Inappropriate CAP Cadet Survey

[CAPs1]

Spam,
I appreciate the same concerns you have as outlined in your original post on the matter.
Not being a paladin for the LGBTQ+ cause, I found other issues (income, diet, family structure) and other questions do not reconcile with data needed to justify AF dollars.

Ned, let someone know that admitting to a faux pas, doesn't carry consequences. Just like the surveys I am told.

[jeders]

I've honestly got to say that nothing mentioned as actually being on the survey sounds in any way inappropriate to me. It's all pretty much standard demographic information.

And you missed the OP point. It was sent directly to cadets, no notice to the parents, and no notice to their commands. Bad form when dealing with children.

Actually I went back and read the OPs first post, nowhere in it does he mention being upset that parents weren't told about the survey. His entire argument was that the question was asked; which is ridiculous. Also, as a commander, I did get a notice from NHQ about this survey going out.

The fact of the matter is that, as LSThiker has pointed out, we as a society are just starting to figure out and understand this whole gender identity/gender dysphoria issue. As a result, things that we used to take for granted are going to evolve into something less familiar (such as the gender question). As for the family income question, I don't ever remember a serious survey that didn't ask that.

[JeffDG]

Take it like the CAPF 161, on which my copy contains multiple fields with "NOYDB" (None of your darned business).

[THRAWN]

I've honestly got to say that nothing mentioned as actually being on the survey sounds in any way inappropriate to me. It's all pretty much standard demographic information.

And you missed the OP point. It was sent directly to cadets, no notice to the parents, and no notice to their commands. Bad form when dealing with children.

Actually I went back and read the OPs first post, nowhere in it does he mention being upset that parents weren't told about the survey. His entire argument was that the question was asked; which is ridiculous. Also, as a commander, I did get a notice from NHQ about this survey going out.

The fact of the matter is that, as LSThiker has pointed out, we as a society are just starting to figure out and understand this whole gender identity/gender dysphoria issue. As a result, things that we used to take for granted are going to evolve into something less familiar (such as the gender question). As for the family income question, I don't ever remember a serious survey that didn't ask that.

Go back and read it slowly. Move your lips if you have to. He is TO'd about the question and the sneaky "it's our little secret" manner in which it was asked. As far as you being a commander and receiving notice, you seem to be in the minority.

He also included this "How does NHQ/CP get off, pushing this leading question about sexuality to my kids while promising no one will tell? As a parent, I am furious." That's a gem. CPP be [darn]ed, the Umbrella Corporation NEEDS this information!. Did it ever occur to anyone that sending this type of survey out to kids will lead to discussions within families that they may not be willing or prepared to have? I realize that being trans-whatever is the shiny ball of tinfoil that we should all be focused on right now, but this should have been routed through the commanders to the parents, not the kids.

[Garibaldi]

I get enough of this stuff on my other social media sites. My opinion is that we live in an era where we are slowly moving away from traditional labels to a more homogeneous system. For instance, I was surprised to learn that I am called cisgender. Basically, that means I was pulled out of my mom, the doctor took a look at my plumbing and declared I am a male. This is according to some social anthropologist or something. It has zero to do with who I am, how I choose to identify, or how I live my life.
If CAP, Inc. wants to know what cadets are male, female, trans, whatever, they can do so, BUT don't blindside and cut out the parents. It's not their place to put the onus on the kid to say "hey, mom n dad, CAP sent me this survey, imma fill it out." Also, keep in mind some jag, like me when I was a teen, would probably jack around with the answers just for fun, thus skewing the results.
Spam, as my CC, has time and again put the cadets first against the bureaucracy. I, as his deputy, also did not get any kind of notification about this survey, and had I, I would have counseled caution to my cadets, asking them to notify their parents about it and go over the questions. That, too, may have skewed results, but I opt for full transparency when it comes to CAP's relationship with cadets.

[CAPs1]

... but I opt for full transparency when it comes to CAP's relationship with cadets.

CAP's relationship with cadet will go through parents until they are 18. 

