CAPP 52-24

[NIN]

Wow, I guess I missed the original incarnation of this thread.

(Note for the tl:dr crowd. This got longer than I wanted. Read at your own risk)

Couple points I'll suggest:

1) While I certainly do take into consideration the wishes of the troops (ie. the blog posts on the CP page), if you will, it is important to fully understand and appreciate where they're coming from.  C/SSgt who says "I don't like the idea that this will make encampment 'less military'!" or something similar, for example, isn't quite what I'd call a "Subject Matter Expert."    It always cracked me up that the folks who seemed to be on the biggest kick to "make it more military" or who felt they were the best judge of "what is military enough" were the people who actually had NO IDEA what they were talking about.   9 times of 10, it was someone who's sole window into the military, apart from CAP, was repeated viewings of Platoon, Full Metal Jacket & Jarhead (oh, and Three Kings.. Cuz we all know how accurate that was).

2) At least at the encampments for which I was either the training officer, commandant of cadets or commander, at the end of the encampment I provided a report to the Liaison Officer State Director that basically said "I certify that the training program executed exceeds the requirements set forth in CAPM 52-16 (well, CAPR 50-16 BITD) and that the following individuals participated in over 80% of the required instruction for successful completion of this encampment."   Years ago, I actually sat down with the training schedule  and had to highlight for the LO what parts met what requirements.  I started including in the training schedule the specific reference to the 50-16 guidance and some short hand in the reference so I could more easily add up the hours per requirement.  But before we'd sign graduation certificates, we formally ensured that the requirements were me, and more importantly, who didn't meet them.   (we also had mechanisms in place to track who did not meet the 80%. A cadet that shows up late/goes home early is an easy one to figure out, but the kid who spends 2 1/2 days in sick bay and not in training is a little tougher to figure out. I frequently impressed upon the cadet staff that while accountability of their people from a safety & leadership standpoint was the primarily goal, the secondary objective was to ensure that we knew who was missing training for whatever reason)

Keep in mind: we took that stuff seriously.  Encampment was a) the gateway to the Mitchell Award & Phase III (Cadet Officer) and as former Cadet Officers, we wanted to be sure that the people who followed us met the same standards and requirements, and nobody was going to slack their way into pips via a bogus encampment credit; and b) with the Mitchell came the potential for E-3 upon enlistment in the AF, or E-2 elsewhere.  Can't have people getting advanced grade who didn't really "be there and do that."

3) While I'm not a big fan of the "students" reference, I don't disagree with it, either.  I think there are probably better terms of reference, such as "Airmen" (as in the collective "Airmen" not "Cadet Airmen").   We always referred to them as "the Basic Cadets" (as in "this is their Basic Encampment") but not in the C/AB sense, either.   

I was always a little put off by "other" terms used for first year cadets (ie. "doolies") that really had no basis at all in the program history.    (I will admit: In the office we would sometimes refer to the collective body of "first time cadets" as "the smacks," as in "smackwads," but that was _strictly_ a "while you're plotting the schedule on the whiteboard" thing.. as in "OK, so at 0900 the smacks are down at the rifle range, and the squadron staffs are where? Uh huh, ok, right, at the barracks. And at 11:30, we need all the buses at the range to pickup the smacks and get 'em to chow."  Nowhere did we actually write down "smacks" or call them that to their faces)

The uniformed services do refer to their students as either "students" when they are in a training situation (ie. AIT or some other training course, like NCOA) or as their collective nomenclature ("soliders" or "airmen," as distinguished from "cadre" for the training course).    Because you can have the entire range of Phase I & Phase II cadets at encampment, I suppose that referring to them as "Basics" might offput some to think that you're calling a 3 year c/CMSgt a "no-striper" but that was not the manner of reference for us. The term "Basic Cadet" and "Basic Cadet Encampment" pre-dated the fairly regular use of "C/AB" by many, many years.

4) I like the Encampment Report requirements.  Wings need metrics to back up the performance of their programs.

