by the program.

BITD (which, according to Stonewall, was a Wednesday), when the CPP was brand spanking new, the phrase "no lone-zone" was used as a simple mnemonic reminder for folks of the "two-person rule."  Folks who had been "victims of the mailed fist" knew that concept all too well, and we would joke that cadets were like little nuclear weapons.

It had nothing to do with ORM or CYA, it had to do with reminding members of the two-person rule.

(which, oddly enough, when I switched wings in 1998, I noticed that my new wing was COMPLETELY different in the way they operated and enforced the CPP.  The concept of a "two-person rule" was seen as an annoying issue which could be conveniently ignored at the officer's discretion.  A cadet lived in an apartment building about two blocks before my apartment, and the unit commander asked me if I would drop this cadet off after the meeting. I refused, citing the two-person rule, and the unit commander said to me "Oh, his mom says its ok."  Sure, buddy, his mom says its OK, right up until the point where I actually abuse the kid and then its not OK with mom..  And mom was a member, too.  I remember thinking "Hmm, interesting that different wings could so conveniently read the same regs in such a different way.")

[Eclipse]

It had nothing to do with ORM or CYA, it had to do with reminding members of the two-person rule.

As Ned reminds above, no such "two person rule" exists...

[davidsinn]

The is no such thing as the "no lone zone" or any other variant.  Don't confuse personal CYA / ORM with anything mandated by the program.

I think I just figured out where that comes from. If I'm understanding correctly; when CPPT was first instituted we used BSA videos, correct? The scouts have a no lone zone rule. It was always a pain at scout camp because we had such a small unit that finding a third person to tag alone when a leader and a scout went the same place was hard to do. It may be that since we used their videos and they teach that, we internalized it even though we do not have that rule and it has spread through word of mouth.

[Eclipse]

Wherever it came from, we've been actively dispelling that "wives tale" for the 12 years I have been in and no matter how much and where
we do, it still pops up all the time.

[NIN]

Wherever it came from, we've been actively dispelling that "wives tale" for the 12 years I have been in and no matter how much and where we do, it still pops up all the time.

Sure, because that's how it was trained in the early days.

In the last 20+ years (not just the last 12) the CPP has morphed and adjusted to respond to operational realities and the times.  CAPR 52-10 now has far, far less "thou shalt now do this.." type guidance and more "These are the kinds of people we want around our youth.."   That doesn't mean that people will automatically, immediately and quickly change the way they've managed activities, or their own personal rules of conduct around cadets unless the new guidance specifically prohibits that.  Folks will tend to stay with the "more restrictive" way they were trained in the absence of any specific guidelines or instructions to the contrary.

Hey, at least we don't have to sit thru Scott O'Grady cheesily stumbling thru the CPP video anymore. Oy.

[Eclipse]

I have no issue with people who practice a tighter personal CYA / ORM, but we have an ongoing issue with people
restricting activities based on quoting a regulation they haven't even read.

For example, any number of CC's restricting female participation on overnight activities, or denying the activity itself because
of a made-up "regulation" requiring female chaperons.

Here's the old CPPT as of 1997: http://tinyurl.com/oldcpt1997

After we're all done reading it, perhaps someone can contact Ashville Composite and ask why they still have it posted. 

[jimmydeanno]

For example, any number of CC's restricting female participation on overnight activities, or denying the activity itself because of a made-up "regulation" requiring female chaperons.

I just finished directing a TLC.  I got to teach the "Cadet Welfare & Legal Issues" module. 

One of the gentlemen in my class flat out told me at the beginning of the course that he felt that he wouldn't learn anything from me, because "I can't be old enough to have had any real experience in cadet programs."

During my presentation, we discussed the importance of CPPT, etc, when all of a sudden he brings up to the class, "And don't forget the rule that if you have a female cadet going, you have to have a female senior member."  Nearly all of the students in the class then confirmed to me that I missed that part (all 16 of them).

I told them that I didn't miss anything, because it isn't actually a requirement.  "Well, in this wing it is a policy from the wing commander."

So, I put that discussion on hold and said, "According to the regulation put out from nation headquarters it isn't a requirement.  I hear about all these policies that 'wing' has, but have yet to actually see any of them.  Can someone tell me where it is?"  No answer.

At that moment, the wing commander walks by the classroom door.  "Excuse me, Sir.  Could you help answer a question?  The students in the class have told me that there is a policy, from you, that requires a female senior member for activities that have a female cadet."

"No, there isn't.  I've never had such a policy, my predecessor never had such a policy, and doing so would violate our anti-discrimination policy."

Next topic, anyone?

[Eclipse]

At that moment, the wing commander walks by the classroom door.  "Excuse me, Sir.  Could you help answer a question?  The students in the class have told me that there is a policy, from you, that requires a female senior member for activities that have a female cadet."

