Enhanced Cadet Protection Policy for '14

[A.Member]

I'll have to read in detail later.  They just updated 52-16 about 2 years ago....another update already?  (how about we get those folks workin' on the mythical 39-1 update?!)

However, if they really want to change things related to cadet protection, they need to start by redefining "cadet".   That sets down a path that most don't want to be on with the program but one that really needs to be travelled.  A "legal" adult over 18 should not be considered a cadet and/or held to the same standard as those of 12-year olds.   Copy a 19-year old's parents on e-mails, really?  Does the Air Force copy parents on e-mails to their 19-year old Airmen?  Do colleges copy parents on their 18-year olds report card?  It's a bigger issue but piling on to an already over regulated organization doesn't not seem to be the right solution.

[abdsp51]

I think the changes here so far for the better and I know at least here in Az at my unit we have encouraged parents to come and see what we do and join.  And CP officers and leadership needs to keep parents in the loop anyway, thankfully I had already compiled a list of parent emails to let them know about things.

[Майор Хаткевич]

That includes unit mailing lists, along with ES Qualification lists (where I can blast an e-mail to every GTM in a group for example).  As written, unless every cadet on that list has a parent e-mail provided (and on that list), we cannot use the list.

Paragraph 3-5.a. states, "If the cadet's parent has not provided CAP with contact information (see the cadet's eServices record), the adult leader will instead notify his or her own superior."

So, if a parent's email is in eServices, they better get a copy, otherwise a CC to the CC is sufficient CYA. 

Perhaps a provision needs to be in place, protecting "Wing wide" blasts. Obviously if someone in ILWG sends something over the "All" list, there's very little chance (any?) for any abuse.

[JeffDG]

That includes unit mailing lists, along with ES Qualification lists (where I can blast an e-mail to every GTM in a group for example).  As written, unless every cadet on that list has a parent e-mail provided (and on that list), we cannot use the list.

Paragraph 3-5.a. states, "If the cadet's parent has not provided CAP with contact information (see the cadet's eServices record), the adult leader will instead notify his or her own superior."

So, if a parent's email is in eServices, they better get a copy, otherwise a CC to the CC is sufficient CYA. 

So...if the Wing Commander fires out a note to all GTMs, then he has to CC the Region Commander.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I'll have to read in detail later.  They just updated 52-16 about 2 years ago....another update already?  (how about we get those folks workin' on the mythical 39-1 update?!)

However, if they really want to change things related to cadet protection, they need to start by redefining "cadet".   That sets down a path that most don't want to be on with the program but one that really needs to be travelled.  A "legal" adult over 18 should not be considered a cadet and/or held to the same standard as those of 12-year olds.   Copy a 19-year old's parents on e-mails, really?  Does the Air Force copy parents on e-mails to their 19-year old Airmen?  Do colleges copy parents on their 18-year olds report card?  It's a bigger issue but piling on to an already over regulated organization doesn't not seem to be the right solution.

The US has cadets well into their mid-20s. Mustangs I believe can be even older.

We already DO hold them to a different standard. Those over 18 must deal with CPP just as SMs do.

[NC Hokie]

Perhaps a provision needs to be in place, protecting "Wing wide" blasts. Obviously if someone in ILWG sends something over the "All" list, there's very little chance (any?) for any abuse.

An argument can be made that an all-hands (minus parents) email CCd to the CC meets the spirit of the requirement.  It doesn't actually notify the parents of anything, but it most definitely falls outside the realm of private communication with cadets.

ETA that it remains to be seen if NHQ would actually entertain such an argument.

[NC Hokie]

That includes unit mailing lists, along with ES Qualification lists (where I can blast an e-mail to every GTM in a group for example).  As written, unless every cadet on that list has a parent e-mail provided (and on that list), we cannot use the list.

Paragraph 3-5.a. states, "If the cadet's parent has not provided CAP with contact information (see the cadet's eServices record), the adult leader will instead notify his or her own superior."

So, if a parent's email is in eServices, they better get a copy, otherwise a CC to the CC is sufficient CYA. 

So...if the Wing Commander fires out a note to all GTMs, then he has to CC the Region Commander.

And ALL of the applicable cadet parents that have email addresses in eServices. The regulation, as written, only allows the alternative if there's no parent email on file.

[A.Member]

We already DO hold them to a different standard. Those over 18 must deal with CPP just as SMs do.

Not in the way we interact with them according to our regulations.  The only difference is they must complete CPPT....but they're still cadets.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I think most of us here know why its in place. Honestly, all they would need is a CYA like in person stuff: message one or a dozen cadets? No problem, just make sure another SM is also CCd.

[Майор Хаткевич]

And realize also, cadets will need to be trained in reporting SM contact that is NOT done right.