Back when I first became a Wing DCP (WIWADCP! LOL), the guy who had been the DCP before me, and who was the DCP after me is sort of a Big Deal™ in CAP now, so I got to inherit a lot of good things and (I hope) he got to inherit some good stuff from me.  My first year as DCP, I started setting encampment targets. One of my targets was that I wanted 50% of the cadets who had not attended encampment in the wing to go to encampment.  (I think it was 50%. That was a number I pulled out of my butt, I think, not one based in any specific metric. I figured we'd use that number and adjust when we figured it was realistic or not) Being a database guy, I was able to query out info from CAPWatch that told me how many cadets in the wing did not have encampment yet. So I figured "OK, we have 260 cadets in the wing, of those 260, 100 don't have encampment yet. So I want to set a goal of 50 basic cadets at encampment." (those numbers, while round, were actually very close to what our wing's numbers were, give or take)

This was important to us from the standpoint of maximizing our facility (we had bed space for about 60 or 65 "in-ranks" cadets), but also because I wanted to encourage cadet participation in encampment (for the purposes of retention, program development, etc).  Having a target to shoot for was better than "Well, we sent out applications, didn't get many back. Oh well, encampment with 32 cadets will be a blast anyway.."  It gave me a gauge to give to the unit commanders to encourage participation, especially as we got down to the wire on the application deadline. 

(Side note: We also used that database run to laser focus our encampment mailings to keep costs down and ensure that we were getting the right people in the right places.  Instead of shotgunning the cadet staff application to everybody, we would send the staff application package out around the first of the year to only those cadets who had completed an encampment.  Then, when it was time in February to send out the basic cadet mailing, it conversely went to everybody in the wing who did NOT have an encampment.  We were trying to a) encourage cadet staff participation by targeting them with a specific mailing; b) discourage 2nd time basic encampment attendees, partly due to barracks space, but partly due to prompt progression thru the ranks. Going to encampment a second time as a first-timer, especially if you were a C/Amn the first time, and a C/A1C a year later, just didn't keep with the goals and aims of the program, IMHO.  We did not have a follow-on "advanced program" yet (partly due to space) for "second timers who don't make cadet staff", and our requirements were that you had to be a C/SrA to apply for Cadet Staff with the understanding that you needed to be a C/NCO to be selected and attend as a cadet staff member.  That seemed to motivate at least a few cadets to get off their collective duffs and make it into Phase II so they could be Cadet Staff at encampment.)

So, I think those metrics in the report will give wings some efficiency and effectiveness targets to hit, which is an improvement over some places where they don't have _any_ earthly idea of how they're doing to help the program or to move the ball forward.

5) Co-ed-ness. Yes.   

The barracks in MI Wing were usually not setup in a way that was perfect for a co-ed situation.  The barracks were open-bay, 1 flight per barracks, etc, and from a unit cohesion and ease of management standpoint (ie. one flight, one barracks, one throat to choke when there's a problem in Barracks 107, not having to chase people down across 2 buildings, etc) they were well suited for that.  Plus, we had the sheer numbers of female cadets to support two whole flights out of 9 total, and we had been setup that way forever.  Today, however, the "dorms" are changing, they only have a few (4, maybe?) barracks buildings setup as open bay, and the nature of our program has changed considerably vis-a-vis males & females.    Could co-ed flights be done at that same facility? Probably.  The gnashing of gears during the paradigm shift might be a little noisy initially, but it would eventually get figured out.

The facility I had here as encampment commander and DCP was considerably different and it really made no sense to have a female-only flight when we had less than 12 female cadets and only 4 flights total anyway. So we made it work.  Was it perfect? No.  But we had three barracks buildings, of which the females were in one end of the center building.  The rest of the buildings were "mixed flight" and the flight staff might have all their cadets in one building, or some in one and some in the other.  The unit cohesion argument is out the window anyway, and the female cadets have their own space, so why not integrate?

(to be fair: I did not have to promulgate that policy, co-ed flights had been "the way we do it" for years, so as the relative new guy in the wing,  I was literally the only person at encampment who had to "get with the program."  So yeah, it wasn't a big deal)

Not sure I care about the "co-ed inspection" part disallowing male cadets from inspecting the female's drawer items and vice versa.  If things are rolled/folded in a nice consistent military fashion, then there shouldn't be any issue.  And if you're coming to encampment with anything more racy than the functional equivalent of tighty-whiteys (female or male), well... mom and dad need to get you some different skivvies.

