CPPT 52-10 "Transportation"

[FloridaCaptain]

I am just going to put it out there for those in charge that this line in the new regulation is causing harm to countless cadets.  Many cadets are too young to drive.  Many cadets want to participate in CAP, but lack the transportation to do so.  I can understand CAP telling us what to do in corporate vehicles, but the 2 deep rule should not apply when all you are trying to do is get a disadvantaged cadet to an activity.  You keep adding things like this, and then CAP looks at its cadet numbers dropping and says "gee I wonder why this is?").  Makes me wonder if CAP even wants the cadet program anymore.  I am so glad it wasn't this way when I was a cadet. 

Thank you, I am done. 

g. Transportation.
If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family
members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader
driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one cadet)
.
Note that
ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-
owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5,
Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10).

[Alaric]

I am just going to put it out there for those in charge that this line in the new regulation is causing harm to countless cadets.  Many cadets are too young to drive.  Many cadets want to participate in CAP, but lack the transportation to do so.  I can understand CAP telling us what to do in corporate vehicles, but the 2 deep rule should not apply when all you are trying to do is get a disadvantaged cadet to an activity.  You keep adding things like this, and then CAP looks at its cadet numbers dropping and says "gee I wonder why this is?").  Makes me wonder if CAP even wants the cadet program anymore.  I am so glad it wasn't this way when I was a cadet. 

Thank you, I am done. 

g. Transportation.
If an adult leader transports cadets other than his or her family
members to, from, or during a CAP activity, the party must number at least three (adult leader
driver plus two cadets; or adult leader driver, second adult leader, and one cadet)
.
Note that
ground transportation to and from CAP activities via member-
owned vehicles is not considered part of official travel and is therefore conducted at the member's risk (see CAPR 900-5,
Civil Air Patrol Insurance/Benefits Program, 10).

Welcome to the Nanny State, where regulations don't need to make sense, just burden the membership.  (and of course CYA the organization)

[Eclipse]

I am just going to put it out there for those in charge that this line in the new regulation is causing harm to countless cadets.

I think you are confusing the word "harm" with the word "protecting".

"Disadvantaged" are some of the most at-risk in our organization, for the very reason that they may not have the attentive
adults in their lives to pay attention and recognize an issue, and grooming them can be easier.

Cadet numbers are not dropping because of the 2-up driving rule.

Seriously, the CP has plenty of challenges, some outside CAP's control, but this isn't one of them.

[dwb]

The "party of 3+" rule for transportation is certainly one of the most significant changes in the new CPP, and it will not be without its difficulties to implement. I also agree that CAP (like many things) has become more expensive, and we certainly don't want to make the program inaccessible to people who would benefit from it but can't afford it.

There are options for working within the letter of the regulation. A senior member parent who has a cadet child can pick up the one cadet who doesn't have a ride (thus the party will number three, except while it's just parent/child but that's okay). Two senior members can carpool and pick up the one cadet. The cadet can arrange transportation to another cadet's house and ride to the meeting with that family. There won't always be options, but oftentimes there will be if you just think about the logistics in advance.

Furthermore, the new policy has been in effect since April 18th of this year. I think it's a little premature to say CAP is "causing harm to countless cadets". Let's wait and see what the retention numbers do in the next 3-4 years before rushing to judgment.

Here's what I wrote about the new policy for my Wing:

When the original CPP was released in the late 1980s, CAP was lauded for being proactive in how it protected youth from physical and sexual abuse. Requiring adult members to be fingerprinted and undergo an FBI background check was an innovation at the time. CAP is also aware of its unique vulnerability to hazing given the cadet program's military leadership model, and has long used the Department of Defense (DoD) definition of hazing and adopted DoD's no tolerance stance on it.

