Are composite squadrons really good for the cadet program?

[RiverAux]

A comment in another thread reminded me how often composite squadron commanders who are not cadet progam specialists are not always the best people to be in charge of a cadet program. 

FYI, I have been in a situation where there was a senior squadron and a cadet squadron meeting in the same building on different nights; been in a composite squadron where the cadets and seniors met separately rarelly interacted, and been in a composite squadron where boths parts met on the same night, but the DCC was still pretty much on his own struggling to get by.   

There seem to be three types of composite squadrons out there:
1.  A composite squadron that is really a cadet squadron in disguise.  Very few senior members and probably no aircraft. 
   
2.  A composite squadron that is really a senior squadron in disguise.  Mostly focused on flying but with a very weak cadet program.  Usually the commander is focused on senior issues.

3.  A true composite squadron where there are strong senior and cadet programs. 

It seems to me that type 3 (true composite squadron) is really quite rare and that most composite squadrons are either really focused on cadets or really focused on seniors and that the non-priority program is just given lip service. 

I think that people like the concept of a composite squadron because it gives the most potential flexibility to what the squadron can do, however I don't think that in reality it comes out that way.

The most troublesome issue is the second type of composite squadron -- where the cadet program is just given lip service.  The few seniors involved in running the cadet program are pretty much left to sink or swim on their own while the other seniors and the commander focus mostly on ES and flying. 

The cadet program barely manages to get by with seniors constantly burning out trying to do it all.  In this case they're probably not getting any real backup from the squadron commander, which gives them a lot of latitude, but thats not always a good thing in this organization. 

Or even worse, the squadron commander doesn't really understand the cadet program and imposes their own philosophy on various things which may not really jibe with how things are supposed to be done. 

If you're in the situation where the cadet program is just a sideshow in a composite squadron, do you think it would help or hurt if the cadet program was just broken off into a cadet squadron of its own?  It would at least give the former DCC all the authority they need to handle things regarding the cadets and ensure that all the seniors involved in that unit would be primarily interested in helping cadets. 

And for the other situation where you've got a composite squadron that is really a cadet squadron, why not acknowledge that fact and become a cadet squadron?  Whats the real advantage of having a composite squadron?  On the other hand, in this situation, I'm not sure there are all that many drawbacks to the status quo as compared to a senior-dominated composite squadron.

[GoofyOne]

Im in a situation of a Composite Squadron with mostly cadets and a hand full of SM, most are new and do not know much about the program or make the effort to learn.  We have a CC that puts his will on the others and at times just seems to go through the motions without following through.  He means well but doesn't have the time or chooses not to.  The Cadet program is fractured and seems unfocused but the cadet leadership are trying.  We have cadets, about half, that choose not to participate in anything outside the meeting.

We have no plane and no active pilots.

[Stonewall]

2.  A composite squadron that is really a senior squadron in disguise.  Mostly focused on flying but with a very weak cadet program.  Usually the commander is focused on senior issues.

I would say my squadron falls into this category.  I'm thinking that it may change in the future as I am now the DCC and the CC has two cadets of his own in the program.  I'm hoping it will change anyway.

In my 2+ year association with my squadron I have not seen a dedicated cadet leader from the senior side.  As much as I don't want to be that person at this point in my life, I was talked into it and will do as much as possible.

Our meetings are like this:

Cadets show up at 19:00 and number around 10 or 11.  They are kept in the smallest room of the building without desks and not enough seats.  cadets meet for 2 hours.

Seniors show up at 19:30 and number around 15.  They don't show up in uniforms but they occupy the largest room in the building with chairs and tables.  Plenty of room, very comfy.  Their meetings last one hour.

I have been in TRUE composite squadrons that performed flawlessly and interacted at the appropriate level, to include joint (senior/cadet) opening and closing formations.  Yes, seniors stood in formation and even got inspected.

I even commanded a cadet squadron that I had to convert to a composite squadron because the senior program blew out of control; in a positive way.

