What constitutes "active participation"?

[vorteks]

Prospective cadet and parent visit their first squadron meeting. Parent explains (boasts) kid is a top athlete involved in a number of sports. Sports are a high priority for the family, and cadet would only be able to attend every other squadron meeting (i.e., twice a month) on an ongoing basis. They're told this is "not a deal-breaker."

Does that sound acceptable to anyone?

Does the need to recruit new members outweigh the importance of only taking on members who will make the cadet program a high priority where absences are the exception and not the rule?

Does anyone out there ever turn down applications for membership for this kind of thing?

I think I would probably be a terrible R & R Officer...

[Eclipse]

Active participation is the subjective call of the respective commander.

The CP has always made it clear that school is to be considered a priority over CAP.

"Every other meeting" would be, sadly, a lot more then many cadets attend.  As long as all parties understand
that a cadet who is only participating at 1/2-speed may not be the first picked for leadership or similar plum roles,
I don't see an issue.

In a perfect world we'd like everyone there for every minute of CAP time, but that's not realistic, and as long as
the cadet or any member is making a legit effort to be involved the best they can, we can use them.

That's why we need to increase the membership, so that units are so dependant on any one person or small group
that when those people have other things to do, things grind to a halt.

The key is proper expectations for all parties.

[lordmonar]

First.....sure 2 meetings a month with a valid excuse for the other two is perfectly acceptable.

Second.....is there a "need to increase membership"?   Sure we want to expand out CP to as many young people as we can.....but that is a goal not a need.   

As Eclipse says.....if you let them know how the program works....and they understand that less the "full" particpation will result in less the optimal progression.....I don't see any problem.

If Cadet Athlete thinks that he is going to progress every 8 weeks, and that you are going to bend over backwards helping make up things that he missed......that needs to be addressed right from the start.

I got no problem with making accommodations, when able.   But I'm not going to take away from the program for the rest of the cadet members just to make these accommodations.

[Spam]

Concur with the above replies. I've told cadets (and officers) for decades that their faith, their family, and their school (job for adults) MUST come before CAP or life becomes out of balance.

However, I've had a bunch of cadets/parents like that. I have one who still emails me as DCP asking me for tailored, individual tutoring/testing/O flight scheduling for her cadet who attends once a month due to sports (DENIED... not my yob, ma'am).

Some units may have specific rotating schedules that a part timer may routinely miss (e.g., 1st week Character Development, 3rd week CPFT) hindering his advancement. R52-16 para. 5-5e requires that "Commanders will provide cadets an opportunity to test at least once every 30 days" but the provision of that opportunity logistically may only be on set nights.

CAPR 52-16 and the Super Chart it promulgates call out specific expectations, including leadership expectations: "Enforces standards; trustworthy in supervising a small team and leading them in fulfillment of a series of simple tasks; given a plan, is able to carry it out" (this is the stated expectation for a C/TSGT candidate, post Wright Bros award). If you're not there to lead and supervise, we can't evaluate your fitness (Form 50 eval).

Were it me, I'd tell the recruit/parent that up to the fourth promotion their choice to be a part timer would not affect their ability to meet promotion requirements, but once he/she progresses to the point of being a line leader (C/TSGT candidate) their lack of presence would increasingly cripple their ability to demonstrate fitness for promotions, especially for the Mitchell and above. The Commander reserves the right to deny advancement under para. 5-2e if they haven't seen the caliber of maturity or mastery of the material suitable to the achievement, as documented in a Form 50 evaluation (and it is mandatory to do that written evaluation so they get feedback)!

When as a cadet I had to go inactive due to my math grades, I surrendered my leadership job and learned the lesson about prioritization and making choices. I've respected people who felt they needed a varsity sport for an Academy slot, yet their lack of presence factored in their non selection for cadet leadership billets... life is full of tradeoffs and choices to prioritize. If CAP offers such folks only that lesson, that at least can be seen as a "win".

Sign him up with eyes wide open!



V/R,
Spam

[vorteks]

I'm still new and maybe a little too idealistic, but I think the expectations of the program are high (52-16 p. 4-4a) and should be communicated as such from the get-go.

Anyway, it's one thing dealing with existing members, but I'm talking about prospective members who are telling us up front that they'll show up half the time. CAP requires 3 squadron visits before applying, and the trial period is 30 days (39-2 p. 2-2h). Why? In this scenario the prospective cadet wouldn't even be able to meet that very first requirement. It's not a good sign IMO.