"No, there isn't.  I've never had such a policy, my predecessor never had such a policy, and doing so would violate our anti-discrimination policy."

Next topic, anyone?

Elegantly Awesome.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Ned, I get your point, I think, but I tend to operate in "better safe than sorry" mode, for several reasons.

It was what was inculcated into me when I first went through Level I back in 1993.

Also, I personally knew two people who were affected by circumstances like this.  One was in CAP, one not.

The one who was in CAP ended up leaving - no explanation, never seen again, and don't talk about it.

The one who wasn't CAP was accused of something he didn't do falling under the category of "sexual harassment" in the workplace simply because his female colleagues wanted him gone (and succeeded)...the guy ended up trying to commit suicide at least twice that I can think of.  He was never right after that (substance abuse, couldn't keep a job, in and out of hospital).

I think you'll understand if I take what I believe are necessary CP precautions to stay as far away from either of those possible eventualities as I can.

[Eclipse]

I think you'll understand if I take what I believe are necessary CP precautions to stay as far away from either of those possible eventualities as I can.

I would understand, absolutely, though I think you are trying to shoe-horn an extreme into the policy, and bringing in workplace harassment, deserved
or not, isn't really relevant to this conversation.  We have plenty of places to be unfairly accused without adding to the pile.

The issue is that a commander's personal CYA / ORM cannot be allowed to dictate the same to the program, even for that Commander's Unit.  I would never try to force someone to exceed their own comfort level, but if that threshold became a barrier to performance for the unit as a whole, a change would have to be made at the command level.

Also, within the context of the common sense we expect from our leaders, there is little reason to be placed into situations where there is risk of being accused of something improper, further to that, though it is a common misconception, being the same gender does not preclude someone from harassment or other improper behavior.  We simply cannot allow operations to be hampered based purely on someone making things up from whole cloth.

[NIN]

After we're all done reading it, perhaps someone can contact Ashville Composite and ask why they still have it posted.

Hahaha. Nice.

BTW, WRT to the CYA/ORM methodology:

In the early days of the CPP, there were tendencies to lump everything under CPP (as in "You can't use a slap flare on the bivouac!!" "why not?" "It violates CPP!!" *sigh*) and because the policy was new and not well understood, it was hard to know the bounds or how it would be enforced from commander to commander. 

What might be OK under one commander (say, a 19 year old just-turned-SM still dating his 18 year old cadet girlfriend) might suddenly find you in trouble under the next. 

Or, like I alluded to before, a unit commander in my new wing just deciding that it was OK for him to ignore the provisions of the CPP because it was after the unit meeting, or the cadet's mom, for her convenience, said it was OK.  ("Uhh, are we reading the same manual?")

So in those days, I know at least in MI Wing, everybody was pretty up-to-speed on CPP and kept everybody else up on it, too.  We held CPP as inviolable and important.  Like I said, imagine my discomfort when I turned around and realized that the other SM just taxied away during o-flights.  Grrrrr, way to think ahead, Ninness.  I wasn't one-on-one with just one cadet, thankfully, at least there were two of them.

Now, stupid knee-jerk made-up rules like "must have a female senior present?" Yeah, thats just dumb, but we've been fighting that particular one off and on for 20+ years, even with more clear guidance on non-discrimination.  (I always said "OK, so, what if we only have female SMs for the bivouac? Males stay home?" that usually induced a perplexed look and the smell of of something burning. But sadly, it seldom resulted in a better answer..)

I liked the seniors who would run outside to supervise D&C. I said one day to like 5 of my seniors who were literally _hovering_ around the cadets in the parking lot "what are you doing and why are you doing it?"  Come to find out, they'd all been to level II or TLC and some knucklehead told them that cadets were not ever to be out of anybody's sight.  I said "Look, its not like they're going to go all FMJ on each other the instant they're out of earshot. Give the cadet officers some room to supervise and the NCOs an opportunity to be supervised and to supervise the airmen.."  You'd have thought I was suggesting that we do this to the squadron van for recruiting by the way my officers looked at me:

[Eclipse]

I wasn't one-on-one with just one cadet, thankfully, at least there were two of them.

You've mentioned this several times, was this a local wing directive?  Its never been in the regs.

[sneakers]

CPPT is necessary in many ways, but I do feel that it should be clarified. Too many senior members underestimate the maturity and competence of cadet officers and ncos. CPPT is meant to safeguard cadet programs, not to stifle it.

[Spaceman3750]

CPPT is necessary in many ways, but I do feel that it should be clarified. Too many senior members underestimate the maturity and competence of cadet officers and ncos. CPPT is meant to safeguard cadet programs, not to stifle it.

It's not a maturity and competence issue.

Also, there are plenty of immature C/NCOs and C/Officers.

