Enhanced Cadet Protection Policy for '14

[Майор Хаткевич]

Are parents now allowed to go on missions?  Do we have to worry about parents going along on ground team missions now?

It's not a cadet OR CAP activity - it's a mission, nor are they permitted to participate. At best, as written they can observe the activity, not helicopter parent over their kid.

[Eclipse]

While it SHOULD be cleared up, the intent is clearly any cadet programs activity:

Where's the line?

Anything that involves cadets is covered.

[Майор Хаткевич]

While it SHOULD be cleared up, the intent is clearly any cadet programs activity:

Where's the line?

Anything that involves cadets is covered.

An ES mission is not a CP activity.

[Spaceman3750]

Here's basically what my response would be to a parent tagging along on my ground team...

"So you're insisting on being with your cadet at all times?" "Yes" "OK, no problem. Cadet Snuffy, report to the RUL for retasking at mission base."

SAR isn't secret, but I have no interest in taking untrained, non-member parents into the woods with me. I don't have time for that. We're kind of jumping straight to the worst case scenario here, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to actually see it happen.

[Eclipse]

While it SHOULD be cleared up, the intent is clearly any cadet programs activity:

Where's the line?

Anything that involves cadets is covered.

An ES mission is not a CP activity.

A fair position, but not really supportable.  52-10 clearly covers all activities which include cadets today.

[Майор Хаткевич]

While it SHOULD be cleared up, the intent is clearly any cadet programs activity:

Where's the line?

Anything that involves cadets is covered.

An ES mission is not a CP activity.

A fair position, but not really supportable.  52-10 clearly covers all activities which include cadets today.

Were discussing the new add on to 52-16,  not the new proposal in terms of current rules.

[Eclipse]

Were discussing the new add on to 52-16,  not the new proposal in terms of current rules.

Yes, and to my understanding, these rules will be incorporated into 52-16 as the "new" 52-10 and
52-10 retired.

This will be a consolidation of all regs and procedures regarding Cadet involvement in CAP.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Were discussing the new add on to 52-16,  not the new proposal in terms of current rules.

Yes, and to my understanding, these rules will be incorporated into 52-16 as the "new" 52-10 and
52-10 retired.

This will be a consolidation of all regs and procedures regarding Cadet involvement in CAP.

So then what we have to work with is laid out in front of us.

[dwb]

There's a difference between "parental observation" and "following Cadet Johnny everywhere he goes". Being allowed to observe the activity doesn't mean mom is allowed to stand in the men's restroom and make sure there's no horseplay in there.

[Ned]

I just unpacked my bags from Denver, and now that I have access to a better keyboard than provided by my phone, let me start with a word of thanks.

As one of the principal authors of the enhanced CPP draft, I genuinely appreciate the feedback so far.  That is precisely why we released the draft on the same day I briefed the Command Council about the project.  Even though we went to a great deal of trouble to include "street-level" CP officers, parents, and wing DCPs as we developed the materials, we knew that having as many sets of fresh eyes as possible on the project would be helpful and allow us to improve and revise before we return to the senior leadership in the late fall or winter.

And although it was mentioned in the Executive Summary and White Paper, it bears repeating that lawyers and other legal professionals have reviewed and approved the drafts up to this point.  Indeed, none of the legal professionals noted any significant problems.  But we welcome any and all input as we move toward a final draft.

Let me respond to a few specifics that have been mentioned so far:

1. Social media restrictions.  The only thing certain about social media is that it will morph and change faster than an organization like ours can respond.  (They are inside our OODA loop.)  So rather than get bogged down into specifics about how to set up multiple FaceBook profiles or discussing ever evolving security settings, we tried to law out some rules that will help prevent improper relationships even as the platforms evolve under us.  In my civilian job I spend many, many hours dealing with cases that starter with innocent social media chatter and spun out of control into wildly inappropriate communications.  We are trying to provde commanders, parents, cadets, and CP officers with tools to detect and prevent problems before they develop into acute incidents.

2.  Parental visitations.  As some have mentioned, this rule is designed to reassure parents that we do not have "secret meetings" and to reassure them that their cadets are being treated fairly and protected.  It is not meant to allow a parent to hover continuously in the background for extended periods of time.  Based on your feedback, we will play with the wording on that.  However, I am not sure I want to exempt ES completely.  I don't want parents to go tromping through the woods, but I'm not sure I see the harm in letting them see the quarters at a search base if that is important to them.  Perhaps some of you could suggest some language.