[lordmonar]

I'm still new and maybe a little too idealistic, but I think the expectations of the program are high (52-16 p. 4-4a) and should be communicated as such from the get-go.

Anyway, it's one thing dealing with existing members, but I'm talking about prospective members who are telling us up front that they'll show up half the time. CAP requires 3 squadron visits before applying, and the trial period is 30 days (39-2 p. 2-2h). Why? In this scenario the prospective cadet wouldn't even be able to meet that very first requirement. It's not a good sign IMO.

If the cadet and parents know up front what the deal is....and they still want to give you their money.   Smile take the check and move on.

If you lay the deal out for them and they don't want to play....say thank you and let them leave.

[PA Guy]

This appears to be a case of a resume stuffing parent. I wouldn't turn the prospective cadet away but there would have to be extensive discussion of the expectations and ROE. We all know the Cadet Program requires more than two meetings a mo. It might work in the very short term but not long term. For instance,  encampments require 80% participation for credit as do other activities. It isn't just a matter of showing up for 2 meetings a mo.

The larger question for me is why would any parent set their child up for failure? The CAP person that told them it was doable is probably the same person that approves a cadet to go to PJOC who looks like a  Butterball Turkey and pencil  whips their application. 

So, would I turn them away from the get go? No, although I would like to. I would allow them in with the very clear understanding that the parents are setting their child up for failure from the start  and it rests entirely on them. The Cadet Program is not for everyone. 

[PA Guy]

I'm still new and maybe a little too idealistic, but I think the expectations of the program are high (52-16 p. 4-4a) and should be communicated as such from the get-go.

Anyway, it's one thing dealing with existing members, but I'm talking about prospective members who are telling us up front that they'll show up half the time. CAP requires 3 squadron visits before applying, and the trial period is 30 days (39-2 p. 2-2h). Why? In this scenario the prospective cadet wouldn't even be able to meet that very first requirement. It's not a good sign IMO.

If the cadet and parents know up front what the deal is....and they still want to give you their money.   Smile take the check and move on.

If you lay the deal out for them and they don't want to play....say thank you and let them leave.

No, you are not too idealistic. The expectations are high and we should not make excuses or apologize for it. You have properly thought out the logistics of it already and see the issues. There are some who think the Cadet Program should be all things to all people and fail to understand that the CP is simply not for everyone.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Just had a staff meeting with my cadet staff last night.

"These are 3 cadets with safety currency beyond X days expired. They will be 2B'd at the end of the week unless you can resolve this"
"Sir, how do we do that?"
"Call/email/text them. If no response, thanks for your interest, 2B'd."
"Roger Sir"

"These are your cadets who have not promoted in the past 120 days. How can you address it, C/CC?"
"Sir, we've been trying to communicate the importance of progression to the cadets, but some don't seem to be motivated. I'm not sure how to motivate them"
"Understood, starting March 1st, we'll be notifying all cadets that failure to progress within a 6 month period opens them up to a 2B action. This is fully supported by the regulations. As much as I'd love for us to hit 35 cadets, I'd rather have half as many that are participating than a half empty room based on the numbers. If they want to go to cool activities, o-flights, NCSAs, flight academies, etc, they will need to put in work on the progression side. Is that enough for you to motivate them?"
"Yes Sir."

It's really, not that hard. I'm getting a lot of leeway in my role as assistant CDC, but I'm going to grab the bull by the...horns, and either drop 1/3 of our "dead weight" cadets, or turn them into active cadets who actually participate. Anything outside of that is wasting their parents money and time, as well as the time I could dedicate on my end to helping those cadets that DO want to participate actively.

[vorteks]

^^^ Agree 100%. There will never be discussion about 2Bing anyone where I'm from, though, I think because no one in authority wants to have those hard conversations. But what good are expectations without potential consequences for failing to meet them? The idea of not making the achievements isn't seen as a consequence for a lot of cadets who just want to put on the uniform and show up once in a while for the fun stuff. Personally I don't want anyone gone. I just want kids to push themselves and be successful.

[Майор Хаткевич]

^^^ Agree 100%. There will never be discussion about 2Bing anyone where I'm from, though, I think because no one in authority wants to have those hard conversations. But what good are expectations without potential consequences for failing to meet them? The idea of not making the achievements isn't seen as a consequence for a lot of cadets who just want to put on the uniform and show up once in a while for the fun stuff. Personally I don't want anyone gone. I just want kids to push themselves and be successful.

