Quote from: JeffDG on November 25, 2014, 12:52:04 PM
And for the record, I mention that IT one because I'd bet if you asked units, 90% of them have no clue that they need that approval.  It's an example of a regulation that seems to be optional.

Or perhaps many units are simply unaware of this requirement. There are over 130 CAP regulations, pamphlets and CAP-related AFIs, not to mention applicable wing supplements and operating instructions. Most units are severely undermanned, with inexperienced commanders and staff, and it's practically impossible for them to know or follow every single regulation.

Frankly, we have too many regulations and requirements for a volunteer organization in which only half of its members are marginally active and about 20% of those "active" members are doing 80% of the work. How many members in your SUI inspections are wearing three, four or five hats? That seems to be the norm in most units and more inspections outside the scope of the SUI will not help fix that problem.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 25, 2014, 12:52:04 PM

Quote from: Private Investigator on November 25, 2014, 06:33:56 AM
SUIs hurt feeling for everyone involved.

That can be dealt with by an inspector too...just did one this month where they'd changed the date a report was due from January to October with little fanfare...Wing director didn't even notice the change until someone the week before had started asking questions about it.

I interviewed the person involved.  He was doing everything he could for the program.  But this one report was missing.

In the out-brief with the staff and commander, I mentioned that we had a discrepancy in this area (I think they had a total of 3 really minor discrepancies SUI wide), but then said "OK, switching hats here from inspector to Group Deputy Commander, the Group Commander and I would prefer a unit that was doing all these things you are doing in the program and is missing this piece of paperwork to one that does nothing but has their reports in on time.  This discrepancy is just a paperwork issue that you can fix in no-time flat, and continue with your very successful program."

So now "the end justifies the means", "we're all in this together", "the good of the corps".

There's a whole lot that is wrong with the situation in that paragraph - first and foremost a command-level staff who
can "switch hats" and inspect his own people.  Any auditing program with a shred of real integrity would never allow that.
That's not your specific fault, but is another symptom of the lack of manpower and poorly thought out programs.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 25, 2014, 12:52:04 PM
And for the record, I mention that IT one because I'd bet if you asked units, 90% of them have no clue that they need that approval.  It's an example of a regulation that seems to be optional.

I would hazard 90% of the units are missing at least 50% of what they should be doing - irrelevant since
that is not what you are there to inspect.  This is why CAP can't have nice things - people who are "empowered"
or "fixing things" outside their mandate. In this case, NHQ pushes out a process designed to ease the burden,
and the inspectors, either ill-informed, or "empowered" simply decide to "do what they will" despite the clear intention and directions.

Is this an issue?  I'm sure it is - then send a memo to the Wing CC indicating the critical nature of this problem.
At which point, as a member of HQ staff (that thing SUI inspectors aren't, he can decide if he cares, and if he does
issue a directive to SUI teams regarding an additional inspection item.

Maybe you should just send him a combined .pdf of all the regs with a note about how "none of these are optional
and we need to inspect every single item...".

I do have to say that you really don't need the SUI system to have a good idea of where a squadron is likely to be in regards to full implementation of the CAP program. 

Basically, the smaller the unit is the more likely that significant aspects of CAPs programs are not being accomplished.  The only thing the SUI is going to tell you is which parts that squadron has emphasized and which ones they have let fall by the wayside either through lack of interest or lack of time due to other assignments. 

An average size CAP squadron of about 30 people is probably large enough that you really should be able to expect them to really be doing everything, but an SUI may be helpful in pointing out areas that they need to pay some more attention to. 

Quote from: RiverAux on November 25, 2014, 07:57:10 PM
An average size CAP squadron of about 30 people is probably large enough that you really should be able to expect them to really be doing everything, but an SUI may be helpful in pointing out areas that they need to pay some more attention to.

The average 30-member CAP squadron has about 15 active member. Of those, 3-4 members are most likely doing 80% of the work. Kind of hard to "really be doing everything" with those numbers.

30 people is going to be enough to carry out the program -- I didn't say that in the average CAP squadron that all members would be participating, just that they do have enough that we could reasonably expect them to be doing everything.  I didn't say they would be doing everything, just that they should be able to. 

And that is where the SUI is probably going to show weaknesses if they have gotten in a situation where a significant percentage of their membership aren't participating fully. 

