Enhanced Cadet Protection Policy for '14

[Eclipse]

Enjoy.

This >will< cause issues for struggling units who are not properly manned, but for the most part simply canonizes best practices
that most good activities and commanders are already following.  There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth about
inconsequential issues, but the core of this is where we need to be.

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/?enhanced_cadet_protection_policy_for_14&show=entry&blogID=1040

Draft Reg:  http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/5216_with_CPP_C95D11A509576.pdf

CPP Executive Summary: http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/Cadet_Protection_Policy_2014_____Su_E3DFC5B41A51D.pdf

CPP White Paper:  http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/CPP_White_Paper_404B325ED0C18.pdf

[Майор Хаткевич]

An insistence upon increased transparency in leader / cadet interactions, through new rules exp
licitly authorizing
parents to observe CAP activities, and requiring parents to be copied on any electronic communications between
adult leaders and cadets

Seriously?

I sent 2 emails to our cadet commander yesterday.

First was to advise him on what he needs to focus on for his Earhart testing.
Second to have him send down the line the "cadet selfprogress chart" for promotions.

While I agree in principle, can't we go back to:

Parents ultimately are in charge of raising t
heir children.

You want to spy/monitor/look over/etc your kids email? Demand access to it. Otherwise, lets NOT communicate with the cadet, send the emails directly to their parents, and have THEM responsible for passing them on to the cadet.

I have a hard enough time locating an email (not hard, but...got to go into eservices to pull up an email) for cadets that I rarely need to contact, but now the unit and I also need to track down a parent's email to CC them on?

Just get RID of cadet emails, and demand a parent's email.

[Eclipse]

Most of that process could be automated, in fact if this becomes policy, it's more reason to go with and require that all CAP business
be conducted via a wing.cap.gov email address, where the lists can be maintained as needed.

Part of the issue is that a lot of the violations I've been involved with started or were exacerbated via the "Social" BS, where the nature of the
relationship is blurred and becomes inappropriately fraternal.

Considering how ill-informed a lot of parents are these days about technology and the internet, that's a Sisyphean problem.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Most of that process could be automated, in fact if this becomes policy, it's more reason to go with and require that all CAP business
be conducted via a wing.cap.gov email address, where the lists can be maintained as needed.

Part of the issue is that a lot of the violations I've been involved with started or were exacerbated via the "Social" BS, where the nature of the
relationship is blurred and becomes inappropriately fraternal.

Considering how ill-informed a lot of parents are these days about technology and the internet, that's a Sisyphean problem.

Ah, but that gets covered under:

Whenadult leaders interact with cadets via social media, they will do sowith an account designated for that purpose. Their personal (adult toadult) social media isnot to be shared withcadets.§33

I LIKE IT!

My personal policy became that I would consider if I want to add a cadet on facebook, only AFTER they turn 18.

It made sense to me, as most of those cadets go off to college, and it's a good way to stay in touch.

That said, I also considered a Capt Hatkevich page/account, and this pushes me more into that direction.

I suppose this too is a bit easier on "us":

When adult leaders communicate with cadets electronically, the cadets'parentswill be copied, or the leader'ssupervisor ifthe parent'scontactinformation is not available.If a textbased medium does not allowparents to receive copies, that medium will not be u

Also this:

Adult leaders will not meet with cadets in
person outside of official CAP
activities wit
hout prior parental notification and approval. If in
person
contact is necessary, a third person must be present and the meeting
must take place in a public space. "The Starbucks Rule"

Every time a possibility of getting together on a weekend to work on cadet business came up, I always said we need to meet in a public place, like Starbucks!

Edit:

All   CAP   activities   are   open   to   parental   observation

That may be hard to swing with activities on military installations.

[NC Hokie]

After reading the Executive Summary and White Paper, I hope NHQ has a plan in place to collect parent's email addresses and provide/authorize the web-based calendars that are going to be required.

[Майор Хаткевич]

After reading the Executive Summary and White Paper, I hope NHQ has a plan in place to collect parent's email addresses and provide/authorize the web-based calendars that are going to be required.

There's plenty of calendars out there.

As to the emails, just get them when a cadet joins, and as I've said, I'd almost forgo getting the cadets email, and have it fall on the parents. One, it meets the new CPP. Two, it may actually push them towards taking a more active role.

But if you CAN'T find the parent's email, you just copy your next level supervisor.

[Eclipse]

Increased supervisory expectations:
I can see where NHQ is going to get a fair amount of push-back on the increased supervisory
requirements and expectations, especially from struggling squadrons where there may only be one or two total
seniors involved at all (charter requirements aside).  In far too many cases, including my wing, this may well
force the cancellation of activities due to the lack of 2 qualified seniors.

I can see this especially being an issue with orientation rides, where in many cases, the Pilot is the only senior
involved, and may well be picking up or meeting the cadets at the airport. 

Section 3-3 d. 3.c "parents"
I see this as being an issue.  As I read it, a commander would be allowed to waive the "2-rule" for an activity
with only one adult leader if a parent volunteers to attend.  Being a "parent" should not exempt anyone from
the background checks and other regulations regarding CAP participation, but this section would seem to
not only allow that, but encourage it, and this will especially be a problem at the smaller, struggling squadrons.
The current requirements that a parent be at least a CSM to participate should remain intact.