6) 20 minutes to eat? LUXURY!    I see the intent: there are places where meals have become "get in, sit down, shut up, stuff your piehole and get the hell out!"  but I'm not sure I agree here.

Is 20 minutes a functional metric in all circumstances? Maybe.  Depends on the facility size, the number of cadets, etc.  But just like the "30 second showers," (more on that later), you get some enterprising young man who saw "The Boys In Company C" too many times and his self-styled Sergeant Loyce pops out 10-12 times a day.  He knows that his flight the year before, when he was a first timer, was able to go from first man at the headcount to all out of the DFAC in 15 minutes, and they were a bunch of slackers, so this year, he's going to prove what a great NCO he is and push his entire flight thru the DFAC in 10 minutes total time.  So what if that means that the last guy has to jam his half-eaten bagel into his mouth on the way to the tray tip?  We're gonna be "more military about this if it kills you!!"

Is there a middle ground, or a way to recommend that meals be consumed in a manner which promotes digestion and dietary health? Sure.

Maybe: "Cadets should be afforded the opportunity to eat their meal in an unhurried manner, within the dictates of the facility capacity, training schedule and other requirements. To specify a specific time to eat is not appropriate in all circumstances, but it is generally understood that meals should take no less than 10 minutes or so to consume, and that rushing cadets through a meal can lead to dietary problems.  Commanders and training officers should plan sufficient time in the schedule to get all personnel fed in a timely fashion without undue haste."

Meals are a time to stop, step back, get some sustenance and think about how things are going. Share a little conversation with your flight buddies, talk about how neat that tour of the B-52 was, etc.  You're not automatons, right?

As a training officer, knowing the size/scope of the MI encampments, we were able to shove 250-300 cadets thru the dining hall without much "EAT AND GET OUT!" exhortations in around an hour. Did people spend 20 minutes eating? Probably not.  I never stop-watched a cadet from "Seated to out" but my sense was that meals would usually last more than 10 minutes per cadet, but probably not much more than 15.  Sometimes a little less, seldom more, but it depended on what they were eating.   

With the speed of serving, seating available and number of cadets, had I been required to specify (and monitor) "20 minutes from the time your butt hits the seat" per cadet, we would have had a lot of cadets standing in long chow lines outside, cadets standing there with a tray looking for a seat, or standing around waiting for people to come out of chow. A 1 hour meal block would probably become 90 minutes in a blink. 

This could be a huge hit to the training schedule, again, depending on your site.

At our training site (an ANG CRTC),  you might be at the base theater before lunch, a half mile or so from the DFAC. So we'd build an "enroute" into the schedule such that the morning class block got done at, say, 11:45.  Enroute to lunch was 1145 to 1200, with lunch starting at 1200.   15 minutes to march a half mile?  Perhaps that was a little much, but that took into account getting out of the base theater, into formation, minor delays at the DFAC, etc.  Maybe Major Heighspeed's ES class ran over, etc. 15 minutes to enroute a half mile allowed us for a little "accordion" in the schedule in the event that things went sideways, like the DFAC suddenly can't feed people until 1210.

But if we were scheduled at the rifle range after lunch, which is 3/4 of a mile from the DFAC, and 1330 is the training block, I need those guys moving for the training site by 1300, maybe 1315 at the very latest (the last flights). 

Consider it this way: It was generally understood that lunch took ~ 90-120 minutes from "end of the morning block of training to the beginning of the afternoon block" on a good day.  More if I have to bus people to the DFAC or its a longer footmarch to the training site, or we need a bus ride.  If I have to accommodate 90 minutes for just the meal to meet a specific amount of "contact time between the cadet's fourth point of contact and the seat" per meal, now we're looking at 120-150 minutes, minimum, or maybe more,  between those training evolutions, again, depending on the number of cadets, DFAC capacity, serving speed, etc.

I think that one might need a little adjustment and 'commanders intent' around it to allow flexibility.

7) Sleep. Some states have certain requirements for camps that specify the number of hours the campers are required to sleep. I don't think 8 hrs is an incorrect assumption, I think 9 hrs might be pushing it.