This falls in line with my general premise that the larger the squadron the more likely they are to actually be doing what we'd like to see all squadrons doing.  My rule of thumb is that if the unit is less than 20 members they're on life support and lucky to exist, 20-40 members may be doing everything if they've got exceptional leadership and participation but gaps will exist, 40+ and if they aren't doing everything there is is a major problem that probably requires a change in commanders.  SUIs are just going to fill in the details of what we probably already know is going on (or not).

Well....now you are getting into another whelm of things.

"what we'd like squadrons to be doing".....see now that is something completely different then what the SUI drives and checks.

Quote from: RiverAux on November 25, 2014, 08:24:38 PM
30 people is going to be enough to carry out the program -- I didn't say that in the average CAP squadron that all members would be participating, just that they do have enough that we could reasonably expect them to be doing everything.  I didn't say they would be doing everything, just that they should be able to.

I guess that depends on your definition of "everything". With the numbers I provided, it would be difficult to do everything. I worked with a strong composite squadron that had close to 100 members. The unit had robust Cadet, Senior, Aerospace Education and Emergency Services programs. And while we did a lot, we still couldn't do everything.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on November 25, 2014, 08:41:45 PM
The unit had robust Cadet, Senior, Aerospace Education and Emergency Services programs. And while we did a lot, we still couldn't do everything.

What else is there really? 

Sure, there is always something more that you can do in any of the major programs (why not have 200 cadets in your squadron, 30 person senior ground teams, etc.), but we're talking about what is reasonable -- and the SUI standard is even lower than that -- bare minimum of doing the right paperwork for the most part. 

Quote from: RiverAux on November 25, 2014, 09:19:55 PM
...but we're talking about what is reasonable -- and the SUI standard is even lower than that -- bare minimum of doing the right paperwork for the most part.

Correct; except that some inspectors go beyond the scope of the SUI. My point was that a unit with 30 members is likely to only have about half actively participating. And of those, only a hand full of staff members actually doing meaningful work. On top of that, many units have very inexperienced commanders and staff officers. The bottom line is that it's challenging enough for some of these units to run a successful program, let alone to meet every single requirement of every single regulation.

I'm the original poster for this post, and I wanted to add another item.  Upon reviewing my notes from the SUI, I recalled another thing that the inspector was focused on that wasn't really an SUI question.  He was very interested on how we conduct the Professional Development program.  Specially he wanted to see some sort of documentation to indicate that we correctly conduct and track the PD program.  I directed him to the reports that show that several of our members had attended PD courses, advanced their spec track ratings, and advanced their PD levels.  All CAPFs 45 are updated for PD.  I'm not sure what else I could have showed him.  He showed me his copy of our unit's reports which he highlighted, and asked if we did anything like that.  I explained that we do the same thing, but it's just a personal tool and not part of the official unit record.  It's thrown away when no longer needed.

I'm trying to figure out if we need to create some sort of Operating Instruction for the unit to explain how to conduct the PD program.  Does anyone have any ideas or examples of useful methods or Operating Instructions for their unit for Professional Development (or any other duties)?

Maybe he was fishing for some commendable.

If an inspection is going well, I like to ask some open-ended questions not to trip the guy up, but to see if there's something good they're doing that should be shared as a commendable or benchmark candidate.

There is no need for a squadron OI for PD. I seem to remember wording about keeping OIs to a minimum.

Quote from: EMT-83 on December 05, 2014, 03:30:45 AM
There is no need for a squadron OI for PD. I seem to remember wording about keeping OIs to a minimum.

Correct.  I have yet to see an OI that was worth the trouble of typing it.

They are generally just repeating existing regs, or trying to establish someone as "king of whatever".

Quote from: JeffDG on December 04, 2014, 08:42:42 PM
Maybe he was fishing for some commendable.

If an inspection is going well, I like to ask some open-ended questions not to trip the guy up, but to see if there's something good they're doing that should be shared as a commendable or benchmark candidate.

Then he should have said "Well I'm done with my part of the SUI....is there anything you think is really cool and might be a commendable or benchmark candidate?"
SUIs are nerve wracking enough with out having to fish for stuff and getting the unit members all spun up.  What happened to pierson777 is a prime example why inspectors need to keep to the script.  He is all ready to write 100 pages of OIs for no real good reason.