There's no tough conversations to be had. If you don't stay safety current, the only recourse is a 2B for a cadet. If someone isn't showing up/progressing, after a point (of trying to get them to re-engage), a 2B is the only option.


There's a reason that we had 80 cadets that needed an encampment last year in our group alone, yet had under 20 first year attendees from the group. Some couldn't/didn't want to go to a Spring encampment. I'd say 1/3 or 1/2 of that number are the "joined, showed up a few times, won't be back" types.

[lordmonar]

On the subject of 2b'ing someone for not showing up/progressing/staying safety current.

While I agree that the regs support a 2b....I question what is gained by anyone for going through the process.

We talk all the time about added paperwork pushed down from HHQ.....why would anyone choose to add to their paperwork for what I see as little gain.

Incentives to get cadets to progress......I'm all for using a little stick if you need it.   Have not promoted in six months.....and you don't have a valid excuse (such as trying to pass the test but keep failing).....no extra curricular activities until you do.   Cadet Leadership not progressing.....removal from leadership positions so you can find the time to hit the books and get your boxes checked off.

All those are good tools to us.

2b'ing should IMHO be used only in the most extreme cases of discipline issues....cadet stops showing up, and does not answer E-mails/phone calls......ignore them.   Eventually their membership will expire and it is the same thing....with out having to go through the process of kicking them out.   

[Майор Хаткевич]

2b'ing should IMHO be used only in the most extreme cases of discipline issues....cadet stops showing up, and does not answer E-mails/phone calls......ignore them.   Eventually their membership will expire and it is the same thing....with out having to go through the process of kicking them out.   

Except when they stop doing their safety tests, and higher HQ is breathing down the CCs neck about compliance levels. SMs go to Patron, cadets get 2B'd after multiple attempts to correct the issue. Lost interest in the program? They get an opportunity to voluntarily resign. Why would we keep them around? To inflate our numbers? I suppose that's what most units do, but that explains how a unit with 60+ cadets can barely get 30 cadets to a meeting once in a while and at the same time has a poor showing at larger events.

[Eclipse]

While I agree that the regs support a 2b....I question what is gained by anyone for going through the process.

Not much of a "process" - 5 minutes to kick out a form, done.

One less name to deal with, one less "not safety current" conversation upstream, also sets the tone and
sends a message - "Play or leave."

Personally, if it's ever my problem again, they will be xferred to 996 instead of 2b'ed, same message.

[lordmonar]

While I agree that the regs support a 2b....I question what is gained by anyone for going through the process.

Not much of a "process" - 5 minutes to kick out a form, done.

One less name to deal with, one less "not safety current" conversation upstream, also sets the tone and
sends a message - "Play or leave."

Personally, if it's ever my problem again, they will be xferred to 996 instead of 2b'ed, same message.

Unless 2 weeks later they show up and want to play again....or they decide to fight the 2b.   I don't mind having to tell those upstream that they don't have to be safety compliant if they are not playing.
Add to that the bad blood for getting kicked out of CAP.....now not only are you losing one person you will have to fight the negetive PR that person spreads about CAP.

[Eclipse]

Unless 2 weeks later they show up and want to play again....or they decide to fight the 2b. 

2 weeks later they can play - somewhere else.  Fight the 2b?  Fine.  Grounds were "non-participation and failure to progress"
unless the cadet was in the CAPSOC and got double-secret promoted, not much issue there.

You may feel some parts of the program are "optional" and higher HQ directives can be ignored at your whim, others don't,
and the idea that they >can< is why CAP is in the state it's in.

If more commanders actually worked the full program, including holding people to the expectations they agreed to and that
NHQ puts forth, things would change - either the membership or the expectations (if numbers started dropping in relation to the real
safety compliance, I'd hazard that would be gone in 6 months).  We've also got charters all over being sustained only through empty
shirts - again, false assurance "everything is OK".  If people started doing what they are actually supposed to, NHQ would have no choice
but to notice.

One thing is sure, things won't change if no one cares to change things.

[lordmonar]

Who said any parts of the program are optional?

Not safety complaint.....no play.

Not showing up.....no progression in the CP/PD/

I'm just questioning the extra effort needed to 2b someone.  The bad PR we get from these people....it's one thing for them to say "I was in CAP but I dropped out" and another for them to say "those D-bags kicked me out because I would not do some useless on line safety briefing every month".  Also.....my point about someone wanting to challenge the 2b.......that's a whole lot more then 5 minutes of my time, even if I'm iron clad 100% sure to win the appeal.    You already complain that we are under manned to do the stuff we have to do.....why borrow trouble.

