Inappropriate CAP Cadet Survey

[Al Sayre]

The cadet and/or parent can also click on the little red X in the upper right hand corner of the screen at any time and not answer the survey at all.

[CAPs1]

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.

Correct.
They are better protected from ignorant rants.

[Paul_AK]

The cadet and/or parent can also click on the little red X in the upper right hand corner of the screen at any time and not answer the survey at all.

Sure, if the parent knows about their child is being asked to complete a survey to begin with.

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...

It has nothing to do with if someone declines to answer or not, information is being gathered from minors without consent, or at least an attempt that everyone received and could acknowledge. It is implied that parents have no need to worry, and I am certain there isn't some malevolent entity sitting on the other end reading everyone's answers laughing at the information gathered while opening credit cards. A minor is a minor, though, anonymous or not. There are questions here raised by several parties in regards to HIPAA, CPPT,  and the method of execution. I have no doubt that if it was explained prior successfully the push back would have been less. I completely understand the request for information in this regard and the purpose it would be used for is a good one, but I feel the concerns raised are legitimate. We are trying to be transparent and include families in this program. The attempt that was elaborated on a while ago to reach CCs and parents apparently failed. Perceived or actual, CAP has requested confidential information accessible by other means without parental knowledge or consent from minors.

[Alaric]

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.

I have no problem with the content of the survey per se, but the fact that the communication was directly with the cadets, and not the parents.  Which would seem to be in defiance of our guidance in communications with cadets

[lordmonar]

And it just keeps getting sillier!

I repeat.    This is why people hate CAPTALK.

[Paul_AK]

And it just keeps getting sillier!

I repeat.    This is why people hate CAPTALK.

We could change it to a uniform thread, if that's more to your liking.

[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.

I have no problem with the content of the survey per se, but the fact that the communication was directly with the cadets, and not the parents.  Which would seem to be in defiance of our guidance in communications with cadets

I can only speculate the survey was for "members", however I see no reason why parents/guardians could have been the recipients of the survey.

Maybe they should have added a BDU question...

[lordmonar]

And it just keeps getting sillier!

I repeat.    This is why people hate CAPTALK.

We could change it to a uniform thread, if that's more to your liking.

No.   I would just like people to at least give NHQ a little bit of common sense and not immediately jump to conspiracy theory, liberal agendas and government over reach.

Geeze....the USAF needs/wants this information and they asked some questions.   That is all.

[Alaric]

And it just keeps getting sillier!

I repeat.    This is why people hate CAPTALK.

We could change it to a uniform thread, if that's more to your liking.

No.   I would just like people to at least give NHQ a little bit of common sense and not immediately jump to conspiracy theory, liberal agendas and government over reach.

Geeze....the USAF needs/wants this information and they asked some questions.   That is all.

And once again, no problem with them wanting information, but if you want information from a child, you should go through the parents, not around them.  Wasn't that the entire point of that section of the CPP?  So that adults are not contacting cadets without the parents knowledge?

[LSThiker]

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.

Again, CAP is neither of those options above.  Therefore, HIPAA does not apply to CAP at any time. 

That does not mean we are not required to protect PII.  We are of course.  Just that HIPAA does not apply to CAP.  Therefore, no HIPAA warning is required.  The information is not defined by 45 CFR.  So your assertion that CAP violated HIPAA is flat out wrong.

Even CAPR 160-1 covers this:

2-4. HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996). HIPAA is a federal government statute, which sets standards for the use and disclosure of health information by "covered entities" as defined in the statute and implementing regulations. HIPAA does not apply to the operations of CAP outside of the administration of any health care benefit plan maintained by CAP National Headquarters for employees.

However, asking whether someone identifies themselves as male, female, or transgender is not asking health information or PHI.

Also, as a person that has written surveys for IRB approvals, writing surveys is difficult.  You must write the survey at a level which a reasonable person of the target audience/age can understand without being too technical or confusing.  The approval for IRB consent can be as technical or legal as one wants, though.  However, the actual survey must be clear.  You write it in such a way that is both board and specific.  Unfortunately, that nebulous area differs for each person reviewing the survey for IRB approval. 

[Paul_AK]

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.

Again, CAP is neither of those options above.  Therefore, HIPAA does not apply to CAP at any time. 

That does not mean we are not required to protect PII.  We are of course.  Just that HIPAA does not apply to CAP.  Therefore, no HIPAA warning is required.  The information is not defined by 45 CFR.  So your assertion that CAP violated HIPAA is flat out wrong.

Even CAPR 160-1 covers this:

2-4. HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996). HIPAA is a federal government statute, which sets standards for the use and disclosure of health information by "covered entities" as defined in the statute and implementing regulations. HIPAA does not apply to the operations of CAP outside of the administration of any health care benefit plan maintained by CAP National Headquarters for employees.