Again, from a training officer's perspective:  You build a lot of your schedule backwards.  First training block on Tuesday is the tour of fighter operations a mile away from the cadet area at 0900.  30 minute enroute time. 0830 departure from the barracks. 0830 to 0800 is barracks prep for inspection (nobody ever said to me as a training officer "Gosh, sir, we had way, way too much time to prepare our barracks.."), 0700 to 0800 is breakfast (specified by the base, not us), 0630 to 0700 is change into uniform from PT, PT is 0545 to 0630.  OK, so first call is 0530.  8 hrs of sleep is 2130 lights out the night before.

You see where this exercise is going.  9 hrs of sleep means that either a) we put the troops to bed at 2030; or b) we wake them up at 0630 and skip PT. Or we do PT from 0630 to 0700, then right to breakfast, and then they have 30 minutes to square away their barracks and get showered and into a uniform before they're off to their first training evolution. 

Remember where I mentioned "30 second showers" before?  This is where you get enterprising young dynamic Americans and Aerospace Leaders who go "Hmmm, 2 showerheads, 20 cadets... OK, listen up!  After we took 20 minutes to prep our uniforms and barracks, we only have 10 minutes to shower, shave and get dressed. EVERY CADET WILL TAKE A 30 SECOND SHOWER!"  Uh, yeah.  Fun. NOT!

Again, I think 8 hours is a realistic number. I've put it in my training schedules, and it seems to work well enough that you don't have too many zombie cadets on the 2nd day.

Showers & Hygiene. We've addressed 30 second showers, so that will about cover the flyby.

Who suggested wearing a bathing suit in communal showers? Seriously  Really? Did someone just seriously suggest that with a straight face?    What next, a Victorian bathing costume, lest someone actually see an inch more of someone's skin that they should?

These are cadets who are > 12 years old. If they're not already in a gym class or sports team where they might have to shower with others in a communal arrangement, they very soon will be.  I don't know if I want to call someone a dynamic American and Aerospace Leader who is too socially embarrassed or awkward to take a shower whether the facility is communal or not. 

I realize this sounds like I'm saying "get naked and wave your junk in people's face," but I'm not.   

People need to be comfortable in their own skin.  Nakedness in the course of showering is neither a crime nor an embarrassment. Its a function.  Its like people who won't take a leak outside during a bivouac. What, are you worried a squirrel might laugh at you?  If you're that socially uptight about showers, what other baggage (from a leadership perspective) might you be dragging along with you?

What was it I said about encampment as the "gateway to advanced grade" in the military? Yeah, let me know how your MTI reacts to you wanting to take a shower in the barracks at Lackland in your PT shorts.

Ugh. Thankfully, this publication does not mention that as a suggestion, but merely covers the fact that communal showers may be an issue. 

9) Goodbyes. I love this!  We used to inprocess our students such that here was the initial check-in area (where we reviewed paperwork, got any last minute items, fixed any missing signatures) and then "OK, moms & dads, say your good byes here.." and once the cadet went on the other side of the first inprocessing station, they were ours.    (of course, we did not use the suggested contract, but the remainder of inprocessing was very straightforward and calm.   The flight sergeants waiting on the other side of the doors leading from the drill hall to take their charges to the barracks, well, they were similarly straightforward, but maybe not so calm! )

10) Contraband Shakedown. We did ours as part of inprocessing before they ever got to the barracks, and in MI Wing we did it once the cadet go to the barracks.  But it was one-on-one and very quick.  "Do you have any food, weapons, pornography, drugs, alcohol, smoking materials or tobacco products, gambling paraphernalia, or non-CAP reading matierals?"  (ack! 20+ years later I can do that without thinking. Creepy!).  We didn't have cell phones & computers way back in the early 1990s, and very few when I was an encampment commander.

11) I am of several minds on the self-administration of prescription drugs thing. I have seen med call work well, I've also see it turn into a gigantic goat-rope.   

I'm leery of self-administration (potential for abuse, etc), but then again, we get back to the dynamic Americans thing. If you're 12+ years old, have a prescription med that you need to take, and cannot successfully administer it yourself, perhaps you shouldn't be out in public unsupervised.   (my 11 year old son as meds he takes in the evenings, and he has taken them, on his own, for over 2 years now)   

Yes, the concern about others accessing a cadets's meds is certainly valid, but if you find it, you deal with it, and make a hell of an example out of it, and eventually the word gets out "Holy crap, man, don't share your Ritalin with your bunkmate, you'll get sent home!"   