3.  52-16 vs 52-10.  I must admit that I was the main driver behind the suggestion that we roll 52-10 into the 52-16.  I think it makes sense to have all of the CP-related stuff in one place.  Others have suggested that it makes the 52-16 too large and unwieldy.  There may be truth in that.  Ultimately it is about effective communication of the rules.  Please continue your feedback.

4. Group emails.  I can only agree that things like wing email reflectors and bulk emails in general present little risk.  We will definitely work on that to focus on "one on one" type emails occurring outside of scheduled activities.  Again, any specific wording suggestions are appreciated.

5. Why this came about.  It is not in response to any lawsuit.  (Indeed, I was just briefed at the BoG meeting that there are no active lawsuits involving CAP as either plaintiff or defendant.  As in absolutely none.)  This was done mostly because it has been 25 years since we created the CPP in 1988, and it was time for a review of our policies to see if there are still "state of the art."  Our program has been highly successful, in fact acclaimed by outside experts as such.  If anything, it was prompted by the recent difficulties experienced by the Scouts and some religious organizations, as well as our own few acute incidents.  Mostly it was just time.

Again, we welcome your feedback and criticism.  It has always been our plan to allow member comment and input.  And I promise you that it will be carefully considered.  That's the whole point of posting the materials on line.  I suppose I would prefer that you post your specific wording suggestions on the Comment Portion of the Cadet Blog, but mostly that is because I am as usual a little overscheduled this week and if you post it on the Cadet Blog then Mr. LaFond will see it and put the grist into the editing mill, so to speak.

Any more questions? (Every time I hit "preview", four new replies have been posted.  Keep 'em coming.)


Ned Lee
CP Enthusiast

[Майор Хаткевич]

Ned is awesome.

[Eclipse]

Nice to see perception and reality are pretty close here.

[arajca]

I'll add a few comments to Ned's comments. My opinions only. Get your salt shakers out, etc. etc.

Let me respond to a few specifics that have been mentioned so far:

1. Social media restrictions.  The only thing certain about social media is that it will morph and change faster than an organization like ours can respond.  (They are inside our OODA loop.)  So rather than get bogged down into specifics about how to set up multiple FaceBook profiles or discussing ever evolving security settings, we tried to law out some rules that will help prevent improper relationships even as the platforms evolve under us.  In my civilian job I spend many, many hours dealing with cases that starter with innocent social media chatter and spun out of control into wildly inappropriate communications.  We are trying to provde commanders, parents, cadets, and CP officers with tools to detect and prevent problems before they develop into acute incidents.

No comments - I'm not active with social media.

2.  Parental visitations.  As some have mentioned, this rule is designed to reassure parents that we do not have "secret meetings" and to reassure them that their cadets are being treated fairly and protected.  It is not meant to allow a parent to hover continuously in the background for extended periods of time.  Based on your feedback, we will play with the wording on that.  However, I am not sure I want to exempt ES completely.  I don't want parents to go tromping through the woods, but I'm not sure I see the harm in letting them see the quarters at a search base if that is important to them.  Perhaps some of you could suggest some language.

Nothing yet. I'll think on it.

3.  52-16 vs 52-10.  I must admit that I was the main driver behind the suggestion that we roll 52-10 into the 52-16.  I think it makes sense to have all of the CP-related stuff in one place.  Others have suggested that it makes the 52-16 too large and unwieldy.  There may be truth in that.  Ultimately it is about effective communication of the rules.  Please continue your feedback.

Start using series of regs in the 52 series instead of one huge reg. 52-1 Cadet Program, 52-2 Cadet Protection, 52-3 Encampments, 52-4 National Cadet Special Activities, etc, etc, etc. That also helps folks looking up the regs find the topic they need quicker that downloading a large reg and flipping through it to find the two pages they need.

4. Group emails.  I can only agree that things like wing email reflectors and bulk emails in general present little risk.  We will definitely work on that to focus on "one on one" type emails occurring outside of scheduled activities.  Again, any specific wording suggestions are appreciated.

Get National to change their directions when pulling the email list off to paste the list into the BCC field instead of the TO field. Using the TO field lets everyone know the unit or specific group of members is getting it. Yes, I know some email programs will flag emails with too many addresses in the TO field as spam, but if the members tag the appropriate members as Not Spam, they should get the emails.

