What constitutes "active participation"?

[lordmonar]

The one to wing about safer compliance and the one to the encampment commander

So how often do you do this exercise?   I mean if it is important you should be doing it often enough that the numbers mean something. 

[vorteks]

...why would you? That doesn't make any sense.

39-2 p.2-6

[AirAux]

Those empty shirts are numbers and we get money from Congress, the Air Force, and the States based on numbers.

[Майор Хаткевич]

The one to wing about safer compliance and the one to the encampment commander

So how often do you do this exercise?   I mean if it is important you should be doing it often enough that the numbers mean something.

I'm just a lowly staffer. I get to hear about safety compliance from my CC. He says wing is pushing for better compliance. He tells me who is at risk (typically more than 30 days out of safety currency). I deal with it.


I've been staffing the encampment since coming back as a SM. Once as XO, once as Dep. Commandant. Both years we'd have to scale back our staff picks due to lack of first year trainees. In a wing with (currently) 533 cadets, at least half probably need an encampment. Call that 250 cadets. Of the 250, lets say half (that's a joke) live "too far" from Great Lakes Naval Station, and choose to go to Summer Encampment. Of the 125 left, some can't/don't want to go to a Spring encampment, and instead choose to go to Summer/not at all.


We should be turning cadets away at those numbers due to lack of sleeping space. But we don't. Instead we cut down cadet staff, causing those cadets to lose leadership experience opportunities, and end up dangerously close to having more staff than trainees (someone mentioned an encampment for 80 basics with 50 cadet cadre).

At some point we've got to start thinking whether:
1) The number of students warrants running an encampment
2) Are we giving the leadership opportunities necessary at current size
3) Are we wasting SM time by running same amount of SMs for half the size flights.


Encampments scale nicely - upwards. They don't do so well downwards.


And you may think "well, it's just your Spring encampment issue", except that Summer suffers as well.


Wing makes "goals" for encampments and "growth" for units based on current/last year numbers. Really hard to hit those numbers with phantom numbers to start with.


We can't get 80 basics to encampment, because there's probably THAT many in the wing that are active and NEED an encampment. NHQ thinks 40% retention rate is good? So if we take a look at the number of first year cadets, the 80 figure gets real plausible for our "book" size.


So why write all that?


Because if the wing showed the real numbers, which are probably closer to 350 cadets, with not half, but MOST having an encampment already, then we could plan better. That's not even mentioning whole GROUPS that for some reason choose to send their cadets to another wings encampment, just "because".

[Ned]

And I've been trying so hard to stay out of this one . . . .

Same reason cadets can't be cadets once they go into the military. We treat the 20 year old, 11 month old Spaatz cadet as a child/minor/non-adult/etc because of their status as a cadet.

Several corrections and additions here - cadets in the reserves remain eligible for cadet membership, and it is clearly a benefit to both the military and the cadet for cadet membership to continue.

More importantly, CAP has -- and will always -- treat cadets as cadets and seniors as seniors.  We also treat minors as minors and adults as adults.  The trick is that the age of majority is not the same in all the states, districts, and commonwealths where CAP operates, so some cadets are adults; some seniors are minors depending on where they happen to be standing at the time.

If you're in the military, being a cadet has zero benefit (and you have zero time) for you.

Perhaps true for folks on active duty, but clearly not correct for cadets in the reserve / guard. Ultimately, however, that will be a choice for the majority of the cadets in that situation. 

As it turns out, most cadets in the military service age bracket (17-20) are getting our more advanced training in Phases II - IV and are learning about indirect leadership and other subjects that will directly impact their military careers.  OTOH, the military instruction given to new recruits is almost entirely focussed on followership.  So when cadets serve in the military, it's a a win-win situation for both the cadet and Uncle Sam.

If you're married...the presumption being that you're now living with another adult, acting like an adult, and dealing with adult life, you don't quite fit into the role of a cadet.