CAP has other issues to address, vital to its survival rather than embracing movements, efforts outside of it boundaries.
Must have come with being part of the Total Force package.

[jeders]

Go back and read it slowly. Move your lips if you have to.

Really livin' that core value of respect there, aren't ya?

He is TO'd about the question

I believe that's what I said, but feel free to not realize that.

and the sneaky "it's our little secret" manner in which it was asked.

Actually, it was more of a, "we're not going to go around telling your private information to everyone. If you identify a problem/personal issue here that you haven't identified with your chain of command, we aren't going to tell them." Again, feel free not to understand that.

As far as you being a commander and receiving notice, you seem to be in the minority.

I really don't, but whatever. If other commanders have email notifications from national turned off, then this kind of thing happens. Maybe they should turn notifications back on. If the email went to a spam folder or to a dead account (seen it happen), then there's nothing I can say to fix that one.

He also included this "How does NHQ/CP get off, pushing this leading question about sexuality to my kids while promising no one will tell? As a parent, I am furious."

Which simply shows that he has a clear misunderstanding about the question. No one was leading anyone to talk about their sexuality or sexual orientation, they were asking about gender. I know they use a lot of the same big words like male and female, but they aren't the same topic. This is another case of someone who doesn't understand issues overreacting.

CPP be [darn]ed

Where was CPP even close to being breached? Last time I checked, asking which gender you are does not violate any rules or best practices.

Did it ever occur to anyone that sending this type of survey out to kids will lead to discussions within families that they may not be willing or prepared to have?

Seriously? I'd rather generate discussions within a family where the parents can guide their children based on their own values rather than have others guide them. If this question sparks an uncomfortable conversation (which I very highly doubt that it will), then that's an unintended bonus. Also, bare in mind that unless you keep your children cloistered at home, they likely already know about transgender and don't really care.

I realize that being trans-whatever is the shiny ball of tinfoil that we should all be focused on right now, but this should have been routed through the commanders to the parents, not the kids.

So that it could be blocked by commanders who feel it is their righteous duty to "protect" children from uncomfortable conversations; no. National did what they should have done, formulate a survey with input from key stake holders (the air force) using experts (RAND Corp.) and then send it in the most direct way possible to the intended sample population (cadets) while also notifying commanders.

[C/Cool]

I keep hearing people say that they haven't seen the survey so they can't comment. Here is the link for y'all. 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJD3BZ5

[CAPs1]

Go back and read it slowly. Move your lips if you have to.

Really livin' that core value of respect there, aren't ya?

He is TO'd about the question

I believe that's what I said, but feel free to not realize that.

and the sneaky "it's our little secret" manner in which it was asked.

Actually, it was more of a, "we're not going to go around telling your private information to everyone. If you identify a problem/personal issue here that you haven't identified with your chain of command, we aren't going to tell them." Again, feel free not to understand that.

As far as you being a commander and receiving notice, you seem to be in the minority.

I really don't, but whatever. If other commanders have email notifications from national turned off, then this kind of thing happens. Maybe they should turn notifications back on. If the email went to a spam folder or to a dead account (seen it happen), then there's nothing I can say to fix that one.

He also included this "How does NHQ/CP get off, pushing this leading question about sexuality to my kids while promising no one will tell? As a parent, I am furious."

Which simply shows that he has a clear misunderstanding about the question. No one was leading anyone to talk about their sexuality or sexual orientation, they were asking about gender. I know they use a lot of the same big words like male and female, but they aren't the same topic. This is another case of someone who doesn't understand issues overreacting.

CPP be [darn]ed

Where was CPP even close to being breached? Last time I checked, asking which gender you are does not violate any rules or best practices.

Did it ever occur to anyone that sending this type of survey out to kids will lead to discussions within families that they may not be willing or prepared to have?

Seriously? I'd rather generate discussions within a family where the parents can guide their children based on their own values rather than have others guide them. If this question sparks an uncomfortable conversation (which I very highly doubt that it will), then that's an unintended bonus. Also, bare in mind that unless you keep your children cloistered at home, they likely already know about transgender and don't really care.