In revising the policy now, CAP can leverage 25 years of academic research on youth abuse. This research has led CAP to make its policy more focused on prevention of abuse by prohibiting the types of "grooming" behaviors that lead most often to sexual abuse and by setting more rigorous standards of practice to protect all cadets from abuse. It also encourages positive leadership on the part of our cadet cadre and adult leaders, which can lead to less abuse as well.

http://www.govirginiawingcap.com/overview-of-the-new-cadet-protection-policy/

I think that second paragraph says it all. Although it might be very inconvenient to get a third person in the car, and it may prevent the occasional cadet from attending a meeting or activity, it also eliminates a whole category of potential places where one-on-one unduly familiar contact can occur.

[coudano]

the 2 deep rule should not apply when all you are trying to do is get a disadvantaged cadet to an activity. 

When you are trying to get a disadvantaged cadet to an activity is *EXACTLY* when the rule of three should apply.
A predatory adult would likely single out that disadvantaged cadet for grooming,
and transportation to and from a meeting is an opportune time to do that.

[Alaric]

The "party of 3+" rule for transportation is certainly one of the most significant changes in the new CPP, and it will not be without its difficulties to implement. I also agree that CAP (like many things) has become more expensive, and we certainly don't want to make the program inaccessible to people who would benefit from it but can't afford it.

There are options for working within the letter of the regulation. A senior member parent who has a cadet child can pick up the one cadet who doesn't have a ride (thus the party will number three, except while it's just parent/child but that's okay). Two senior members can carpool and pick up the one cadet. The cadet can arrange transportation to another cadet's house and ride to the meeting with that family. There won't always be options, but oftentimes there will be if you just think about the logistics in advance.

Furthermore, the new policy has been in effect since April 18th of this year. I think it's a little premature to say CAP is "causing harm to countless cadets". Let's wait and see what the retention numbers do in the next 3-4 years before rushing to judgment.

Here's what I wrote about the new policy for my Wing:

When the original CPP was released in the late 1980s, CAP was lauded for being proactive in how it protected youth from physical and sexual abuse. Requiring adult members to be fingerprinted and undergo an FBI background check was an innovation at the time. CAP is also aware of its unique vulnerability to hazing given the cadet program's military leadership model, and has long used the Department of Defense (DoD) definition of hazing and adopted DoD's no tolerance stance on it.

In revising the policy now, CAP can leverage 25 years of academic research on youth abuse. This research has led CAP to make its policy more focused on prevention of abuse by prohibiting the types of "grooming" behaviors that lead most often to sexual abuse and by setting more rigorous standards of practice to protect all cadets from abuse. It also encourages positive leadership on the part of our cadet cadre and adult leaders, which can lead to less abuse as well.

http://www.govirginiawingcap.com/overview-of-the-new-cadet-protection-policy/

I think that second paragraph says it all. Although it might be very inconvenient to get a third person in the car, and it may prevent the occasional cadet from attending a meeting or activity, it also eliminates a whole category of potential places where one-on-one unduly familiar contact can occur.

Not inconvenient, unnecessary, and often more costly both in time and money.  But as long as the organization is protected, that's what counts.   

[lordmonar]

What counts is protecting the cadets

[Alaric]

What counts is protecting the cadets

Yes since we are all predators

[lordmonar]

I know I'm not
But I can't guarantee that you aren't
And that's the point
 

[Alaric]

I know I'm not
But I can't guarantee that you aren't
And that's the point

We should really protect the organization and just do away with the cadet program, then no issues.  Or just make getting to events their parents problem

[Eclipse]

You know, it only applies to members.

If some non-member wants to drive some other parent's kids, CAP is out of it.

That was easy.

[coudano]

Or just make getting to events their parents problem

Actually it is, the parents problem.

[dwb]

Yes since we are all predators

We should really protect the organization and just do away with the cadet program, then no issues.

I understand your frustration. I honestly do. But you're not doing your argument any favors with statements like these.