5. Why this came about.  It is not in response to any lawsuit.  (Indeed, I was just briefed at the BoG meeting that there are no active lawsuits involving CAP as either plaintiff or defendant.  As in absolutely none.)  This was done mostly because it has been 25 years since we created the CPP in 1988, and it was time for a review of our policies to see if there are still "state of the art."  Our program has been highly successful, in fact acclaimed by outside experts as such.  If anything, it was prompted by the recent difficulties experienced by the Scouts and some religious organizations, as well as our own few acute incidents.  Mostly it was just time.

All policies should be reviewed on a regular basis. At work, we review our policies every five years, doing 20% per year.

[SarDragon]

I'm hopeful it was well intentioned and not thought all the way through, because the implications are pretty serious.

CC: "Sorry, the bivouac is canceled due to lack of proper supervision..."

Random Parent no one has ever met: "I'm not busy, I'll go..."

CC: "Sorry, I'm not comfortable with non-members participating as if they were FBI-checked members..."

Random Parent: Comes into next meeting waiving waving 52-16 and an IG complaint with the term "presence to be welcomed" highlighted.  (and it might be sustainable as written).

I agree that this was probably meant to allow parents to "see what is going on, ask questions, etc.", but seriously, a reg that basically outlines all sorts of rules about boundary violations between check members, but some random, non-checked parent can just "show up?"

Makes no sense.

FTFY! Huge change in meaning.  :angel:

[Eclipse]

Perhaps we should add a clause that "...waving 52-16 waives your rights..."!

[MajorM]

Something that came up today in discussing this draft with my cadet staff is what about "sensitive communications" and the requirement to cc parents on all emails?

As an example, we have a cadet with a learning disability.  The C/CC and I have been emailing ideas on working with this cadet back and forth to each other.  And quite frankly those emails are none of the C/CC's parents business.  And if I was the parent of the cadet with the disability I would be quite unhappy that you're sharing this conversation with some set of parents I don't even know.

Or another example of a cadet who is making some poor lifestyle choices.  My C/CC and I have a phone call and talk about it.  Then he emails me some ideas and strategies.  Again, C/CC's mom and dad really shouldn't have access to that IMO.

I'm ok with cc'ing my unit CC on the emails, but under the draft that would not be an option if I knew the parent addresses.

And FWIW, my cadet staff thought the email to parents provision was entirely over-the-top.  They could see the unit CC but not parents, and most doubt the effectiveness (which I can second) since it seems parents rarely read an email even when I want them to.

It also took one of my more creative cadet staff about 10 seconds to develop a loophole around the email rule. 

Frankly the email and text message rule (which is even more ridiculous in implementation than email... heck half the time i have no idea which cadet is asking some question via text much less their parent's number and my unit cc doesnt text) strikes me more as something to easily hang someone on when they make "boundary" errors (great term for being creepy).

[SunDog]

Wow! Reading this thread was like watching a train wreck! Too awful to watch, too fascinating to look away. For what's it worth, I express my admiration and respect for all of you that are commited to CP.  If I ever had any thoughts about CP work (other than O flights), this has scared me away from it!

A coment like that would lead me to believe that its probably a good thing. If you get your panties in a bunch over something like this, I'm not sure I'd like you working with any of my cadets.

Dude! I was expressing genuine admiration for those dedicated to CP. . .but fair enough; I promise not to work with any of your cadets.  Staying current and proficient is a big enough lift as it is.  CP hasn't been on my radar, other than O rides, just because of my time budget.  I do understand CAP has to do what can rationally be done to protect Cadets. Which isn't necessarily the same as keeping a SM from being hurled under a bus if a Cadet cries wolf. I'm willing to take a chance and fly with two Cadets. But not alone with just one, and my Wing has some pilots who will NOT fly 'em at all. Not CAP's fault, of course. Just the times and culture. Maybe, for CP folks, you can boil it down to "Comms with a Cadet must be with a parent or other SM cognizant ". Can't write a reg that way, but store it in memory as a rule of thumb?

[JoeTomasone]

Ned, here's my $.02. 