The concern about a cadet either not administering or improperly administering their own meds is also valid, but how likely is that?  It might be so infrequent as to not warrant the unnecessary intrusion into the training schedule to have to troop a whole bunch of people down to sick bay 3x a day. 

If a kid has a serious issue that demands his meds be more closely monitored or dispensed, the parents will know that and should have that conversation with the encampment.  Maybe that one young man (or woman) has to visit the MO once a day and have meds administered.  Why have everybody do it that way if its really only one person has an issue that requires more supervision.

At the same time, if the cadet becomes a discipline problem and its discovered it is partly due to not self-administering a med, then that needs to be a factor in the counseling of the cadet over the discipline problem.


I just realized this is getting way longer than it needs to be, so I'll jump past the training schedules part (cursory overview says that they look good, but I haven't taken an indepth dive in to see if they are sufficiently stupid-proof...)


12) Inspection program. This is important: Inspection is one of those basic NCO/Officer leadership skills.  Flight sergeants and commanders should be constantly informally "inspecting" their troops (not a formal stand-by inspection.. thats a timewaster) so they know at any time who needs more help, who needs less, who might be a good cadet to pair with another. 

When an actual "inspection" comes along, 30 minutes should be sufficient to see that either a) the standards are being met; or b) they are not being met.

You're not doing a white-glove every day (or at least, you shouldn't be), but if you're doing inspections are part of your "flight scoring" metrics, then yeah, it might take longer.   So cadets book out for training at 0830, you might have a more "detail" inspection of the barracks for individual/flight scoring.

Or maybe not. Maybe you're just walking thru going "Uh huh, Alpha Flight's barracks look like the aftermath of Katrina. What are they doing, or more importantly, NOT DOING, with their time?" or "Bravo Flight's bunks are universally poor.  Maybe we need some retraining there?"

(Funny side story: I re-badged my old Michigan Wing SOPs for my first encampment as a commander in my new wing.  I took over ~2 weeks before the encampment was to start, and I didn't have a lot of spin-up time, so it was "find and replace" all the obvious wing names and such, fix the barracks differences I knew about, and print these suckers out!    One of the things in the SOP was that bunks were diagrammed and shown to be made with dust covers.  All the cadets were issued two blankets.   

Along about Monday or Tuesday, I walk thru my barracks with my commandant and I stop and go "Wait, CJ, what the hell man?  Why are all these bunks being made with dollar-bill collars?" 

He looks at me like I grew a second head. "Well, thats the way they've always been done.." 

I grabbed an SOP off the desk and showed him the pictures of the dust covers and how to make the bunk, meticulously drawn by me many years before for the wing encampment SOP, even! He was like "Gee, uh, I dunno?! Wow, I guess I missed that!"   

I grabbed a flight commander and said "Why are you making the bunks like this?"

He says "Because we've always done it like that, sir?" 

"What about the SOP? Right here, see, bunks with dustcovers?"

"Well, we didn't understand what it meant, sir, so we just did it the old way." 

"Didn't understand what it meant? Huh?  Did you think to ask anybody what it meant?  Try to make the bunk like the pretty pictures?" 

"No sir, I guess not.."

It was a funny story, because it illustrated not only a communication gap, where I assumed they'd just read & interpret the published guidance, but also a cultural one.  Changing a culture of 'we've always done it this way' is wicked hard.

But it also illustrated the need for officers and NCOs at all levels to delegate and check (basic leadership), inspect (basic leadership), and communicate effectively (basic leadership) when the troops might not have all the info or need guidance & clarification.

The next year, we selected cadet staff based partly on their ability to "read and interpret published guidance."  We'd put a "commonly done one way, but here's what the actual regulation says" situation in front of them, let them read the guidance and then see what they did.   It was pretty funny, actually.