[NIN]

I wasn't one-on-one with just one cadet, thankfully, at least there were two of them.

You've mentioned this several times, was this a local wing directive?  Its never been in the regs.

The old CPP training included avoidance of one-on-one situations with cadets (it was based on the BSA training video and materials, which, having just taken the BSA youth-protection training online, is still the guidance from BSA), which brought about the whole "no lone zone" terminology.

The basic concept was avoiding being in a one-on-one situation with a cadet whereupon it would be your word against his/hers if there was an allegation of abuse toward the senior member.

[NIN]

Something to keep in mind, too:

When the CPP first came out and everybody was getting used to it, it had a "third-rail" connotation about it: touch it, and you're totally, completely cooked.

And since it was very new and we were all trying to figure it out, we all erred to the side of caution. Nobody wanted to even have a whiff of CPP violation attached to their name.  As far as we knew, getting suspended, even for a patently false allegation, was tantamount to CP suicide from which there might not be any recovery.  So (most of us) took it pretty seriously.

A guy I was cadet with who is several (4-5) years older than me was a squadron commander in my group. He was dating a 16 year old cadet from his squadron when he was like, uh, 26 or 28 or something  (creepy, right?) We all said "Dude, you're gonna get burned. You need to knock that crap off," and he refused to listen.   Supposedly, her parents were cool with the whole thing.  (Wait, what? What parent is cool with a 26 or 29 year old guy dating their 16 year old daughter? There was something creepy weird going on there, too, BTW)  Our group commander was good friends with him, had multiple discussions with him about it, and tried really hard to not officially notice.  One day, he decided that yeah, maybe everybody was right and he should break off this "thing."  Well, the girl says to mom & dad something like "I'm so depressed he decided to break up with me, I might kill myself." Mom and dad flip out and say to the wing commander "this guy was in a position of authority over our daughter, and since she has a learning disorder, she's got a disability. All of this means a higher degree of criminal sexual conduct on his part.  If you don't boot him out, we're going to go to the cops, put him in jail and sue Civil Air Patrol while we're at it."   So the wing commander turns around and says to our group commander "You need to toss him out on his ear. Now. Like yesterday."  And before you can say "CAPF 2B," he was gone. Poof.

It was a terrible thing, but he wouldn't listen to anybody when we told him to knock off what was clearly a violation of the policy.  And when the hammer fell, it fell hard, swift and without remorse.

The rest of us were like "See, this is what happens.  Don't let it happen to you." to each other.

[Eclipse]

^ Well, there's no cure for stupid, no matter which flavor it is.  People like that need to be booted, though the parents need to go as well, and booting them is a lot harder.

[NIN]

^ Well, there's no cure for stupid, no matter which flavor it is.  People like that need to be booted, though the parents need to go as well, and booting them is a lot harder.

Man, ain't that the truth!

There was something odd going on with the parents, and the girl's younger sister was actually in a different squadron (to this day, I'm not 100% sure what the deal there was) and there was some pretty strange behavior there, too, according to the squadron commander. 

The long and the short of it, however, was that a guy was patently violating the CPP, wouldn't listen to anybody who was looking out for him, and eventually he got taken to task for it.  He's darn lucky that he didn't wind up in the iron bar bed & breakfast and having to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

[FARRIER]

I wasn't one-on-one with just one cadet, thankfully, at least there were two of them.

You've mentioned this several times, was this a local wing directive?  Its never been in the regs.

The old CPP training included avoidance of one-on-one situations with cadets (it was based on the BSA training video and materials, which, having just taken the BSA youth-protection training online, is still the guidance from BSA), which brought about the whole "no lone zone" terminology.

The basic concept was avoiding being in a one-on-one situation with a cadet whereupon it would be your word against his/hers if there was an allegation of abuse toward the senior member.

I remember all this too when it first came out. Transitioned from Cadet to Senior in 1986.

[FARRIER]

In 1990, all senior members had to undergo a background check and submitt to finger printing.  In 1991, the first CPPT was implemented.  We needed this due to some very disturbing "discoveries" over the previous couple of years. 

On one hand, we lost thousands of members over this.  On the other hand..... best thing we ever did, at the time, to protect our cadets.

Why were so many members lost?

I know of in least one case, the member was a convicted sex offender.

[Grumpy]

In 1990, all senior members had to undergo a background check and submitt to finger printing.  In 1991, the first CPPT was implemented.  We needed this due to some very disturbing "discoveries" over the previous couple of years. 

On one hand, we lost thousands of members over this.  On the other hand..... best thing we ever did, at the time, to protect our cadets.

Why were so many members lost?

I know of in least one case, the member was a convicted sex offender.

We had a senior member (Lt Col) who got through the system until he was sent off to jail for molesting a young girl.  Easyest 2B I ever did.