I realize that being trans-whatever is the shiny ball of tinfoil that we should all be focused on right now, but this should have been routed through the commanders to the parents, not the kids.

So that it could be blocked by commanders who feel it is their righteous duty to "protect" children from uncomfortable conversations; no. National did what they should have done, formulate a survey with input from key stake holders (the air force) using experts (RAND Corp.) and then send it in the most direct way possible to the intended sample population (cadets) while also notifying commanders.

You play well. You will go far.
In CAP.

[Paul_AK]

If, as claimed, the singular purpose of this was to help gauge the success regarding the grant program, and supposedly done by a professional and experienced company, then why is the opening line so broadly worded?

"We need your help determining what effect the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program is having upon young people."

In a society requiring legal and scholarly exactness, why is this so broad? This would seem to imply a little more than just trying to figure out how to better help kids through a single initiative or grant. If transparency is your aim, then a better stated goal or research question is imperative. That, and if the goal was to measure the success of the AF's money in this regard, why send it out to all Cadets?

"This survey is confidential. CAP National Headquarters will NOT let your squadron or wing leaders know how you've answered."

This survey asks for HIPAA related information, I did not see a HIPAA notice prior to the survey. Was it included in another portion? And if notification was sent to parents or guardians, considering their legal responsibilities, were they notified of their HIPAA protections? This information is defined by 45 CFR 160.103 as follows:

Health information means any information, including genetic information, whether oral or recorded in any form or medium, that:

(1)  Is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, public health authority, employer, life insurer, school or university, or health care clearinghouse; and

(2)  Relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual; the provision of health care to an individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual.

This might also fall under the Privacy Act,  5 USC 552a, but since they are not keeping records of the originating location, the wording may render that notification unnecessary  "(B) but does not include—(i) matches performed to produce aggregate statistical data without any personal identifiers" under the definition of Computer Matching Program. It could be argued that anything electronic somehow retrievable by outside parties especially the originating location, and by cross referencing Personally Identifiable Information from other sources. Until the legal definition is changed they appear to be abiding by the law there, although the preceding sections certainly discuss the PII CAP sought to solicit from minors. Even if not legally required, it still might have been a good idea, though, "CYA" and all. It would've taken the designers an extra ten minutes to copy, paste, and post the wording onto the survey.

I did the honest thing and clicked "I'm not a Cadet" for the first question and was rendered ineligible, so I have to go by what I'm being informed is the content.

[LSThiker]

If, as claimed, the singular purpose of this was to help gauge the success regarding the grant program, and supposedly done by a professional and experienced company, then why is the opening line so broadly worded?

"We need your help determining what effect the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program is having upon young people."

In a society requiring legal and scholarly exactness, why is this so broad? This would seem to imply a little more than just trying to figure out how to better help kids through a single initiative or grant.

When you need to write survey's, they are written in the most basic form to ensure those persons with low education can read and understand the language. 

This survey asks for HIPAA related information, I did not see a HIPAA notice prior to the survey. Was it included in another portion? And if notification was sent to parents or guardians, considering their legal responsibilities, were they notified of their HIPAA protections? This information is defined by 45 CFR 160.103 as follows:

Health information means any information, including genetic information, whether oral or recorded in any form or medium, that:

(1)  Is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, public health authority, employer, life insurer, school or university, or health care clearinghouse; and

Because CAP is neither of these listed, therefore HIPAA does not apply. 

[FW]

I realize that being trans-whatever is the shiny ball of tinfoil that we should all be focused on right now, but this should have been routed through the commanders to the parents, not the kids.

So that it could be blocked by commanders who feel it is their righteous duty to "protect" children from uncomfortable conversations; no. National did what they should have done, formulate a survey with input from key stake holders (the air force) using experts (RAND Corp.) and then send it in the most direct way possible to the intended sample population (cadets) while also notifying commanders.