Today, I'd like to separate our membership and have senior and cadet meetings at different times.  IMHO, our seniors, although friendly, nice, and do a good job in the air, they are not the right people to be around the cadets.  i.e. they do not provide an example of leadership.  They're just there.

[Always Ready]

My unit is a composite squadron with a weak cadet program. Most of the seniors are pilots and couldn't care less about the cadet side or AE. Most of our seniors want to engage in more ES training and more flying and due to our current situation, they can't. We only have a handful of seniors that are involved with the cadet side and they don't do anything outside of cadet programs or support of it.

As the 20 year old TFO, I've been dragged back to the cadet side to help out. Of the five of us that are active helping out the cadets, only two of us have a lot of experience in cadet programs and both of us are in support positions (AE and Testing Officer).

The DCC has a some good ideas, but since he doesn't have the 30+ years that our squadron commander has in CAP, he doesn't say much to the SQ/CC. The DCC only has a few years in the program. He is also a parent of two of our cadets, as are most of the others involved on the cadet side. When those cadets leave, we will lose most of our cadet programs staff which is another problem. There are seniors (with no kids in the program) that are interested in working with the cadets, but they get sent to help the senior side in most cases. We are getting a lot of new recruits on the cadet side, but unless some major changes happen in the way the squadron is run, these cadets will continue to sit 6+ months without a promotion.

Our SQ/CC has a lot of experience with cadet programs, but it has been a while since he was active with it (like 1970s, possibly 1980s). I haven't been in the unit long, but it seems like he was dragged into the SQ/CC role and would rather be doing ES. The cadet side gets paid lip service by him and gets some attention, but not the attention and focus I've seen in my previous units.

I would really like our squadron to split into separate cadet and senior squadrons. It would solve a lot of problems we have and would make it a better experience for all. After being in three different composite squadrons, I have decided that when I move again, I will not join another composite squadron again. Having two primary focuses in a unit, hurts the unit unless managed properly. I like the idea of having a single primary focus to a unit.

For the record, I'd join a senior squadron if I could.

[MIKE]

A comment in another thread reminded me how often composite squadron commanders who are not cadet progam specialists are not always the best people to be in charge of a cadet program.

Functioning correctly they wouldn't be... The Deputy Commander for Cadets would, and in cases where it requires squadron commanders signature versus the CDC's... he or she would defer to the CDC before they sign anything dealing with cadets in the unit.

[EMT-83]

3.  A true composite squadron where there are strong senior and cadet programs. 

It seems to me that type 3 (true composite squadron) is really quite rare and that most composite squadrons are either really focused on cadets or really focused on seniors and that the non-priority program is just given lip service.

I come from a composite squadron with about 50 members, almost equally split between cadets and seniors. We average 20 cadets and 12 seniors per meeting, where everyone stands for opening and closing formations together. Both groups receive the same safety briefings, and train together for topics such as ORM, NIMS, etc.

ES is pretty much cadets on the ground and seniors as air crews. Only a few seniors have any interest in ground team training, which is something that we need to work on. Our DCC is a former cadet officer, and a pilot, so he's well versed in both cadet and senior programs.

I never gave any thought to the idea that composite squadrons were a bad idea.  Maybe because I've never known otherwise, I always thought that both programs complemented each other.

[RiverAux]

I suppose that the thinking behind composite squadrons is to try to save on the administrative "overhead" of having two different squadrons by consolidating some of the positions that would need to be filled no matter what if there were two units instead of one.  This is a good idea in concept and I'm sure that it does work well in many places. 

Its just that in practice I think that the cadet program can end up on the short end of the stick with these sorts of units in ways that they wouldn't if there were two separate squadrons. 

I'm not proposing eliminating the composite squadron here, but am proposing that those units that are clearly more directed at one end of the spectrum would probably be better off just recognizing that fact rather than weakly attempting to do everything. 

[lordmonar]

I don't think we need to get into a US vs Them argument.

Some squadrons do somethings better.  If you got a composite squadron with a weak Cadet Program then all you got to do is fix it.

If you try to force it...then you will see more senior squadrons which would not do the cadet program any good at all.

[RiverAux]

I don't think we need to get into a US vs Them argument.