One can make the argument that all senior members, by their status as adults and in the spirit of "loco parentis",
have at least "go-no-go" authority over all cadets.  Unfortunately, this, in and of itself, can be problem-some at times
when ill-trained seniors get involved in situations they misinterpret or do not understand, to the detriment of the activity.

But a non-member parent has zero authority in CAP, beyond their own child, and as a commander, I would not be
inclined to involve them at any activity.  The presumption being that these people have no understanding of CAP,
the military, nor even adolescent programs.

I am knowledgeable about a number of activities where patrons and non-member parents have been involved
in supervisory roles and as active participants.  In my opinion, this section will open up the idea that parents
are a viable supervisory resource when a unit is short of active members - likely in some places to become
an expedient norm, and I would strongly encourage the reconsideration this idea, or specify exactly what
a non-member parent's role is allowed to be.

Further to this, as written, there is no indicated requirement that the next echelon approve the 1-member / 1 parent activity,
so at a minimum I would suggest this be overtly indicated.


Transportation:
The verbiage regarding "home-to-work" seems to cloud the issue of transportation a bit.  I think, as written,
someone inclined towards a liberal interpretation could make the argument that POVs are not covered by
the "3 rule" because of home-to-work.  I would suggest making it unambiguous and specifically indicating that both COVs and POVs
are covered by this rule.

We have been struggling in my wing in regards to "home-to-work" vs. when a member is officially signed into a
mission and how that may affect liability for both the members and the organization, so I can assure you
this issue is cloudy enough that a clarification will not hurt.

Also, and this may have already been considered, the "3-rule", and for that matter the "2-rule" will effectively prohibit
a cadet from being part of a standard UDF team which normally consists of only 2 members.  Certainly manageable, but this will likely
be a complaint.

Social Media:
I agree 100% that only CAP-specific accounts should be used for >any< contact in regards to CAP, and
that people should have a "bright line" between their personal accounts and their "professional" (including CAP)
accounts, however this is going to be nearly impossible to enforce, especially for the less technical who are challenged
in these regards to start with.

At a minimum, account separation, along with common sense interaction between cadets and seniors, probably
needs to be regularly reinforced.

Membership Board and Interviews:
100% concur and agree.  This is too long in coming.  Far too many commanders treat membership as a numbers
game and/or are desperate to get "anyone and everyone" on the roster that they can.  They ignore or look the other
way on their common sense concerns, and then are "surprised" later when there are problems.  Again, I think the
places NHQ will get the most push back are the short-handed units where this is considered "additional burden" on the
staff.   Regardless, NHQ should stay the course on this as these types of interviews are good for not only cadet protection
but also for membership in general.  One of the contributing factors to CAP's first-year churn is that many new members have
little understanding as to why they are joining or what the expectations of members will be.  In fact, the very idea of "expectations"
in regards to membership is foreign to even some of our more experienced people.  These interviews will go a long way
to fix that before a person even gets an ID card.

Further to this, the requirement that the board vote, and the vote cannot be command overridden is also a good idea, and
should help eliminate problems where someone is "the commander's friend".  The few cases where there might be a political
issue at the squadron should be managed as exceptions.  Bottom line, if a commander appoints a membership board of people
he trusts, and then strongly disagrees on a candidate, there are likely other issues at this unit that need to be addressed.

Personally, I would like to see this extended to transfers and changes from Patron as well, as my experience has been that,
barring someone who moves to a new area, members looking to transfer are probably bringing baggage with them.  The same
goes for those who are transient in an out of Patron status and the 000 units.

Bottom line, someone who cannot pass by a simple board with direct and simple answers is likely to be a problem for the new
unit.

[abdsp51]

Looks like IMHO they are clearing up alot of things and putting more clear cut guidance out.  While I agree with allowing parents access to the activity who is going to feed them and billet them?  I haven't finished reading it but it shouldn't be too hard to implement if units are already doing a good chunk of this.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Negative Behaviors or Boundary Violations
4.
Griping about "CAP politics" to cadets or
disparaging other adults

Oh my. This one is interesting.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Looks like IMHO they are clearing up alot of things and putting more clear cut guidance out.  While I agree with allowing parents access to the activity who is going to feed them and billet them?  I haven't finished reading it but it shouldn't be too hard to implement if units are already doing a good chunk of this.

I don't think we're fostering Helicopter Parents, just letting them have access. It doesn't mean we have them shadowing their kid the whole time at an activity.

[Eclipse]

Looks like IMHO they are clearing up alot of things and putting more clear cut guidance out.  While I agree with allowing parents access to the activity who is going to feed them and billet them?  I haven't finished reading it but it shouldn't be too hard to implement if units are already doing a good chunk of this.

"Access" isn't the same as participation, and in 99% of the cases, it's a non-issue anyway since if the parents were that interested they'd likely join.