From what Col Lee stated, it was not CAP who formulated the survey, however your conclusion is valid.  That some of the demographic questions seem "uncomfortable" to some is not surprising.  It is not, IMHO, a breach of ethics, core values, or law to distribute the survey as done, or is it "inappropriate".  The Air Force and CAP decided on this.  The organization understands this may have some negative consequences, and is willing to deal with it.   I'm sure our leadership is thrilled the USAF is willing to spend significant dollars  used to develop our cadet programs, and give our cadets more and better opportunities.  Positive change is not easy; we all need to deal with it.

[Paul_AK]

So that it could be blocked by commanders who feel it is their righteous duty to "protect" children from uncomfortable conversations; no. National did what they should have done, formulate a survey with input from key stake holders (the air force) using experts (RAND Corp.) and then send it in the most direct way possible to the intended sample population (cadets) while also notifying commanders.

It is NOT CAP's duty, obligation, responsibility, or privilege, to force societal views onto kids or the membership in general by circumventing parental rights. I do not care which agency or who the authority is, I thought everyone was entitled to Constitutional protections? We have standards of conduct and values which must be adhered to but not defining moral code so as to allow for membership from all walks of life. The Protection Policy and every bit of Character Development reiterates not to force views, to be tolerant.

Tolerance is not blind acceptance. If you were speaking of a steel girder, it would have a tolerance to load bearing, temperature, and motion. If any of those are surpassed, the structure and girder itself will fail. When I attended NESA in 2003 their stated definition of tolerance was "endurance without complaint" in regards to "I will not lie, cheat, steal, nor tolerate anyone who does". In this case we cannot discuss the contents here without discussing the political viewpoints and faiths of the individual member.  And since we would all like a society, where everyone can enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by our founding documents and subsequent amendments, we can tolerate (see above description) alternative or opposing viewpoints with the hope that they will still see a person at the end. But what you advocated by a governmental organization stepping in with the help of social workers and statisticians and even considering someone like a Unit CC (who is not a licensed therapist, psychiatrist, psychologist, or minister) and tossing aside the family structure many of us firmly believe in, you have shown a truly intolerant bias.

No matter how you look at it, the questions request suspect information, and are presented in a suspicious manner disregarding (whether intentional or not) a minor's legal guardian. And you lost absolutely all credibility to me when you implied you were in favor of that. All of these argument is predicated on two opposing worldviews and legal definitions. If there was any question as to the process or how it would be received it should have been halted until it could be ironed out. And a process should have been in place so there were no surprises.

[Paul_AK]

If, as claimed, the singular purpose of this was to help gauge the success regarding the grant program, and supposedly done by a professional and experienced company, then why is the opening line so broadly worded?

"We need your help determining what effect the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program is having upon young people."

In a society requiring legal and scholarly exactness, why is this so broad? This would seem to imply a little more than just trying to figure out how to better help kids through a single initiative or grant.

When you need to write survey's, they are written in the most basic form to ensure those persons with low education can read and understand the language. 

This survey asks for HIPAA related information, I did not see a HIPAA notice prior to the survey. Was it included in another portion? And if notification was sent to parents or guardians, considering their legal responsibilities, were they notified of their HIPAA protections? This information is defined by 45 CFR 160.103 as follows:

Health information means any information, including genetic information, whether oral or recorded in any form or medium, that:

(1)  Is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, public health authority, employer, life insurer, school or university, or health care clearinghouse; and

Because CAP is neither of these listed, therefore HIPAA does not apply.

In a situation where legality comes into play, and where questions are raised, even specificities can be worded at a fifth grade level to concretely define our purpose. And protected information is covered, that is the point. I can't go up to anyone and legally without any need to know and especially not as a covered entity, ask their background, what kind of medication they take, or if they have mental or physical disabilities for any purpose and expect to be protected just because I'm not specifically listed. Protected Health Information is still Protected Health Information.