However, asking whether someone identifies themselves as male, female, or transgender is not asking health information or PHI.

Also, as a person that has written surveys for IRB approvals, writing surveys is difficult.  You must write the survey at a level which a reasonable person of the target audience/age can understand without being too technical or confusing.  The approval for IRB consent can be as technical or legal as one wants, though.  However, the actual survey must be clear.  You write it in such a way that is both board and specific.  Unfortunately, that nebulous area differs for each person reviewing the survey for IRB approval.

But information regarding disabilities, autism, and dyslexia (question #8 according to the OP) IS protected information as defined within numerous acts and laws including HIPAA and FERPA. As has been harped on, going direct with minors is not only bad form but a violation of our own policies. If it isn't HIPAA itself, it is still protected information and CAP bears a responsibility to protect, we don't get free reign to do as we please, even if it is under the attempted protection of anonymity. So a HIPAA warning wasn't warranted, neat. We still went direct with minors and asked sensitive healthcare information.

And I completely understand the need for clear speech. But with such a wide ranging membership dealing with so many minors and considering some if not many parents have no consistent interaction with their squadron, much less an understanding of our policies, I'd think greater care would've been given to reach out prior to undertaking something like this.

[FW]

My bag of popcorn is empty, so I must leave for now. I appreciate the concerns noted above, and also would have liked the survey to go thru the parents, however I trust in the Air Force leadership who sponsored the survey, and I trust our leadership; more especially our very competent COO and CLC who directed the survey's publication and dissemination. Life is short, and I doubt this survey has caused any harm to a cadet. 

[Paul_AK]

My bag of popcorn is empty

Poor planning. Lessons were learned.

[THRAWN]

My bag of popcorn is empty

Poor planning. Lessons were learned.

One can hope.

[LSThiker]

But information regarding disabilities, autism, and dyslexia (question #8 according to the OP) IS protected information as defined within numerous acts and laws including HIPAA and FERPA. As has been harped on, going direct with minors is not only bad form but a violation of our own policies. If it isn't HIPAA itself, it is still protected information and CAP bears a responsibility to protect, we don't get free reign to do as we please, even if it is under the attempted protection of anonymity. So a HIPAA warning wasn't warranted, neat. We still went direct with minors and asked sensitive healthcare information.

Again, for the third time, it is not protected by HIPAA.  HIPAA only applies to covered entities. Also, PHI only applies to covered entities, which again CAP is not one.

Please refer to the NIH about the use of PHI in research
https://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/pr_07.asp

I would like to point out a few sentences in particular but I would suggest you read the entire website before spouting more false arguments. 

The Privacy Rule defines PHI as individually identifiable health information, held or maintained by a covered entity or its business associates acting for the covered entity,

A critical point of the Privacy Rule is that it applies only to individually identifiable health information held or maintained by a covered entity or its business associate acting for the covered entity. Individually identifiable health information that is held by anyone other than a covered entity, including an independent researcher who is not a covered entity, is not protected by the Privacy Rule and may be used or disclosed without regard to the Privacy Rule. There may, however, be other Federal and State protections covering the information held by these entities that limit its use or disclosure

So to recap, it is not HIPAA nor is it PHI. Does it need to be protected, well that depends on if it has been de-identified.  If the data has none of the 18 criteria, then it is not considered protected. If it does, then it is considered protected and may apply to other cederal laws. But again, HIPAA and PHI are not applicable to this survey.

[Paul_AK]

But information regarding disabilities, autism, and dyslexia (question #8 according to the OP) IS protected information as defined within numerous acts and laws including HIPAA and FERPA. As has been harped on, going direct with minors is not only bad form but a violation of our own policies. If it isn't HIPAA itself, it is still protected information and CAP bears a responsibility to protect, we don't get free reign to do as we please, even if it is under the attempted protection of anonymity. So a HIPAA warning wasn't warranted, neat. We still went direct with minors and asked sensitive healthcare information.

Again, for the third time, it is not protected by HIPAA.  HIPAA only applies to covered entities. Also, PHI only applies to covered entities, which again CAP is not one.

Please refer to the NIH about the use of PHI in research
https://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/pr_07.asp

I would like to point out a few sentences in particular but I would suggest you read the entire website before spouting more false arguments. 

The Privacy Rule defines PHI as individually identifiable health information, held or maintained by a covered entity or its business associates acting for the covered entity,

A critical point of the Privacy Rule is that it applies only to individually identifiable health information held or maintained by a covered entity or its business associate acting for the covered entity. Individually identifiable health information that is held by anyone other than a covered entity, including an independent researcher who is not a covered entity, is not protected by the Privacy Rule and may be used or disclosed without regard to the Privacy Rule. There may, however, be other Federal and State protections covering the information held by these entities that limit its use or disclosure

So to recap, it is not HIPAA nor is it PHI. Does it need to be protected, well that depends on if it has been de-identified.  If the data has none of the 18 criteria, then it is not considered protected. If it does, then it is considered protected and may apply to other federal laws. But again, HIPAA and PHI are not applicable to this survey.