1. Social media restrictions.  The only thing certain about social media is that it will morph and change faster than an organization like ours can respond.  (They are inside our OODA loop.)  So rather than get bogged down into specifics about how to set up multiple FaceBook profiles or discussing ever evolving security settings, we tried to law out some rules that will help prevent improper relationships even as the platforms evolve under us.  In my civilian job I spend many, many hours dealing with cases that starter with innocent social media chatter and spun out of control into wildly inappropriate communications.  We are trying to provde commanders, parents, cadets, and CP officers with tools to detect and prevent problems before they develop into acute incidents.

I have a lot of reservations with this one as being very much "baby with the bathwater"; it will shut down all legitimate conversations as well as the miniscule fraction of inappropriate conversations.   I have Cadets message me on Facebook to ask questions about CAP areas that I have expertise in all the time.   I've had Cadets ask for advice on how to approach problems within their unit, ask for recommendation letters for NCSA boards, etc, etc.   

The call for a separate account for purposes of communicating with cadets is unworkable.   Facebook apps on phones and tablets do not support multiple Facebook accounts, and having multiple personal accounts is against Facebook's terms of service.  Effectively, this means that I must unfriend and ignore all cadets or run afoul of either CPP or Facebook's terms of service.   I think the message that this sends to cadets is unhealthy: You are too toxic to communicate with, bye bye.   

2.  Parental visitations.  As some have mentioned, this rule is designed to reassure parents that we do not have "secret meetings" and to reassure them that their cadets are being treated fairly and protected.  It is not meant to allow a parent to hover continuously in the background for extended periods of time.  Based on your feedback, we will play with the wording on that.  However, I am not sure I want to exempt ES completely.  I don't want parents to go tromping through the woods, but I'm not sure I see the harm in letting them see the quarters at a search base if that is important to them.  Perhaps some of you could suggest some language.

"Parents are encouraged to briefly inspect any CAP activity for the purpose of observing the conditions and environment that their Cadet will be participating in.   Parents are reminded, however, that some activities may require permission from the host installation, facility, or other authority to gain access to certain CAP activity locations, and such permission may not be within CAP's control.   Activity Commanders will make reasonable accommodations to escort parents through the activity site when such accommodations due not unduly and adversely affect the accomplishment of the activity or mission in question.   The Commander of the Activity Commander or Incident Commander, as appropriate, shall rule on whether or not such access may be excluded.  Such determination should ideally be made prior to the commencement of the activity or to deployment of mission personnel to the field.   Wing Commanders may issue blanket exemptions via supplement for certain types of activities where it would be universally impractical to permit parental visitations (i.e. military installations, ground team searches, etc)."

This, to my mind, sets the expectations: Parents can inspect the environment (inspections are finite and generally fast; eliminates the never-ending "visit") but cannot expect to do so if they either cannot gain access to the location or if it will impact the safe and effective execution of the activity or mission.  If there's a question, there's a way to resolve it, hopefully ahead of time.   It also allows the Wing Commander to eliminate most challenges where certain circumstances are deemed impractical/impossible.

4. Group emails.  I can only agree that things like wing email reflectors and bulk emails in general present little risk.  We will definitely work on that to focus on "one on one" type emails occurring outside of scheduled activities.  Again, any specific wording suggestions are appreciated.

"Communications disseminated via email reflectors, mass text messages, alert paging systems, or any other mass communication method that meets one or more of the following circumstances are permitted.  Such communications should be of a general nature, and not directed at individual Cadet members.

1. Includes the Commander(s) of one of more echelons of command
2. Includes the parents of all included cadets
3. Includes at least 3 Senior Members"

Again, we welcome your feedback and criticism.  It has always been our plan to allow member comment and input.  And I promise you that it will be carefully considered.

Generally speaking, many of these proposed modifications to CPP seem to me to be overreaching and still will not prohibit the conduct of those who would seek to have inappropriate relationships with Cadets. 

I would like to see an emphasis on training Cadets to recognize and discern what is proper and improper, with clear reporting guidelines for obvious violations and encouragement to discuss any questionable/borderline cases with their parents initially to see if further action is warranted.   For violations, Cadets (and their parents) should have multiple, published reporting options: CC, higher HQ CC, Chaplain, IG, etc so that the most comfortable option may be selected. 

Some of the proposals are good: SMs not in closed rooms with Cadets, not bunking or showering with them.   However, some accommodations might be made for events like Encampment; FLWG has typically bunked the Flight's Tactical Officer in the open bay with the Flight for supervisory/safety reasons.   Language that encourages supervision and safety while prohibiting individuals or small groups from bunking together might be better; I am unsure how I would word it, however.