[jeders]

This survey asks for HIPAA related information, I did not see a HIPAA notice prior to the survey. Was it included in another portion? And if notification was sent to parents or guardians, considering their legal responsibilities, were they notified of their HIPAA protections? This information is defined by 45 CFR 160.103 as follows:

I did the honest thing and clicked "I'm not a Cadet" for the first question and was rendered ineligible, so I have to go by what I'm being informed is the content.

This right here invalidates your entire line of arguments. You did NOT read any part of the survey past the initial eligibility question and therefore do not know what was and was not asked or presented. Please stop claiming facts not in evidence.

[Paul_AK]

This survey asks for HIPAA related information, I did not see a HIPAA notice prior to the survey. Was it included in another portion? And if notification was sent to parents or guardians, considering their legal responsibilities, were they notified of their HIPAA protections? This information is defined by 45 CFR 160.103 as follows:

I did the honest thing and clicked "I'm not a Cadet" for the first question and was rendered ineligible, so I have to go by what I'm being informed is the content.

This right here invalidates your entire line of arguments. You did NOT read any part of the survey past the initial eligibility question and therefore do not know what was and was not asked or presented. Please stop claiming facts not in evidence.

So did it, then? I have been asking questions with no answers as of yet. The information I have been finding is worrisome and these concerns are not to be discounted. My argument is not invalidated simply because I have been referencing other users and then checking legality. How was anything invalidated? If access is restricted to content then someone should make the content in it's entirety public in text form so we can all see. Are you saying those who raised the alarm are someone lying in this thread? Please elaborate. IF evidence proves otherwise, then great and I will be the first to relent. Until then please refrain from the implied insults.

EDIT: I went back through the thread to see if I had missed something and I did find the post explaining the structure. I still am concerned with minors being asked to self report, what was being asked, and how it went around the parents.

[CAPDCCMOM]

Unless your kid lives under a rock, or completely off-grid,  they have heard about transgender. Given our numbers in CAP, we can very safely assume that we have transgender members, in transition or not. We can safely assume that we have members of the LGBT community. Exactly how does that impact me or my family, IT DOES NOT. There is another word for a transgender cadet, PERSON. There is a word for a gay SM or Cadet, PEOPLE. If you want to keep your family and your children ignorant of humanity, then you better get under that rock right along with them, or I hear there are plenty of cults on the Utah Arizona border that don't allow TV, radio, or learning about dinosaurs.

We do not protect our children by making them ignorant of the people around them.

Sorry about the rant.

[Paul_AK]

Unless your kid lives under a rock, or completely off-grid,  they have heard about transgender. Given our numbers in CAP, we can very safely assume that we have transgender members, in transition or not. We can safely assume that we have members of the LGBT community. Exactly how does that impact me or my family, IT DOES NOT. There is another word for a transgender cadet, PERSON. There is a word for a gay SM or Cadet, PEOPLE. If you want to keep your family and your children ignorant of humanity, then you better get under that rick right along with them, or I hear there are plenty of cults on the Utah Arizona border that don't allow TV, radio, or learning about dinosaurs.

We do not protect our children by making them ignorant of the people around them.

Sorry about the rant.

This has nothing to do with denying information and everything to do with circumventing legal rights in regards to minors and the questionable nature of what is being asked. We are not making children ignorant by demanding an organization, if there is indeed wrongdoing, respect parental concerns and NOT go direct to minors and ask them to self report highly sensitive regarding health and status.

EDIT: I went back through the thread to see if I had missed something and I did find the post explaining the structure. I still am concerned with minors being asked to self report, what was being asked, and how it went around the parents.

[SarDragon]

Lt Col Lee.

FTFY.

[FW]

I'm sorry, Paul.  I don't see how CAP is "circumventing legal rights" by asking questions in a survey.  I've read it, and only the first few questions have to do with "demographics".  I understand what your argument is, however I'm not buying into it.  CAP is not forcing cadets to answer the questions, identify themselves, or to keep the survey confidential from parents. 

BTW; asking cadets to disclose health information in an anonymous fashion (like in this survey) is not a violation of law or regulation.  It's what's done with the information which can be problematic...