I was with you right up to the last part.  As we've said all along, something like 10% of our cadets are adults in the jurisdiction where they happen to be.

And I'd like to think that all adults "act like adults and deal with adult life," regardless of their CAP membership category. 

But now that I think about it, I know a bunch of senior members who appear to have difficulty with some of that.   

[Eclipse]

Those empty shirts are numbers and we get money from Congress, the Air Force, and the States based on numbers.

Integrity much?

[Storm Chaser]

Ok. 
I got no problem saying to safety.  They are not here.
I got no problem telling the encampment commander he is free to contact those cadets himself.
I don care about the QUA it has little benefit to me and my program.
So like I said.   If you want to go ahead.   But don't try to say that my unit is some how not doing it right.

And doing that every month takes more time and effort than filling out a form. Just sayin'.

[Eclipse]

Ok. 
I got no problem saying to safety.  They are not here.
I got no problem telling the encampment commander he is free to contact those cadets himself.
I don care about the QUA it has little benefit to me and my program.
So like I said.   If you want to go ahead.   But don't try to say that my unit is some how not doing it right.

And doing that every month takes more time and effort than filling out a form. Just sayin'.

Yep - not to mention this is supposed to be someone's actual job.  You know, Admin and Personnel?

[vorteks]

Back to the original post. I don't think this has been answered yet:

39-2 para. 2-2.h

Prospective cadets visiting a traditional unit must participate in a trial period by attending three weekly squadron meetings before requesting membership. Unit commanders will not approve membership applications (online or in paper form) until the prospective cadet has attended his or her third squadron meeting... Prospective cadets may not explore CAP without joining for longer than 30 days.

Why does this regulation exist?
Should it be ignored or complied with?
Why?

[Майор Хаткевич]

snip

Ned,


Fully agreed. I didn't go into the AD/Reserves/Guard differences because we were discussing the form (though I find interesting the little note about service academies!).


On the Marriage thing, agree or disagree, there's a presumption of "different" between married and unmarried. My wife and I have been married since June 2013. We were a bit over 23 years old. We're now closer to 25, and are still the only married couple in our friends circle. They perceive us as different. Because we are. Now extrapolate that to a 17-20 year old being married vs their peers who are still in school/just out of the nest (maybe, ish, kinda, sorta)? Definitely had to be a factor in deciding that one (not that I was consulted).

[Eclipse]

It doesn't mater "why" someone isn't there.  Having a unit full of married cadets and reservists at training
doesn't carry the corners.   All the excuses, understanding sympathy, and benefit of the doubt won't
march with you into the woods on a SAR, or help you train the few members that do show up.

You're either >there< or you aren't.  If you aren't, there you go.

[lordmonar]

Ok. 
I got no problem saying to safety.  They are not here.
I got no problem telling the encampment commander he is free to contact those cadets himself.
I don care about the QUA it has little benefit to me and my program.
So like I said.   If you want to go ahead.   But don't try to say that my unit is some how not doing it right.

And doing that every month takes more time and effort than filling out a form. Just sayin'.

You got to do it every month anyway.....I do almost the same thing...Cadets who are not showing up...we follow up on them.   We just don't do the 2b paper work.

That's the added admin burden I'm talking about.

If I were to kick out all my empty shirts today.....I'll just have to do it again next month as the next cadet crosses the line.   My unit has been at a stable growth for a few years now.   We take in each month about the same number as those who drop out.   We got the numbers to put on a good program.   So....the status quo is good as far as I can tell.   Adding more admin burden and spending money.....certified letters are not free.....makes no sense to me.

That is all I'm saying.

[Storm Chaser]

Back to the original post. I don't think this has been answered yet:

39-2 para. 2-2.h

Prospective cadets visiting a traditional unit must participate in a trial period by attending three weekly squadron meetings before requesting membership. Unit commanders will not approve membership applications (online or in paper form) until the prospective cadet has attended his or her third squadron meeting... Prospective cadets may not explore CAP without joining for longer than 30 days.