That following year at cadet staff selection, we dragged a bunk out behind the barracks and listened to the cadets tell us how making a bunk with a dust cover was way, way too time consuming.  My commandant and I took 2 sheets, a pillow case and 2 blankets folded up on the bed and made a nice tight dust cover bunk as a team in about a minute and a half. I challenged the cadet staff to make a collared bunk in that amount of time. They could not.  Tactical and technical proficiency FTW!)

[ol'fido]

I'm going to say this about the summer encampment I work at(IL):

1) We usually exceed the required curicculum hours listed in the 52-16 easily.

2) I don't know if we give everyone 20 minutes to eat but we don't try to push people through as fast as possible. It's usually a pretty relaxed time although the ocassional flight commander or sergeant will go a little "semper psycho" but the exec staff usually corrects this pretty quick.

3) We've been doing coed flights now for so long that people look at me funny when I tell them that we used to have all the females in one squadron. Sidenote: The dominate formation when I was a cadet was the squadron.

4)We have scheduled our cadets for 8 hours since WIWAC. 2100-0500. Guess we'll have to figure something out there.

5) The only issue with our showers is that we have GIs that share the same shower facilities. Simple answer was to put up signs saying "CAP only during these hours". The facility first sergeant was all for it.

So basically all we got to do is look at our sleep schedule and change some terminology. No big deal.

[Fubar]

4)We have scheduled our cadets for 8 hours since WIWAC. 2100-0500. Guess we'll have to figure something out there.

Eight certainly seems like enough, especially since the "CQ" crap has been retired. No more getting up in the middle of the night and then trying to sleep for a couple more hours before PT.

Someone else also mentioned the cadet staff are the same age as the students - why can they operate on eight hours when the students allegedly need nine?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Retaining information?

[Eclipse]

Someone else also mentioned the cadet staff are the same age as the students - why can they operate on eight hours when the students allegedly need nine?

I would argue they can't, but historically the students are much younger then the cadre - probably by 2-3+ years on average.  The activity is never
as much of a system-shock for cadre as it is for students, if only because they know exactly what they are getting themselves into, and done it at least once.  By the time you get into "big-4" executive cadets staff, they are generally juniors or higher in high school and commonly in college.

Students have the requirement that they must "do" whatever is scheduled - cadre have the advantage of being relieved, taking a rest period, and
otherwise being able to stand down during classes, etc.

[MajorM]

Also, at least at encampments I've run, we have endeavored to get staff naps during the training day.  There are typically multiple opportunities in a day to get staff down for an hour or so nap.  Obviously you can't do the same with students.

[ol'fido]

I'm sorry, but I hate the term "students" in this context. It sounds too "corporate". And just because the AF uses it, doesn't make it any less "corporate". It's like talking about "customers", "product", and "metrics" when dealing with CAP operations and programs. It just grates on me to no end. Death to Yuppies!

[Eclipse]

Well, "basics" isn't correct either, since encampment isn't basic cadet training.

I think the term was used specifically to try and get people to understand that encampments are supposed to
be more akin to tech school and less like BMT.

[ol'fido]

I like the term "cadets". Seems to work in most other contexts. You would have cadets, ATS cadets, cadet staff, senior staff,etc. The term is very descriptive without being pejorative or "corporate".

[NCRblues]

Well, "basics" isn't correct either, since encampment isn't basic cadet training.

I think the term was used specifically to try and get people to understand that encampments are supposed to
be more akin to tech school and less like BMT.

Well, considering that at AF BMT you are a "trainee" until the Airman's coin ceremony and then you are an "Airman". I like the term "Trainee". After all, its 100% the truth, you are in training to advance your education and training rapidly to prepare yourself to be of service to your community, state and nation.

^  see what I did with that?

[Brad]

My turn! A lot of these items have been covered already but I feel they bear re-repeating:

1.) Sick call. I agree 100% with the "exceptional circumstances" provision often exercised with Encampment. All the encampments and CTWs I've been to, we've always had cadet medics, supervised by a HSO, take custody of cadet medications during shakedown as part of the controlled substances provision....for aren't prescription meds just that? Isn't part of DDR education to teach that prescription meds can be abused just as much as "street" drugs? So yea, the meds are taken into Encampment custody and dispensed out to the respective cadets as needed. As mentioned on the blog, this prevents the cadets from accidentally overdosing, thinking that if they take more meds they'll get through Encampment easier, or their fellow flight members may ask them if they can try a bit out of simple curiosity -- or the cadet may simply lose the meds.

