Enhanced Cadet Protection Policy for '14 - ROUND 2

[NIN]

if a 18yo cadet wants the perks of adult stuff in the organization they need to become a SM

We have better snacks anyway

[Alaric]

According to the law they are adults,

Yes they are, within a somewhat limited lane, and mostly irrelevant to the conversation. 18 year old "adults" also pay 50%+ more for car insurance.
There has to be a number somewhere, but on the whole, society does not consider people under 21 as "adults". 

Yes that would mean he/she was making an adult decision, not wishing to be dependent on his/her parents.  Many young people do that and when the parents say something along the lines of "as long as you live under my roof"  they stop living there.

And any 18-year old cadet wishing to make "adult decisions" in a CAP context, is also free to transfer to adult status.  Otherwise, the only option is to abide or leave.
Perfectly legal and reasonable.

Were CAP so inclined, it could require all pilots be 35, and all seniors retire at 60. Both reasonable and legal.
If it affected membership or readiness, they might see fit to adjust.

In this case, the number of people with issues will not be statistically significant, and in many cases it may well
weed out members with other issues in regards to decision making.  Certainly the general public will view them
as reasonable since they are in line with the practice, as Ned says, of every other similar organization and
youth development group.

Even if your points were valid, there is no advantage to CAP being an outlier in this regard.

Thank you for condescension, my points are valid, you just don't agree with them.  There is a difference.  I also doubt that if you polled the general public that you feel comfortable speaking for, that they would think that controlling the actions of legal adults is reasonable, but I am willing to admit I could be wrong.

[Alaric]

This is what the draft actual says:

Professional & Prior Relationships.
1. Relationships Developed Through CAP. Most adult leaders come to know cadets only through their mutual
CAP membership. The purpose of this section (§2-5) is to ensure that the adult leader's and cadet's relationship
remains professional if they interact outside of CAP activities. Adult leaders are not to develop personal, peer-to-peer
relationships with cadets they meet through CAP, but to maintain a degree of professional distance similar to
the social expectations that guide teachers interacting with their students, or military officers with their trainees.

2. Prior & Professional Relationships. Nevertheless, some adult leaders and cadets will enter CAP already
possessing a personal relationship with one another, as in the case of family relatives, neighbors, and acquaintances,
for example. CAP presumes that those prior relationships will continue, so the adult leader's interactions with the
cadet outside of CAP activities in a non-CAP capacity are not bound by this regulation. Similarly, professional
relationships sometimes develop between an adult leader and a cadet, as in the case of physicians, teachers,
coworkers, etc. In those situations, the adult leader's interactions with the cadet outside of CAP activities in a non-
CAP capacity are also not bound by this regulation.

This covers existing outside relationships and new ones which might develop through appropriate circumstances,
including the book club.  If the only place you know Cadet Simpson is through CAP, don't invite him for coffee.
If through external circumstances you have an appropriate relationship, Que Sera, Sera.

Where's the issue?

Actually, because it doesn't cover non-professional relationships (such as the book club, please read what you cited) that develop once both members are in CAP.  (An SM and 18+cadet attending the same church, book club, bowling league, etc.)

[Johnny Yuma]

"Non-compliance" = "non-membership", and frankly, if a simple, clear, and appropriate rule like this is too hard to comply with, for whatever reason, we don't need those people in
our organization.

You've already got rank and file generally looking the other way in regard to adult cadets and younger senior members dating as it stands now.

Really?  Where?  Those "rank and file" need to be "ex-members"

Then you're gonna 2b a lot of members who don't believe CAP, Inc. needs to intrude into their lives of ADULTS outside of CAP. Telling adults who they can be around at school, their employment or even in the event they run into each other at another organization without telling their unit commander and/or someone's mommy or daddy is out of line.

The policy can be improved so that people are protected and all of our adult member's activities are not interfered with outside of CAP.  The way it's written now isn't it.

[Eclipse]

Then you're gonna 2b a lot of members who don't believe CAP, Inc. needs to intrude into their lives of ADULTS outside of CAP. Telling adults who they can be around at school, their employment or even in the event they run into each other at another organization without telling their unit commander and/or someone's mommy or daddy is out of line.

They.

Aren't.

Adults.

[jeders]

Then you're gonna 2b a lot of members...

The ones that are actually a problem are going to do the same thing as those when CPP was first introduced, they'll leave. But, if those that stay can't understand and follow the rules, yes, they'll likely be 2b'd. I for one have absolutely no problem with that, because I know of plenty of senior members that raise my spidey-senses who probably won't, and shouldn't, last long.

[Ned]

Telling adults who they can be around at school, their employment or even in the event they run into each other at another organization without telling their unit commander and/or someone's mommy or daddy is out of line.