I'm also not sure that I am comfortable with this:

Adult leaders and cadets will use the showers at separate times when
reasonably possible. Devices that have cameras are prohibited from the
shower areas and barracks area when cadets are dressing."

To my mind, the showering restriction should be an absolute.   There is no reason to have Cadets and SMs showering at the same time, ever.   At most, a provision to allow a SM to be present in the same building but out of view of the showers when reasonably possible should be entertained - again, for supervisory and safety purposes.     

Cameras and other picture/video recording devices should be prohibited from use whenever and wherever any member - Cadet or otherwise - is dressing or showering.

Regarding the "meeting outside of CAP" - if the parent has been notified and has given approval, why is a third party required?


Lastly, were parents of Cadets asked to help develop these proposed changes, or will any be consulted prior to adoption?


 

[NIN]

Generally speaking, many of these proposed modifications to CPP seem to me to be overreaching and still will not prohibit the conduct of those who would seek to have inappropriate relationships with Cadets. 

Actually, these things may not prohibit the conduct, but they certainly cause it to 'stick out like sore thumb'

A number of these recommendations came from the "best practices" of other organizations, some from CDC or law enforcement, and still others from CP-knowledgeable members.

I said it in a thread earlier this year:

I've said this before, and I will say it again on this subject:  much of this is a cultural issue and requires leaders to act as leaders and members to act as (much as I hate this word in this context) "fiduciaries" of our cadets. 

When someone preys on a cadet, they are NOT operating in a vacuum.  Many of their actions are seen and not reported, or seen and ignored as "OK" when most of the time what they are or were doing is completely against the rules.  They're having inappropriate conversations with cadets, they're in closer than appropriate contact with cadets, there are instances where you see them "outside their lane" as it pertains to cadets. All of this adds up and if you let it continue, people become inured to what is right and suddenly "wrong" becomes "normal."

Some of this is there to "staunch" certain methods of communications that have proven to be an avenue in "acute" CPP cases (ie. unsupervised email, texts, etc), some is to take behaviors and put them into a more harsh light.

I mentioned earlier in this thread about a member who was acting poorly on Facebook:

This speaks to "appropriate behavior and decorum" among officers.  Didn't we recently have a very public example of really poor online (Facebook) behavior by a (now former) CAP officer who did not understand the concept of "appropriate behavior and decorum"?  This member's chain of command declined to do anything about said online behavior when it was pointed out.

Why? Because nobody knew enough about social media and Facebook or was paying the slightest amount of attention to be able to say "Hey, there, Captain, do you think that its entirely appropriate that cadets are commenting on EVERYTHING on your Facebook and you're using that kind of language and [not very thinly veiled] sexual references in front of cadets?"

(mind you, I'm not saying that member was doing *anything* in the nature of cadet protection, but you can see where that kind of thing tends to "break down the professional veil" or the "professional distance," if you will, ,between officers and cadets)

"Familiarity breeds contempt."

But since there were really no guidelines about any of that, nobody bothered to say "Hey, whats the deal here? You're making some really poor judgement calls, Captain."

I'm still not 100% on the whole boundary violations thing, yet.  I'm still thinking that it provides a "too easy" mechanism for folks who have a philosophical or political leaning in one direction to impose a certain level of morality on others by merely suggesting that their "less than puritanical" behaviors might be a "boundary violation."

Does admitting that I'm living with a woman to whom I'm not married (I am not, BTW, but just pretend that I am..) constitute a "boundary violation" in the minds of some folks who might be "wrapped around the axle"?

[Eclipse]

Actually, these things may not prohibit the conduct, but they certainly cause it to 'stick out like sore thumb'

This.

How much of bad behavior, regulatory violations, and generally poor operations are caused because
no one in the conversation has actually read the relevent regulation, and/or consider their unit CC as the only source, and he is either uninformed, misinformed, or deliberately characterizing things?

In this case, the cadets, parents, and all the members will know where the lines are - someone should
see the issues and raise their hand.

I can't tell you how many times I've walked into a situation where the lines were either "clear", or "common sense", only to find that those involved had no idea of a reg I considered common knowledge, or that they ignored their "spidey sense" because the "CC said it was ok".