2.) Just call 'em cadets. It ain' hard. Call the rest the mentioned terms, cadre, etc.

3.) 9 hours of sleep? Good luck with that. You say lights out at 2100, but odds are the cadets aren't going to pipe down and go to sleep right away, especially the more chatterbox types. Unless you want to cut into tomorrow's time schedule, I'd shoot for 8. Plus how are we going to police this 9 hours? Especially if we're getting rid of CQ. Oh sure the senior member or two doing the CQ may be able to monitor for night owls, but he can't catch everything.

4.) I do agree with the idea of an actual grading system to help eliminate the "come and show up" cadets. WIWAC (JROTC mind you) and I went to Leadership Academy if you didn't pass the PT test to Navy standards on the second full day, you were sent home at your unit's expense. Same if you were going to fail out academically. I feel this is needed to reduce the number of cadets who are pressured by their Squadron, fellow Squadron members, or even parents to go to something that they aren't ready for, only to plod through it halfway, which brings down the encampment as a whole. Youth programs with a military base aren't for everyone. Am I dismissing them outright? Not at all, I'm the product of them, but still, they're not for everyone, and there needs to be the ability to remove those not cut out for it, or at least the intense parts.

5.) 20 minute meal times. Couple this with the fact that a lot of meal facilities are shared with our real military family, then once you factor in the time it takes to get the encampment set up in the meal system with the cashiers, making sure there's room in the facility, letting the real military members still make use of the facility, AND allow everyone this 20 minute minimum, you're now a good 2 hours behind schedule. This should be a simple provision of non-interference by cadre of cadets at meal. Even The Citadel has this, stating that upperclassmen shall not interfere with Knob meals after second rest is called.

6.) Parents at in-processing? NO! That is not the time for the parents to be there. Perhaps have an event just before in-processing, a relaxed social atmosphere with the parents and cadets, conducted probably by the Encampment Commander (the Senior Member, not the Cadet) to allow any "anxiety questions" and such to be addressed without fear of making the staff mad or getting yelled at. After this, then as the guide said the parents would be dismissed and in-processing would begin. All the training academies I went to with JROTC, and even in-processing with NROTC, there was no parent presence at the actual in-processing. It all ended before. Not to mention you have to take into account facility size. Our encampment (except for the Parris Island outing) has always had in-processing in the admin office of our assigned regular facility. This thing is small, about the size of a mobile classroom facility. It's crowded enough in there with the staff and cadets getting process in, now factor in one or two extra un-needed bodies and multiply times 100+ at times, and it becomes something really nasty. Parents, you can't hold little Johnny's hand the whole time, otherwise he's never going to grow up and will stay at home with you for the rest of his life as closet child.

Ok, soapbox is free for the next one!

[Eclipse]

1.) Sick call. I agree 100% with the "exceptional circumstances" provision often exercised with Encampment. All the encampments and CTWs I've been to, we've always had cadet medics, supervised by a HSO, take custody of cadet medications during shakedown as part of the controlled substances provision....for aren't prescription meds just that? Isn't part of DDR education to teach that prescription meds can be abused just as much as "street" drugs? So yea, the meds are taken into Encampment custody and dispensed out to the respective cadets as needed. As mentioned on the blog, this prevents the cadets from accidentally overdosing, thinking that if they take more meds they'll get through Encampment easier, or their fellow flight members may ask them if they can try a bit out of simple curiosity -- or the cadet may simply lose the meds.

That's been prohibited for at least two years.

[Brad]

1.) Sick call. I agree 100% with the "exceptional circumstances" provision often exercised with Encampment. All the encampments and CTWs I've been to, we've always had cadet medics, supervised by a HSO, take custody of cadet medications during shakedown as part of the controlled substances provision....for aren't prescription meds just that? Isn't part of DDR education to teach that prescription meds can be abused just as much as "street" drugs? So yea, the meds are taken into Encampment custody and dispensed out to the respective cadets as needed. As mentioned on the blog, this prevents the cadets from accidentally overdosing, thinking that if they take more meds they'll get through Encampment easier, or their fellow flight members may ask them if they can try a bit out of simple curiosity -- or the cadet may simply lose the meds.