How odd. 

Bob just quoted the part that allows for teachers and co-workers to work with cadets at school and the workplace.  And it says there is no problem with seniors in those situations.  I think the key phrase is that seniors in those situations "are not bound by this regulation."

It seems pretty clear. 

The policy can be improved so that people are protected and all of our adult member's activities are not interfered with outside of CAP.  The way it's written now isn't it.

The whole purpose of the public comment period (and this thread) is for members and stakeholders to suggest how to improve the draft.  And I would strongly support your idea of improving it "so that people are protected and all of our adult members' activities are not interfered with outside of CAP."

So, what specific suggestions for improvement do you have?

[Ned]

Actually, because it doesn't cover non-professional relationships (such as the book club, please read what you cited) that develop once both members are in CAP.  (An SM and 18+cadet attending the same church, book club, bowling league, etc.)

As we have previously explained, it was never the intention of the draft regulation to prohibit accidental or incidental meetings between cadets and seniors outside of CAP that take place in group situations, like bumping into each other at the mall or at a ballgame, and exchanging greetings or perhaps some idle conversation.

Would you be more comfortable if we added some language to paragraph 2.5(c) to make that clearer?

There is nothing improper when cadets and adult leaders incidentally meet or gather in an otherwise unrelated group situation such as a college class, church congregation, or in a restaurant or business.  Such incidental meetings may occur relatively frequently in some communities, and are not prohibited by this regulation as long as the adult leaders do not develop personal, peer-to-peer relationships with cadets.

Would something like that help?

[Al Sayre]

Excellent solution to a lot of heartburn!   :clap: :clap: :clap:

[abdsp51]

Honestly it's sad that this has to be debated.  Common sense should prevail however since that seems to be short these days its something that should be written into the reg.  Sorry I know I take the chance of running into cadets when I go about my day to day business, however I do believe the intent of the reg was to cover meetings set up between SM and cadets outside of activities.

[LSThiker]

Honestly it's sad that this has to be debated.  Common sense should prevail however since that seems to be short these days its something that should be written into the reg.  Sorry I know I take the chance of running into cadets when I go about my day to day business, however I do believe the intent of the reg was to cover meetings set up between SM and cadets outside of activities.

The question is, will that same intent be interpreted 10 years from now?  It may be easy to see what the intent today is, but over time the situation may change and the intent could (not necessarily) be lost.

Although I agree common sense should prevail, but I see a situation in the future where a commander wants to eliminate a member and uses such incidental activities as cause.  Probable?  No.  Possible?  Yes. 

I like adding such verbiage.  It allows the possibility for a SM and cadet to interact outside of CAP for reasons other than CAP.  Even the military includes similar verbiage when such situations of church groups, book clubs, etc require officer and NCO interaction which could otherwise be misunderstood as inappropriate.

[Alaric]

Actually, because it doesn't cover non-professional relationships (such as the book club, please read what you cited) that develop once both members are in CAP.  (An SM and 18+cadet attending the same church, book club, bowling league, etc.)

As we have previously explained, it was never the intention of the draft regulation to prohibit accidental or incidental meetings between cadets and seniors outside of CAP that take place in group situations, like bumping into each other at the mall or at a ballgame, and exchanging greetings or perhaps some idle conversation.

Would you be more comfortable if we added some language to paragraph 2.5(c) to make that clearer?

There is nothing improper when cadets and adult leaders incidentally meet or gather in an otherwise unrelated group situation such as a college class, church congregation, or in a restaurant or business.  Such incidental meetings may occur relatively frequently in some communities, and are not prohibited by this regulation as long as the adult leaders do not develop personal, peer-to-peer relationships with cadets.

Would something like that help?

No because you are speaking of casual one time meetings.  One of my currently closest friends is a younger person I met at schul, as a convert, my knowledge of Hebrew is limited.  He spent the time to help me learn to be a better reader of the prayers.  If he was a CAP cadet I would have issues as I've had to dinner and home for the holidays regardless of what I did or didnt know.

[Ned]

No [the suggested language will not help] because you are speaking of casual one time meetings.  One of my currently closest friends is a younger person I met at schul, as a convert, my knowledge of Hebrew is limited.  He spent the time to help me learn to be a better reader of the prayers.  If he was a CAP cadet I would have issues as I've had to dinner and home for the holidays regardless of what I did or didn't know.

Well, then we may indeed be too far apart on this one aspect of the draft. 

Incidentally meeting a cadet during what you described as a book club situation is a fairly low-risk situation, and the new language would have made it clearer that such a meeting is not inherently improper.  But your hypothetical seems to be shifting a bit.

