There's any number of reasons for automatic termination, including failure to maintain a satisfactory academic school record (CAPR 35-3, para 3a(5)) and voluntary resignation (35-3, para 3a(8 )), but a voluntary needs to be signed / initiated by the member.  Those cadets who are not returning or are transferred out of the class seem to be in the latter category.

Also failure to progress,  the "three meeting rule," or misconduct are additional not-for-cause reasons to terminate (para 3b, c or d). You could probably make a misconduct 2B stick on the disrespect issue, but you really need to have documentation of the behaviors and actions leading up to the termination (corrections, counseling, etc) to be an "open and shut" termination for Misconduct.

Honestly: if they're not renewing (ie. leaving the class, not coming back next year) its probably OK to just let their membership run out (is the renewal in the fall?).   However, from a strictly administrative standpoint (ie. you want to make sure one of your volunterary leavers doesn't get accidentally renewed in the fall), its probably a good idea. That keeps everything above board.

We are an in-school squadron so my cadets are enrolled in CAP class. The school pays for their membership.
As we draw near the end of the year, a few cadets have told that they will not be in CAP next year, and one more got transferred out of the class in January.
My question is, should I file a 2b, or just let their memberships run out? 3 of the cadets have shown disrespect directly to me, the CC, and are failing several classes, so I will 2b them anyway.
Thoughts?

There is no template for the annual unit history. Here are examples, in varied formats: https://cawghistory.cawgcap.org/collections/show/1

Thanks, great answer !

The specialty track pamphlets are your friend. Different tracks have different requirements. The IG track tech must be signed off by a senior or master IG-rated person. The ES track recommends a senior or master ES-rated mentor, unless the squadron doesn't have one, in which case an alternative may be used.

The AE pamphlet is silent as to required qualifications for a trainer/mentor. The commander's judgement applies.

I have a question about who can sign off on rating checklists for Technician, Senior and Master ratings.

Looking at the checklist for AE Technician, for instance, the PDO or Mentor initials that the incumbent has answered all the questions and/or complied with requirements. Then the Commander signs the form.

I have heard by way of a few casual conversations that a Senior has to sign off a Tech and that a Master has to sign off a Senior. Not sure who signs off a Master. I could not find that provision in the regulations.

Can someone please clarify that the above is correct/incorrect?

Thanks !!

I tried looking online and was only able to find 1 example of a Squadron unit history. Can anyone point me to a word Doc template, or the like to get myself going?

Recognition is clearly key to attracting and retaining high-quality high-performing volunteers. I've read through many studies in recent years which have focused on identifying best practices throughout the non-profit sector for recruiting and retaining quality volunteers, and invariably recognition programs figure extremely prominently in that equation.

Each time I've examined it myself (in several Region Staff College and Level V seminars), I'm struck by the gap between policy/program and execution. On paper, CAP ticks nearly every box for "Best Practices" when it comes to recognition and rewards. But, to Holding Pattern's point, my sense is we aren't really good at executing the "Best Practices" we've adopted.

The scholarly research emphasizes the incredible importance of recognition and to the extent we're doing it badly or skipping it we're doing ourselves a real disservice.

In a 2004 study (Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers) researchers Mark Hager and Jeffrey Brudney of the Urban Institute identified practices aligned under three broad themes -- screening, training, and continuous management and support. Recognition, broadly construed, falls under the "support" theme.

I found other work that reinforces Hager and Brudney, which I shared links for below.

Of nine common best practices for nonprofit volunteer management highlighted in the Hager/Brudney study, CAP can be fairly described to have adopted all of them to some degree:

•    Regular supervision and communication with volunteers
•    Liability coverage or insurance protection for volunteers
•    Regular collection of information on volunteer numbers and hours
•    Screening procedures to identify suitable volunteers
•    Written policies and job descriptions for volunteer involvement
•    Recognition activities, such as award ceremonies, for volunteers
•    Annual measurement of the impacts of volunteers
•    Training and professional development opportunities for volunteers
•    Training for paid staff in working with volunteers

Three practices in particular were found to have a high degree of correlation to member retention, and these practices already figure prominently in CAP management and activities. They are 1) hosting recognition activities for volunteers, 2) offering training and professional development opportunities for volunteers, and 3) screening for suitable volunteers and using that screening to match volunteers to appropriate opportunities.

"These volunteer management practices all center on making the experience worthwhile for the volunteer," the authors wrote. "Retention appears to be very much a product of what charities do directly for their volunteers."

If recognition, training, professional development and upfront screening/matching and continuous management and professional support really are crucial – and the studies show those practices correlate strongly with retention for large-scale nonprofits – CAP should not ask whether it is or is not doing these things but instead should critically and candidly examine whether it is doing them well.

Does CAP do a good job of recognizing volunteers consistently through awards, decorations and advancement, or are we still inconsistent in executing the details of processes for awards, decorations, ratings and recognition?

How diligently do Squadron CCs pursue writing Form 120s?

How often do Group, Wing and Region staffs use the process to recognize subordinate commanders, or high performers whose work they know personally?

How regularly, and sincerely, do commanders, staffs, or project leaders offer regular feedback on individual members' performances on projects, the kinds of ordinary, everyday back-pats that don't rise to the level of a decoration, an award, a certificate, or even a coin?

Thanking members for their work in front of their peers during a unit meeting or an assembly or even during a mission briefing all sits under the broad heading of "recognition." Do we do that often? Do we do that well?

Hager, M. and Brudney, J. "Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers." The Urban Institute (2004).
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/58001/411005-Volunteer-Management-Practices-and-Retention-of-Volunteers.PDF

Furano, K. and Grossman, J. "Making The Most Of Volunteers." Public/Private Ventures (P/PV). IssueLab (2002)
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED472117.pdf

Chen, PeiYao, et al "Unlocking the Mystery of Volunteer Retention."
Stanford Social Innovation Review. (2013).
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/unlocking_the_mystery_of_volunteer_retention#

Thx, makes sense.

Scan/save letter to a location you can find
Log in to eServices
Select Education & Training | Professional levels
Select Professional levels
Select Level 3
Scroll to Conference attendance
Enter date
Select browse, and find file
Give name and location of conference in comments
Select Submit at bottom of page