[NC Hokie]

And realize also, cadets will need to be trained in reporting SM contact that is NOT done right.

That is theoretically covered in section 4-7. of the draft regulation.

[Майор Хаткевич]

It will have to, because if a preditor does try solo contact with cadet, no one but those two people would know about it.

[RiverAux]

I think one big issue that I don't think has been addressed in this thread is that they're actually soliciting direct comments from the membership on this one through an online form.  Prior to this you had to submit comments through the chain of command where they all appeared to have died.  Might happen to this, but at least you're not stuck worrying about some guy in the middle of the chain not bothering to pass your comments up. 

[Patterson]

This is clearly a result of the lawsuit brought against the corporation by a current CAP member.  His story is included in the "Membership Action Review Board" report members may access through eServices. 

Frankly, this draft will go nowhere. 

[abdsp51]

This is clearly a result of the lawsuit brought against the corporation by a current CAP member.  His story is included in the "Membership Action Review Board" report members may access through eServices. 

Frankly, this draft will go nowhere.

Cite.... And you never know it very well could and it wouldnt be a bad thing.

[a2capt]

I only saw one thing regarding cadets in there recently.

[jimmydeanno]

I'm slightly shocked that a draft even came out. The last few, since the governance change have been draft-less to the general membership, the very ones that deal with it the most.

As for the insistance that it all be done via wing.cap.gov, that's all fine and dandy.

Then tear down the walls, bust open the fiefdoms, and get rid of the bureaucracy that many wings have in dealing with web sites, email lists, and the like, frustrating the ones that actually have to do things like run units, into just saying screw it and either giving up, or just doing it themselves with another method.

I don't think that the CP shop has put anything out in the last 8 years or so that hasn't solicited input and put out a draft.  CP seems to like the draft model.

[Eclipse]

This is clearly a result of the lawsuit brought against the corporation by a current CAP member.  His story is included in the "Membership Action Review Board" report members may access through eServices. 

Frankly, this draft will go nowhere.

No, it's not, at least not any more then any other common sense policies are the results of bad experiences and common sense.

Go nowhere?  This is in the final stages of adoption.  Other then typos and maybe some adjustments, this'll be part
of 52-16 by the new fiscal year.

[SamFranklin]

This is clearly a result of the lawsuit brought against the corporation by a current CAP member.  His story is included in the "Membership Action Review Board" report members may access through eServices. 

Frankly, this draft will go nowhere.

You may find it useful to read the draft regulation and supporting materials before tossing around "facts" known only to you.


From the white paper online:

We Need Your Leadership.... Help us dispel kneejerk reactions and misconceptions about an enhanced CPP. For example, we don't want members to assume that the new CPP:
•   is paperwork used only to satisfy the lawyers. It was the cadet community who initiated the new CPP. Lawyers helped, but Cadet Programs Officers took the lead in making the Cadet Program more professional through an enhanced CPP, and therefore create a safer and more effective cadet experience.

[NIN]

This is clearly a result of the lawsuit brought against the corporation by a current CAP member.  His story is included in the "Membership Action Review Board" report members may access through eServices. 

Frankly, this draft will go nowhere.

Just because I'm curious like that, did go to the MARP link in eServices, wasted the last 20 minutes and found no such lawsuit mentioned.

Perhaps it was an older case (pre-2010) you're thinking of?

In any event, the changes to the CPP are driven by a number of things:

• "acute" CPP incidents (actual documented abuse cases, such as the one down in FL) that occur through a person's involvement with CAP (I think we can all agree that participation in CAP should not serve as an avenue of access for potential predators, right?);
  
• a desire to reduce/eliminate the "acute" incidents and to actually protect our cadets;
• a desire to protect our CP officers from accusations or the appearance of impropriety as it relates to cadets;
• a desire to identify best practices in youth protection from other organizations and follow those (hint: as much as we'd like to think that there is sort of a 'standard' nationwide to protect youth, or that someone else has got to be doing it better than we are, there really isn't a "best-practice" consensus among other youth-serving organizations as to how best to protect youth and CAP is probably actually doing a pretty good job of it previously, but there were areas where we're clearly not doing all we can);
• the realization that while we're keeping people out at the front end who are already potential abusers (through screening), we're only excluding those who have already been caught (the acute cases have all been people with no prior records);

I know some of the parties involved in this, and have had these discussions for a long time.  Sure, there is a desire to protect CAP's image from tarnishing. No kidding. Is this "written by lawyers to protect CAP?" No.

Do you know that CAP initiated a "Cadet Protection Summit" with reps from other organizations and industry experts (and I think the CDC actually presented) to get the ball rolling on this?   It wasn't driven by the lawyers, it was driven by the CP shop and was partly in response to the recently unpleasantness in FL.  (You will note that CAP-USAF personnel are now covered by the CPP rules..)