The rule is in place to protect everyone -- to remove a scenario where grooming or other inappropriate actions can occur, to protect senior members from false allegations or bad appearances, to assure parents that CAP is taking seriously its responsibility to watch over their children, and yes, to protect the organization itself.

It's also not an unprecedented rule in youth-serving organizations. It just happens to be different from what you're used to. Culture change is hard, and make no mistake, the new CPP is as much a culture change as the original one was 25 years ago. And not everybody is going to be on board with this change, and some people will probably leave. If that's you, well, I don't think it's a good reason to quit CAP, but I'm not going to compel people to stay.

[Alaric]

Yes since we are all predators

We should really protect the organization and just do away with the cadet program, then no issues.

I understand your frustration. I honestly do. But you're not doing your argument any favors with statements like these.

The rule is in place to protect everyone -- to remove a scenario where grooming or other inappropriate actions can occur, to protect senior members from false allegations or bad appearances, to assure parents that CAP is taking seriously its responsibility to watch over their children, and yes, to protect the organization itself.

It's also not an unprecedented rule in youth-serving organizations. It just happens to be different from what you're used to. Culture change is hard, and make no mistake, the new CPP is as much a culture change as the original one was 25 years ago. And not everybody is going to be on board with this change, and some people will probably leave. If that's you, well, I don't think it's a good reason to quit CAP, but I'm not going to compel people to stay.

I have no intention of leaving CAP I just will never work with cadets if it can be avoided

[Eclipse]

I have no intention of leaving CAP I just will never work with cadets if it can be avoided

Nothing wrong with that.

[MajorM]

What frustrates me is that the rule is the easiest, "lowest-fruit" solution.  It does impact units, particularly rural ones.  I have units where cadets travel 45-60 minutes one way.

There are mitigation strategies and risk management tools between "just do it" and "forbidden".  When there is an identified risk you can create a strategy with all of the involved stakeholders to address it. 

Though I also realize that with the wide variety of competencies and skillsets, what one commander may be able to manage, another cannot.

[Alaric]

Yes since we are all predators

We should really protect the organization and just do away with the cadet program, then no issues.

I understand your frustration. I honestly do. But you're not doing your argument any favors with statements like these.

The rule is in place to protect everyone -- to remove a scenario where grooming or other inappropriate actions can occur, to protect senior members from false allegations or bad appearances, to assure parents that CAP is taking seriously its responsibility to watch over their children, and yes, to protect the organization itself.

It's also not an unprecedented rule in youth-serving organizations. It just happens to be different from what you're used to. Culture change is hard, and make no mistake, the new CPP is as much a culture change as the original one was 25 years ago. And not everybody is going to be on board with this change, and some people will probably leave. If that's you, well, I don't think it's a good reason to quit CAP, but I'm not going to compel people to stay.

I think the presumption that we are predators is offensive, and if that is the major worry, then do away with the cadet program and we wont need to worry about it.  If parents don't have the time or resources to drop off their kids then sorry, they cant participate.

[Cadetter]

(Was going to edit this out but I guess I'll leave it, was disrespectful to put up in the way I meant it) What about when cadets don't have parents?

[Alaric]

What about when cadets don't have parents?

Not my problem

[Eclipse]

What about when cadets don't have parents?

They have legal guardians, in some cases, it's the state, but there is always someone
responsible for them.

The sad fact of life, especially today, is that not everyone can do everything, everyone
has limitations, and at some point you simply have to say "we can't help you".

CAP is not a rec center, a boot camp, or a foster program.  In comparison to similar youth programs,
it has fairly high expectations of participation, academics, and cost.  That's just the fact.

If anything, the distances needed to travel are indicative of the program shrinkage - in
years passed there were units all over the place in relative proximity to just about
anyone interested, just like the BSA.   There's a good place to start - seeding units,
but in the current paradigm, where units are placed on the whim of the
sitting commander, or are dependent on donated facilities, there's not much anyone
can do about "getting there" other then to say "you must".