Not sure who the us or the them is in this case. 

If you got a composite squadron with a weak Cadet Program then all you got to do is fix it.

I suppose my answer to that would be that there are people out there who are just fine with having a very weak cadet program and aren't interested in fixing them.   

Is it possible that all of a sudden such weak cadet programs are going to see a trio of former Spaatz cadets in their mid-20s show up one night who take the bull by the horns and take a reinvigorated cadet program to the national drill competition next year?  I suppose so, but the odds are that one or two senior members will barely keep the unit afloat and thereby give the few cadets in that unit the bare minimum CAP experience.   

One could argue that having a barely alive cadet program is better than having no cadet program, but I'm not really sure about that.  A barely alive cadet program is going to have all of the numerous problems we've discussed here before including recruiting and retention issues, lack of opportunity to really develop leaders, lack of activities outside of meeting night, etc. 

If you try to force it...then you will see more senior squadrons which would not do the cadet program any good at all.

Holistically speaking, for CAP as a whole having a focused senior squadron may be better than having a composite unit that doesn't do either side of the house much good.  And if we go the other direction, converting a composite squadron to a cadet squadron could just be a plus. 

[ThorntonOL]

A composite squadron like any other squadron will change over time.
When I joined in 2000 as a cadet we had a Commander who left about two months after I joined who was moving, About the same time the Commander left the Cadet Commander left (college or military.) So we then got a New Commander and Cadet Commander. The new Commander was around for a bout two years then he asked my dad to step up to be Commander, who then lasted for about 4-5 years upon which another dad who had joined with his son took over.
As for the Cadet Commander, since I joined we've had about 10-13 Cadet Commanders which surprisingly has worked out well.
Now due to this bit of confusion, records were a little screwy, Professional Development was almost none existent, cadets numbered between 10-20 and the total amount of active seniors was about 4 or 5 to the ten or so listed and it took almost the whole time my dad was Commander to straighten things out.
now we have 60(3) members 39 are cadets and 21 are seniors plus a few who haven't joined yet but probably will and one or two who have fallen off the list but are planning on renewing.
The cadet program is running well, professional development is active to a point, and almost the whole unit shows up each night except for bad weather and summertime.

[tjaxe]

After reading this thread I feel pretty darn lucky to be in the third type of squadron listed above --

We have strong cadet and senior elements.  We have no planes but are very focused on and active in ground search and rescue.  We "lost" about 5-7 cadets through graduation / going off to college last year but we've also just experienced an awesome spurt of new cadets joining.  We consistently get 10-12 seniors and 18-22-ish cadets at our meetings which are held at the same time in one building (but separate rooms).  We participate in the same closing and various trainings.  The cadets are very important to our squadron but so too is the development of our seniors who consistently progress through the various technician / senior / master ratings as well as search and rescue (GTM) levels. 

I think that the majority of our seniors and cadets would say our squadron works pretty well for us.

[CadetProgramGuy]

Reading this thread makes me take a hard look at what I an trying to do here.  I an starting a new unit just south of Des Moines, and we are set on being a Composite Sqdn.

However, there is also talk of becoming a Boy Scouts Charter as well, which implies a strong Cadet Program.

And there is talk of advancing our ES program to include NASAR and CERT which implies a strong ES Program.

Now I am Master rated in CP, and Tech rated in ES.  I am recruiting Boy scout leaders to help.

Not complaining, because if we do this right, We could have a bunch of new cadets in the fall. (like 40ish.....)

[RiverAux]

Well, you can have a strong ES program in a cadet squadron.  What seems to unbalance some composite squadrons is having a FLYING program.  That tends to focus almost all your senior member training on aircrew-related stuff and you end up spending most of your time trying to recruit pilots rather than seniors really interested in working with cadets.

[Pingree1492]

A composite squadron like any other squadron will change over time.

Very true.  When I joined my composite squadron as a cadet, there were only a handful of other cadets around, and the cadets and seniors meet at separate times in separate locations.  Might as well have been different units; however, had we been split into senior/cadet squadrons (which was the basic functioning), the cadet squadron most probably would have died- I'll get to why a bit later.