I'm not saying we don't hold people accountable for  being part of the program.  I'm saying that we are not required to kick them out....we can by regs.....but we don't HAVE TO do it.

Your argument about false assurance don't play out....as we don't have any OPLANS to bump those number against in the first place.....so there is nothing/no one to assure that we are meeting mission goals. 

[Eclipse]

Well perhaps you don't have to get yourself involved in the regular conversations
about empty shirts and how they skew the numbers, but a lot of commanders do, on a regular basis.

Your argument about false assurance don't play out....as we don't have any OPLANS to bump those number against in the first place.....so there is nothing/no one to assure that we are meeting mission goals.

It's false self-assurance.  CC's who think some arbitrary number means something even if 2/3'rds of that number haven't been to
a meeting in 10 years.  This is akin to people who can't understand who they could be overdrawn when they still have checks left.

It's also an ethics and integrity issue to maintain charters for units that would close without the empty shirts, or for a wing to play chess with
empty shirts just to keep the number of charters it has instead of doing the actual work of fixing the issue.

[NCRblues]

We've also got charters all over being sustained only through empty
shirts - again, false assurance "everything is OK".  If people started doing what they are actually supposed to, NHQ would have no choice
but to notice.

One thing is sure, things won't change if no one cares to change things.

Oh this...this 100%.

One of the larger issues with my local area is this, keeping units open to look good at the next HQ.

We had a unit CC that timed out, and the only person Wing HQ could get to fill the slot was a person from another squadron about 45 minutes away. As a very active Wing staff member at the time I honestly thought this guy who took over had transferred from another Wing, because I had never seen him at anything... And I mean anything.

The latest Encampment numbers was published for my local area online and I was floored. 80 basic cadets with 50 (holy... ) yes that's right 50 cadet staff positions. That would have never flown with me. I would have turned those cadets away and told them to go preach and recruit first year cadets for the encampment, but I will not make up jobs to appease cadet SSGT snuffy when there are not enough basic cadets to have him on as staff. Failure all around.

Failing, cap is so afraid to look at that word. Failure is what I see of the local area.

Unit commander who show up for maybe one meeting a month because she works an odd shif. Failure of that unit because she isn't on hand to command, failure of that group to allow her to keep that slot and of the wing for not minting oversight.

Unit with 15 cadets on the books but 3 to 5 show up any given Thursday night. Failure of that unit, failure of the group to step in and help, failure of the Wing to close that unit down or find it real help.

Cadet Lt. Col. who wants to test for Spaatz, nothing but a basic encampment on his eServices, never seen at group of wing functions and in a unit with 10 cadets and only 3 active. Failure everywhere.

Failure everywhere but never discussed or confronted. Never addressed or brought into the light. Just promulgated, pushed forward and covered up. CAPs numbers are a lie that we are telling ourselves, let alone everyone else. CAPs expected performance is a lie we tell ourselves. Core values trashed and tarnished, members of all levels running unchecked.

Failure is real in CAP. We must want change, and right now I don't see many that care.

[lordmonar]

And kicking out people who don't show up fixes that how?

Listen I get what you all are saying.

But your administrative advice to someone who is running a good program to kick out the "empty shirts" because other units are struggling....is not fixing the problem that you guys seem to be concerned about.

Low turn out for encampment....okay.....let's kick out all the cadets who have not promoted in the last year and who have not shown up for a meeting in six months.

Unit commander has "real life issues"......okay.....let's kick out those "empty shirts" because that will help the unit.

Unit with 15 cadets on the books....and only 5 show up....yep....let's kick out those 10...then force the unit to close....that will help.

Lt Col who is ready for Spaatz....and has done nothing else....is not a failure.....it is the program.   Wanting the Spaatz Program to be more is admirable....but don't say the CP unit is at fault......and again kicking out all the empty shirt members fixes that problem how?

Again......I get what you all are saying.    I agree with a lot of it.   But....in the context of this thread.......kicking out people is NOT the answer.

Sorry for the rant.......did not really want to take it there.....but you guys found one of my buttons.   We are gearing up for an SUI and I just has a similar conversation with my commander who wanted to "clean up the books" to look good.   But I don't think kicking out the the "empty shirts" or transferring them to the ghost squadron is the productive. 

End of rant.