That's been prohibited for at least two years.

CAPR 160-2

A CAP senior member, after obtaining all the necessary information and receiving documentation of the written permission from a minor cadet's parent or guardian for the administration of prescription medication during the activity, can agree to accept the responsibility of making sure the minor cadet is reminded to take any prescribed medication at the times and in the frequencies prescribed; however, no senior member will be required or encouraged to do so. This regulation does not prohibit senior member staff from monitoring medication compliance with directly observed medication ingestion, having medication forms for the cadet to initial when doses were taken, performing pill counts, or other compliance verification.

And that's precisely what our sick call does. The cadets self-medicate at their proper times, all we are providing is a central, secure, and where needed refrigerated location for the meds to be stored. They are not dispensed or administered in the medical sense by the encampment medical staff. The cadet is simply given their container, they take what they take, and it is returned for keeping. Better alternative than the cadet losing it or, as 160-2 says farther down, giving it to another cadet. Plus the HSO is rated as an EMT at least.

[Fubar]

CAPR 160-2 also states:

Except in extraordinary circumstances, CAP members, regardless of age, will be responsible for transporting, storing, and taking their own medications, including inhalers and epinephrine pens.

Since you are requiring the cadets to turn their medications over to your HSO, it would appear contrary to the requirement that the cadet be responsible for storing their medications. You can give them a container to store their meds, but it appears you can't require the cadet to then turn that container over to you.

[Eclipse]

...all we are providing is a central, secure, and where needed refrigerated location for the meds to be stored. They are not dispensed or administered in the medical sense by the encampment medical staff. The cadet is simply given their container, they take what they take, and it is returned for keeping. Better alternative than the cadet losing it or, as 160-2 says farther down, giving it to another cadet. Plus the HSO is rated as an EMT at least.

"Exactly what you are doing" is what NHQ has made clear we are not to do, and whether the HSO is an EMT or not is irrelevant.

160-2

"5. Except in extraordinary circumstances, CAP members, regardless of age, will be responsible for transporting, storing and taking their own medications. Members who require refrigeration for medications should carefully coordinate with activity officials well in advance of their attendance at the activity to ensure that refrigeration will be available."

"Because you think it's a good idea." does not constitute "extraordinary circumstances".  This is exactly the problem that we have been working on
and against for years.  NHQ makes the rules crystal clear, and people do whatever they think is "better" anyway.

[Extremepredjudice]

Not only that, you can get in serious trouble by possessing other people's medication.

[NCRblues]

Not only that, you can get in serious trouble by possessing other people's medication.

Except in states that prohibit minors from having their own prescription meds...

[Brad]

Well it could also be the fact that the last encampment I went to was in 2010, and 160-2 was published in 2011. I'm trying to remember if the provisions were different then.

Regardless, I overlooked that bit in my rant since, again, I was acting off 2010 information, etc., and I do apologize. I still hold true to my other points though!

[tsrup]

"Exactly what you are doing" is what NHQ has made clear we are not to do, and whether the HSO is an EMT or not is irrelevant.

^^agreed

Dispensing medications is outside of the scope of practice of an EMT.  And there are very limited medications (that belong to and are prescribed to a patient) that an EMT can even legally "assist" with (my state there are only two).


Not to mention that my scope of practice is non-existant at a CAP function since I would be operating without medical direction (a doctor on the other end of a phone or written protocols). 


The only comfort that an encampment staff should have about having a few EMTs on staff is that those individuals will be able to call 911 like pros. 

Keeping and storing pills is a no-no and is explicitly stated so.  To me willful non-compliance would be an egregious violation and should result in membership suspension at the very least.



CAP needs to either legitimize roles for "medics" (never going to happen) or get rid of the HSO concept entirely. 

[Eclipse]

Not only that, you can get in serious trouble by possessing other people's medication.

Except in states that prohibit minors from having their own prescription meds...

Where's that?

How can you prohibit an asthmatic from carrying an inhaler, or someone with allergies from
carrying an epi-pen?  Not to mention the cocktails kids take these days.