Why does this regulation exist?

It exist, I presume, because CAP has identified a large number of cadets who become inactive shortly after joining. While this regulation cannot ensure that new cadets will remain active after joining, it does provide an opportunity for prospective cadets to explore CAP before making a commitment and joining.

Should it be ignored or complied with?

We need to comply with all regulations, including this one. If there's an issue with a particular regulation or requirement, it should be elevated through the chain of command so that it can be corrected.

Why?

Because it's mandatory. Furthermore, it makes sense. Any prospective member should get to know the unit and organization before making a commitment. This also allows the unit to get to know the prospective member before approving the application. It's a win-win.

[Ned]

On the Marriage thing, agree or disagree, there's a presumption of "different" between married and unmarried. My wife and I have been married since June 2013. We were a bit over 23 years old. We're now closer to 25, and are still the only married couple in our friends circle. They perceive us as different. Because we are. Now extrapolate that to a 17-20 year old being married vs their peers who are still in school/just out of the nest (maybe, ish, kinda, sorta)? Definitely had to be a factor in deciding that one (not that I was consulted).

The only way to explain the marriage rule is from some sort of historical perspective, tied to long obsolete laws relating to the age of 21 as the age of majority in almost all states. 

I have fought this (mostly losing) battle with the senior leadership for several decades.  My issue is mostly one of fairness. 

If one assumes that cadets in the 18-20.99 age bracket value their cadet membership, and one also believes in marriage as an important and special form of relationship, then CAP probably should not be in the business of discouraging marriage and instead encouraging our cadets to "shack up."  (Or worse yet, marry in secret.)

On a fundamental fairlness level, it also seems odd that marriage would be forbidden but cadets engaged in a "registered domestic partnership" (or whatever it may be called in a given state) are unaffected.

It does not make a lot of sense, really.  Cadets are permitted to marry and remain married as long as they are under 18.  Again, I don't think CAP should be in the business of encouraging 16 & 17 year old cadets to marry, but punishing them by transferring them to senior status on their 18th birthday, thus depriving them of leadership training and college scholarships just when they might need them the most.

As I said, I have not yet pursuaded our senior leadership that this is an antiquated rule that does not belong in the 21st century.  I will continue to respectfully engage from time to time.  On the bright side, it is not a huge problem and affects only a small minority of our cadet membership. 

[lordmonar]

Back to the original post. I don't think this has been answered yet:

39-2 para. 2-2.h

Prospective cadets visiting a traditional unit must participate in a trial period by attending three weekly squadron meetings before requesting membership. Unit commanders will not approve membership applications (online or in paper form) until the prospective cadet has attended his or her third squadron meeting... Prospective cadets may not explore CAP without joining for longer than 30 days.

Why does this regulation exist?
Should it be ignored or complied with?
Why?

It exists...because we owe it to both our recruiting efforts, the perspective cadet and their parents to be sure that CAP and the perspective members are a good fit.

Recruiting and signing up kids at say a recruiting booth, taking their money and having them show up the next Monday.....and they find out that they don't like all the marching around...or "you mean we got to wear uniforms".

The 30 day clause is two fold....one is make sure the cadet can in fact meet the time demands that CAP requires.   The second is to close out the loop whole that people were using to skate a person into CAP with out them actually joining CAP.

Someone come for weeks on end.....and they never actually join.   At some point you got put up or shut up.

And no....we should not ignore the regulation.   Can we/should we make exceptions to it?   That's another debate.

[Майор Хаткевич]

On a fundamental fairlness level, it also seems odd that marriage would be forbidden but cadets engaged in a "registered domestic partnership" (or whatever it may be called in a given state) are unaffected.

If the email signature thread is anything to follow by, expect additional language in the reg by next week. 