Inviting a cadet over to your house for a private dinner, or to your "home for the holidays" is actually pretty much exactly what draft regulation was written to prevent (at least without parental permission and a third party present.)  Mostly because such a situation presents a significantly higher risk for an adverse outcome for the cadet.  Which is the whole point of "two-deep leadership" and limiting cadet / adult leader interaction outside of the CP context.

And it's not just me that thinks so, BTW.  It is pretty much the unanimous consensus of academia, law enforcement, and other youth-serving organizations.

Really:  Take a look at the CDC Guidelines For Preventing Abuse In Youth-Serving Organizations , which represents the best practices of the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Big Brothers, Big Sisters; AYSO, and the National School Board Association.  And they recommend two deep leadership and limiting contact between adult leaders and youth members outside the organization.  Which should sound familiar.

If your concern remains the "what if I somehow didn't know that this young person I invited 'home for the holidays' was one of the 340 cadets in my state with a population of 3,500,000" hypothetical, I sincerely hope you are comforted by the notion that regulations can be violated unknowingly, and all we ask is that you adhere to the regulation once you learn of the cadet's status.

[Eclipse]

Is there formal process for "declaring" a relationship / parental permission, etc?

Reasonable minds would allow for a conversation and a memo, etc.

[coudano]

If you didn't know,
and a relationship was established,
and then you found out


then the relationship in a practical sense pre-existed, didn't it?
next door neighbor, family friend  (book club member?)







When I was a cadet over 18, my parents didn't care what I did or who I did it with.  Just because of silly administrativa, my mom (who lived hours away from me, gone to college) signed a stack of blank permission slips, and I just drew one and filled it the rest of the way out anytime I went to an activity.  That was dumb, but we did it anyway because well just being in CAP doesn't exempt you from stupidity (meh).

Doesn't that (do whatever you want) basically constitute 'oral acknowledgement' from the parent?

[LSThiker]

Is there formal process for "declaring" a relationship / parental permission, etc?

Reasonable minds would allow for a conversation and a memo, etc.

In the
case of relationships that existed prior to the cadet or adult member joining CAP (e.g.: next-door neighbor or family
friend), the cadet's parent may exempt the adult member from this requirement. No special paperwork is needed to
document any of these situations; oral acknowledgements from the parent(s) are sufficient

[Alaric]

No [the suggested language will not help] because you are speaking of casual one time meetings.  One of my currently closest friends is a younger person I met at schul, as a convert, my knowledge of Hebrew is limited.  He spent the time to help me learn to be a better reader of the prayers.  If he was a CAP cadet I would have issues as I've had to dinner and home for the holidays regardless of what I did or didn't know.

Well, then we may indeed be too far apart on this one aspect of the draft. 

Incidentally meeting a cadet during what you described as a book club situation is a fairly low-risk situation, and the new language would have made it clearer that such a meeting is not inherently improper.  But your hypothetical seems to be shifting a bit.

Inviting a cadet over to your house for a private dinner, or to your "home for the holidays" is actually pretty much exactly what draft regulation was written to prevent (at least without parental permission and a third party present.)  Mostly because such a situation presents a significantly higher risk for an adverse outcome for the cadet.  Which is the whole point of "two-deep leadership" and limiting cadet / adult leader interaction outside of the CP context.

And it's not just me that thinks so, BTW.  It is pretty much the unanimous consensus of academia, law enforcement, and other youth-serving organizations.

Really:  Take a look at the CDC Guidelines For Preventing Abuse In Youth-Serving Organizations , which represents the best practices of the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Big Brothers, Big Sisters; AYSO, and the National School Board Association.  And they recommend two deep leadership and limiting contact between adult leaders and youth members outside the organization.  Which should sound familiar.

If your concern remains the "what if I somehow didn't know that this young person I invited 'home for the holidays' was one of the 340 cadets in my state with a population of 3,500,000" hypothetical, I sincerely hope you are comforted by the notion that regulations can be violated unknowingly, and all we ask is that you adhere to the regulation once you learn of the cadet's status.

I have several concerns but before I get to them, I do find it interesting that this definition is in the very article you cite

Definitions
• Children and youth
- Anyone between the ages of zero and 17 years. In this document,
these terms are used interchangeably.
• Child sexual abuse
- "Child sexual abuse involves any sexual activity with a child where consent is not or cannot
be given. This includes sexual contact that is accomplished by force or threat of force,
regardless of the age of the participants, and all sexual contact between an adult and a
child, regardless of whether there is deception or the child understands the sexual nature
of the activity. Sexual contact between an older and a younger child also can be abusive if
there is a significant disparity in age, development, or size, rendering the younger child
incapable of giving informed consent. The sexually abusive acts may include sexual
penetration, sexual touching, or non-contact sexual acts such as exposure or voyeurism."1
- Legal definitions vary by state, so look up your state guidelines using the Child Welfare
Information Gateway (www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/search/index.cfm).