Now, we are the largest squadron in the wing, with 120 members, split evenly between the cadets and seniors.  Both programs are alive, active and well.  We now meet in the same building, different rooms.  The cadets are heavily involved in Ground ES, and the seniors are involved in the flight aspects.  We focus on different things, and do different training, but we are ONE squadron.  Had we 'just recognized the fact that one program was dying' 10 years ago, the squadron wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is now.  For better or for worse, we're a composite squadron.

Well, you can have a strong ES program in a cadet squadron.  What seems to unbalance some composite squadrons is having a FLYING program.  That tends to focus almost all your senior member training on aircrew-related stuff and you end up spending most of your time trying to recruit pilots rather than seniors really interested in working with cadets.

Which is still great for the cadet program- more pilots = more O-Pilots = more O-Rides.  We have 10 O-Ride pilots in the squadron plus a whole slew of Instructor/Check Pilots.  This is GREAT for the cadets that want to learn how to fly.  This is GREAT for our O-Ride program.

I suppose that the thinking behind composite squadrons is to try to save on the administrative "overhead" of having two different squadrons by consolidating some of the positions that would need to be filled no matter what if there were two units instead of one.  This is a good idea in concept and I'm sure that it does work well in many places. 

Its just that in practice I think that the cadet program can end up on the short end of the stick with these sorts of units in ways that they wouldn't if there were two separate squadrons. 

I'm not proposing eliminating the composite squadron here, but am proposing that those units that are clearly more directed at one end of the spectrum would probably be better off just recognizing that fact rather than weakly attempting to do everything. 

I have to strongly disagree here.  From my own experience, the struggling cadet program is still better served being part of a composite squadron than trying to go alone.  The "short end of the stick" would just get shorter, as the 1 or 2 seniors working with the cadets in the first place would suddenly also get saddled with all the other administrative issues that the other seniors were taking care of before- leaving less and less time to do actual cadet-stuff, and burning those members out quicker. 

When I took over as my squadron's DCC two years ago, I certainly wouldn't have had the success I did in growing our side of the unit if it was just a cadet squadron.  The other seniors took care of the administrative running of the squadron, and I took care of the cadets.  I had only 1 other full-time senior helping out.  Now we have 6, with a few more wanting to join.  MAYBE I could have made that happen without the support of the senior side of the composite squadron, but I KNOW I would still be struggling to maintain an active squadron and activity schedule.  As it is now, it almost feels like it runs itself- the load is spread out in various ways to all 6 senior members with each one being vital to the continuing success of the unit.

So I would certainly argue that maintaining a composite squadron's status is almost always the right way to go.  MAYBE not in special situations- like CadetProgramGuy's Boy Scouting Charter issues- I've never worked with that type of program, so I don't know the challenges faced.  But what I'd say to CadetProgramGuy is: you CAN have a squadron that has a strong Cadet Program (we sent an all-squadron Drill Team to the Region Competition this year, though we got beat by an all-Wing team.  But they beat an all-Group team to get there, with 4 of our cadets having been in the program for only 4 months); you CAN have a strong ES Program (7 cadets participated on actual-distress missions as Ground Team Members last year); you CAN have a strong flight program (90% of cadets have completed their first O-Ride); all as part of a composite squadron.  The senior side of the house also has an incredibly strong and active program as well, but I'll leave that discussion for another day.

[flyguy06]

I would love to have a strong cadet program that is focused on flying. Not merely o rides. But actual flight training for cadets. We would have ground school, visit ATC facilities and have Senior members that are pilots and IP's give actual flight instruction. In addition do the normal cadet stuff like have color guards participate in community events and give back to our community by reading to elem school kids, presenting AE programs (like Tuskegee Airmen) to kids in middle and elem schools.

Notice I did not mention GT once. Our focus would be purely aviation and leadership training.

But I do agree with riveraux. A lot of composite squadrons I have seen tend to lean toward one side or another. In GAWG there are two squadrons in my opinion that do both progarms equally and very well.