And if you would re-read my previous post I ceded the point that it is not HIPAA. I would ask you to slow your roll assuming I am throwing around false arguments, though. I have been a first responder of some sort most of my career. I have fought structure fires, wild fires, placed a teenager on a backboard while the mom was screaming behind me at a vehicle roll over, and deployed to Iraq to work outside the wire while maintaining clearances to work around priority assets for the Air Force. For all of those positions I have received some form of training on OPSEC, Privacy Act, and HIPAA on many occasions. Do NOT think to insult me or think I am attempting to lie or am not paying attention to details, or am simply being some conspiratorial nut job, sir. The information being asked is defined within the acts I have mentioned, even if it is not covered by those acts in this singular situation. Health information is a private matter, and asking minors to self report it in any fashion without ensuring their legal guardians/parents and chain of command were 100% aware may not be malicious, it is still negligent even if some semblance of anonymity is maintained. People are uncomfortable with this. Not just me.

EDIT: I do not mention all that in an attempt to engage in some measure of manliness or in an attempt to show you or anyone else up. It is my aim to establish some sort credibility where you quite apparently believe I have none. Which is compounded by the vagaries of the internet.

[LSThiker]

And if you would re-read my previous post I ceded the point that it is not HIPAA.

Your first line is where you again assert that question #8 is protected by HIPAA:

But information regarding disabilities, autism, and dyslexia (question #8 according to the OP) IS protected information as defined within numerous acts and laws including HIPAA and FERPA

Which again, it is not protected by HIPAA in our context.  So this would be a false argument because it is not protected by HIPAA as we are not a covered entity.  Also, FERPA is a federal law that protects the privacy of student education records.  Again, this does not apply to CAP or this survey as we do not hold any student education records, nor are we accredited by the US Dept of Ed.  This would be another false argument as it does not apply to our situation.  Therefore, question #8 is not protected information in the context of the survey.  Sure, they are protected under specific circumstances, which are irrelevant to the discussion.  If CAP becomes a healthcare provider or accredited school, then yes those acts would apply.  Until then, question #8 is not protected by those acts.   

The information being asked is defined within the acts I have mentioned, even if it is not covered by those acts in this singular situation.

If it is not covered by those acts then in the context of the survey, they are not protected by those acts.  Those acts only apply to the covered entities and schools that receive US Department of Education, respectively.  They have no bearing to the survey, this discussion, or CAP.
 

EDIT: I do not mention all that in an attempt to engage in some measure of manliness or in an attempt to show you or anyone else up. It is my aim to establish some sort credibility where you quite apparently believe I have none.

Claims stand or fall by their own merit, not by the person making the claim.  Therefore, it does not matter whether I think you have credibility or not as it does not have a bearing on the conversation. 

[PA Guy]

In the name of all that's holy please make this craziness stop. All of you barracks room lawyers need to give it a rest. Now, where is my aspirin?

[LSThiker]

In the name of all that's holy please make this craziness stop. All of you barracks room lawyers need to give it a rest. Now, where is my aspirin?

You are correct.  I am done with this craziness.  My apologies.  Have a good night.

[NIN]

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.

Air Force: "Hey, CAP, we want to get more of your cadets to 'summer camp'.  Will half a mill help?"
CAP: "Oh, heck yeah it will!"
Air Force: "Great. BTW, cuz this is a lot more than, you know, some books or an orientation ride or two, our data people are gonna want to know more about how the money was spent, on whom, etc, you know, to be sure we're getting the most bang for the buck."
CAP: "Oh, uh, yeah, sure. I mean, we get that: you're giving us like 500Gs, you probably want to know that we're not blowing it on laptops and stuff, right?"
Air Force: "exactly. We just want to make sure that when we spend the money, it is effective, fairly distributed, etc. We might want some demographics data, that kind of thing, so we can say to Congress things like 'Yo, look at all the disadvantaged cadets we helped out' and 'We assisted over x number of cadets who are already on public assistance..' or whatever."
CAP: "Yeah! When do we get that big check that we can take a picture of?"

I'm sure it didn't go quite like that, but when the US Government gives you $$$, there are *always* strings attached.

I have a customer that does STEM events for the US Navy & Army.  Middle & High School students (some college).  They have similar surveys they use that generate their necessary demographics to be able to say "We're not just helping out the rich kids, here, you know.."