Funny, they seem to think youth means under 18 hmmm


Second. it concerns me that the only relationship the organization seems to think can be had is a sexual one.  2) The regulations as proposed cover previous relationships and professional relationships that may develop, but not relationships between people who may develop a relationship that has nothing to do with CAP though both happen to be members.  3) my hypothetical hasn't changed, in either case, a relationship has developed based on a common interest (books/religion) where two people meet to discuss and other socialize though neither knows the other is in CAP.  In all actuality the latter is probably the safer case as Jewish holidays tend to be large events with lots of people as opposed to two people going to the coffee shop to discuss books.  It seems that you need to treat adults like adults and perhaps the best solution is to do away with cadets over the age of 18

[RiverAux]

I think were the common sense starts breaking down is when we start making comparisons between the CAP Senior Member/Cadet relationship and the Teacher/Student relationship, which seems to be the foundation for rules applying for cadets that are legal adults. 

In some circumstances this is a valid comparison.  For example, certain senior member staff officer and leadership positions within the cadet program are obviously teachers in many ways and cadets, even adult cadets, are their students. 

However, is the senior member in a composite squadron that has nothing at all to do with cadets except for occasional encounters on missions or in the hallway "teaching" that adult cadet?  Not in any direct sense.   

But, for the sake of argument lets say that I accept that all senior members are equivalent to teachers over all cadets.  So, what about other equally valid teacher/student relationships that can exist between other senior members?  If one senior member is teaching another ground team tasks there is certainly nothing prohibiting them from meeting outside of CAP without supervision.  Can a Wing ES Training Officer not meet outside of CAP with someone that may be participating in the training programs that they have helped organize and lead? 

[Ned]

it concerns me that the only relationship the organization seems to think can be had is a sexual one.

Nonsense.  Have you even read the draft?

Sexual abuse of cadets has always been prohibited.  The new material in the draft talks about "boundary violations," which are violations of our cadet protection standards of practice.  The great majority of which have little to do with sexual abuse.

The CPP covers the full range of cadet protection issues, including both physical and emotional abuse.  We spend a lot of time talking about things like hazing and physical abuse. 

CPP is just the application of ORM principles to cadet protection issues.  It is all about identifying and managing risk.  And sadly, sexual abuse is a non-negligible risk.  So, just like for hazing and physical abuse, we engineer safeguards to minimize the occurrence and the effects.

Things like favoritism and inappropriate fraternization create genuine CP issues even without sexual abuse.

2) The regulations as proposed cover previous relationships and professional relationships that may develop, but not relationships between people who may develop a relationship that has nothing to do with CAP though both happen to be members. 

Well, both kinds of relationships are "covered" in the sense that the regulation permits the former, but attempts to prevent inappropriate peer-to-peer relationships between adult leaders and cadets as part of the latter.

It seems that you need to treat adults like adults and perhaps the best solution is to do away with cadets over the age of 18

Since we already treat adults as adults, and minors as minors already (and cadets as cadets and seniors as seniors), perhaps you would like to clearly state the problem you are trying solve with your "solution."

[NC Hokie]

I have several concerns but before I get to them, I do find it interesting that this definition is in the very article you cite

Definitions
• Children and youth
- Anyone between the ages of zero and 17 years. In this document,
these terms are used interchangeably.
• Child sexual abuse
- "Child sexual abuse involves any sexual activity with a child where consent is not or cannot
be given. This includes sexual contact that is accomplished by force or threat of force,
regardless of the age of the participants, and all sexual contact between an adult and a
child, regardless of whether there is deception or the child understands the sexual nature
of the activity. Sexual contact between an older and a younger child also can be abusive if
there is a significant disparity in age, development, or size, rendering the younger child
incapable of giving informed consent. The sexually abusive acts may include sexual
penetration, sexual touching, or non-contact sexual acts such as exposure or voyeurism."1
- Legal definitions vary by state, so look up your state guidelines using the Child Welfare
Information Gateway (www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/search/index.cfm).

Funny, they seem to think youth means under 18 hmmm

You know, you just might be on to something here...

The Cadet Protection Policy exists to protect all cadets, but it does so in a way that treats all cadets as minors.  This is not the case, and that distinction is responsible for most of the angst I'm seeing in this thread.

So, given the unique nature of our cadet program, my outlandish suggestion would be to reinvent the CPP as a Youth Protection Policy for cadets under the age of 18, with another set of rules established to deal specifically with the 18-21 year old cadet cohort.

Thoughts?