I know of a number of occasions where parents have been literally barred from activities, which isn't right either. I'm not sure where the balance is, but
reasonable people should always be able to find a compromise.  For example, "access" doesn't mean they can camp on a bivouac, sit in the ICP, or have carte blanche
to wander around an encampment or even a unit meeting, but certainly, just like summer camps, etc., they should be able to see what is going on, if they are so inclined.
In cases where the host facility says "no", then it's "no", and they are free to remove their cadet.  Etc., etc.

[NC Hokie]

There's plenty of calendars out there.

Sure there are, but what happens when squadron X wants to go to a wing activity that did not get posted to the squadron calendar because the wing and the squadron use different providers?  Who gets stung for not providing timely notification as required by the new rules?  Do we just say "It was posted on another calendar, and you (Mom and Dad) are responsible for checking it?"

As to the emails, just get them when a cadet joins...

Well, yeah, but where are those email addresses aggregated?  Will we have to maintain our own matched lists of cadets and parents, and be hyper-vigilant to make sure that we have current info?

ETA that I just saw where we are to check eServices for those parent email addresses and CC up the chain in cases where eServices has none.

These are good ideas, but they lose their effectiviness if implementation is left to chance when there are ways to use existing technology to make that implementation seamless.

[Eclipse]

^ Honestly, you're getting wrapped around the axle about a micro that simply needs to get "done" as a course of business.

If the average unit can't contact their members and parents, and make reasonable notification about activities, then the fault lies outside 52-10.

Ignore, I think we agree.

[Майор Хаткевич]

There's plenty of calendars out there.

Sure there are, but what happens when squadron X wants to go to a wing activity that did not get posted to the squadron calendar because the wing and the squadron use different providers?  Who gets stung for not providing timely notification as required by the new rules?  Do we just say "It was posted on another calendar, and you (Mom and Dad) are responsible for checking it?"

Post activities pertaining to units on the unit calendar. There's also the permission slips, that can be used as CYA, I'm betting even for day or less activities.

As to the emails, just get them when a cadet joins...

Well, yeah, but where are those email addresses aggregated?  Will we have to maintain our own matched lists of cadets and parents, and be hyper-vigilant to make sure that we have current info?

These are good ideas, but they lose their effectiviness if implementation is left to chance when there are ways to use existing technology to make that implementation seamless.

When I log into eServices, and click on the cadet number, I see all of the entered cadet emails. I also see three or four "cadet parent" emails.

It will simply become something we do, or better yet, route CAP email traffic through them.

[Майор Хаткевич]

^ Honestly, you're getting wrapped around the axle about a micro that simply needs to get "done" as a course of business.

If the average unit can't contact their members and parents, and make reasonable notification about activities, then the fault lies outside 52-10.

Speaking of CAPR 52-10...

The posted changes are inside of a draft CAPR 52-16...

Does that mean 52-10 will be on the way out?

[Eclipse]

That was my impression, though it's not an overt change (yet).  Consolidating these things is a good idea.

[NCRblues]

I like and agree with 99% of the changes.

Some of the items may put a burden on small units or even some of the smaller or rural wings even...but oh well

I don't agree with the parents visitation/observation as currently written.

As a CP guy, that's a hard swallow for me like say at an encampment or ncsa. We are honestly busy enough at those activities and having Mr. Mom walking around (IMHO) is just asking for issues.

Edit: I should have said, having Mr. Mom walking around all day or all activity may cause issues.

[JeffDG]

Most of that process could be automated, in fact if this becomes policy, it's more reason to go with and require that all CAP business
be conducted via a wing.cap.gov email address, where the lists can be maintained as needed.

Actually, our Wing has automated mailing lists that will need to be immediately disabled if this comes into effect, until such time as all parent e-mail addresses are gathered.

That includes unit mailing lists, along with ES Qualification lists (where I can blast an e-mail to every GTM in a group for example).  As written, unless every cadet on that list has a parent e-mail provided (and on that list), we cannot use the list.

And if you do all business through a wing.cap.gov e-mail, then every single parent will need to have an account on the wing.cap.gov site, provisioned in some way, including parents who are not members (even cadet sponsor members), so the regulation pretty much drives a stake through that as an idea.

[NC Hokie]

That includes unit mailing lists, along with ES Qualification lists (where I can blast an e-mail to every GTM in a group for example).  As written, unless every cadet on that list has a parent e-mail provided (and on that list), we cannot use the list.

Paragraph 3-5.a. states, "If the cadet's parent has not provided CAP with contact information (see the cadet's eServices record), the adult leader will instead notify his or her own superior."

So, if a parent's email is in eServices, they better get a copy, otherwise a CC to the CC is sufficient CYA. 

[a2capt]

I'm slightly shocked that a draft even came out. The last few, since the governance change have been draft-less to the general membership, the very ones that deal with it the most.

As for the insistance that it all be done via wing.cap.gov, that's all fine and dandy.

Then tear down the walls, bust open the fiefdoms, and get rid of the bureaucracy that many wings have in dealing with web sites, email lists, and the like, frustrating the ones that actually have to do things like run units, into just saying screw it and either giving up, or just doing it themselves with another method.