[Storm Chaser]

Ok. 
I got no problem saying to safety.  They are not here.
I got no problem telling the encampment commander he is free to contact those cadets himself.
I don care about the QUA it has little benefit to me and my program.
So like I said.   If you want to go ahead.   But don't try to say that my unit is some how not doing it right.

And doing that every month takes more time and effort than filling out a form. Just sayin'.

You got to do it every month anyway.....I do almost the same thing...Cadets who are not showing up...we follow up on them.   We just don't do the 2b paper work.

That's the added admin burden I'm talking about.

If I were to kick out all my empty shirts today.....I'll just have to do it again next month as the next cadet crosses the line.   My unit has been at a stable growth for a few years now.   We take in each month about the same number as those who drop out.   We got the numbers to put on a good program.   So....the status quo is good as far as I can tell.   Adding more admin burden and spending money.....certified letters are not free.....makes no sense to me.

That is all I'm saying.

If you have that many "empty shirts" every month that it's creating an administrative burden to your unit, then perhaps you have bigger problems that filling out a 2B.

That brings another question, why is retention such a challenge in CAP?

[AirAux]

Eclipse, it is not an integrity thing, we are reporting dues paid members, that is all that is required.  I have had many cadets over the years take a hiatus for 3-6 months, come back and re-engage.  Glad I didn't 2B them.

[Ned]

It doesn't mater "why" someone isn't there.  Having a unit full of married cadets and reservists at training
doesn't carry the corners.   All the excuses, understanding sympathy, and benefit of the doubt won't
march with you into the woods on a SAR, or help you train the few members that do show up.

You're either >there< or you aren't.  If you aren't, there you go.

Bob,

I don't think this view is either mainstream or supported by the regulations.

We do indeed have provisions that allow cadets to be excused for various reasons.  They are still required to meet various standards for promotion, but the program indeed contemplates and embraces the real life / CP interface.

Need to study for your physics final?  Just let us know and you'll be excused.  The world won't come to an end, but you'll probably have to make up that CPFT / CD discusion / whatever in order to be promoted.

Same thing for your IET or ROTC summer camp.  That's important stuff and we will figure it out somehow.

Is the Academic Decathalon Team headed up to the State Capital for the finals?  We'll make it work.

Cadet and composite units are not tasked with ES & DR resposibilites.  Qualified members assigned to cadet units are encouraged and welcomed to participate, of course, and cadets have saved a lot of lives by doing so.

But a cadet unit's primary mission is CP.  And that is in no way hindered by allowing cadets to miss meetings on occasion.  The regs are there for a reason, even if you may (as usual) disagree.

[vorteks]

Back to the original post. I don't think this has been answered yet:

39-2 para. 2-2.h

Prospective cadets visiting a traditional unit must participate in a trial period by attending three weekly squadron meetings before requesting membership. Unit commanders will not approve membership applications (online or in paper form) until the prospective cadet has attended his or her third squadron meeting... Prospective cadets may not explore CAP without joining for longer than 30 days.

Why does this regulation exist?
Should it be ignored or complied with?
Why?

It exists...because we owe it to both our recruiting efforts, the perspective cadet and their parents to be sure that CAP and the perspective members are a good fit.

Recruiting and signing up kids at say a recruiting booth, taking their money and having them show up the next Monday.....and they find out that they don't like all the marching around...or "you mean we got to wear uniforms".

The 30 day clause is two fold....one is make sure the cadet can in fact meet the time demands that CAP requires.   The second is to close out the loop whole that people were using to skate a person into CAP with out them actually joining CAP.

Someone come for weeks on end.....and they never actually join.   At some point you got put up or shut up.

And no....we should not ignore the regulation.   Can we/should we make exceptions to it?   That's another debate.

Agree completly. So in the scenario that started this thread, the kid that "can't" visit three meetings in 30 days because of sports and indeed has stated that their ongoing participation would only be 50% is not a good fit for the Cadet Program.