NB Minutes "CAP has had more visable suicides lately"

[FW]

His royal "whereas" proclamation implies the facts are fully accepted and understood, and its time to move to his solutions. He appears to be an unpublished expert in the field of suicide and CIS, but his document seems to me, high-handed.


Major Lord

Major, that is an interesting observation and may have some truth to it however, I won't even begin to count the number of "experts" who have given the NB information on specific programs or other mandates we need to impliment to "improve CAP".

The vast majority of these "requests" are sent to the appropriate committee for evaluation and, eventual discussion to the NB.  It could be months, if not years, before the NB decides to act on this.  And, with the overwelming negative posts on the subject, I doubt we have much to worry about mandating SPP on the general membership.

[RiverAux]

Up until this year FW, I probably would have been as optimistic as you were about this, but given the mandates NHQ has voluntarily decided to impose on us lately (not counting the NIMS requirements which we basically had to do to stay in the game), I hold out little hope that any program would not quickly become mandatory, even if it was just optional at first. 

[FW]

Not to get off topic however, up until now, the only "mandatory" program I can remember implimented by the NB for the general membership has been OPSEC, which takes about 5 minutes in front of the computer.   The safety programs were implimented because of the well documented rise in aircraft and vehicle damage, as well as bodily injuries.  Programs like WIMRS, WBP and, CMX were implimented after great disscusion, field testing and extensive scrutinization from CAP-USAF and our independent auditors.  IMHO, I am very optimistic the NB will do what is "needed", not "wanted" for CAP in this case.

[jimmydeanno]

Not to get off topic however, up until now, the only "mandatory" program I can remember implimented by the NB for the general membership has been OPSEC, which takes about 5 minutes in front of the computer.   The safety programs were implimented because of the well documented rise in aircraft and vehicle damage, as well as bodily injuries.  Programs like WIMRS, WBP and, CMX were implimented after great disscusion, field testing and extensive scrutinization from CAP-USAF and our independent auditors.  IMHO, I am very optimistic the NB will do what is "needed", not "wanted" for CAP in this case.

You should also remember that many of those board members do some crazy mandates in their own wings too.  My wing, for example, recently imposed a requirement that all senior members take and complete the Safety Officer Basic Course or else they would not be permitted to participate in any CAP activity.

Guess what.  We had two van accidents within a week of each other a few months later.  Now, because of these accidents (which were supposed to have been prevented by us taking that course) we have additional van driver requirements that we need to do.

So if we can attribute circumstantial declines in safety records after programs are instituted, can I claim increases because of them?

So far this year I've spent about 20 hours either completing or teaching various safety requirements, OPSEC, etc.  Tonight, I'll be spending another few hours instructing more mandated training - and I haven't even done an RST yet this year...

[FW]

Jimmy, I understand your pain however, I have to go thru the same "mandatory" stuff everyone else does.  I also have to deal with "ground handling", ORM, OPSEC, etc.  However, except for OPSEC, it should be known that our safety mandates are driven more by CAP-USAF reccommendations than NB reactions.  HOWEVER, I also understand the Wing/CCs anxiety level when things go bad with aircraft or vehicles and, G-D forbid, human loss.  The question, I think, we should deal with in SPPs or Safety is:  Should we be pro or re active with events?  What is the cost/benefit for a program?  And, is the program necessary/effective? 

[jimmydeanno]

Oh, please don't take this as criticism towards you or the actions of the board, personally.  But I think that there is a disconnect between what the mandate is and what the actual implication is.

Many of these mandates aren't just a single individual completing a course and it's done.  What happens is this:

1) The board initiates the mandates - board members do their individual requirements - they're done.
2) The region initiates the communication of the mandate.  They're done.
3) The wing initiates the communication of the mandate (maybe).  they're done.
4) The local unit gets the mandate.  The individuals do what they can, somebody in the unit schedules the initial training, sets up instructors and a time period to do the training.  The initial push gets done.  Then the next week somebody new joins.  The same efforts above need to be completed, again, and again, and again, and again.  It never ends for the local unit.  So you end up with the equivalent of a single volunteer using 30% of the entire years unit meetings following up on these mandates.

The only follow up that the upper levels do is run a report and tell the local units that they're not compliant, then threaten with shutting down the unit or suspending the non-compliant members.  It's not a recurring training event for them, so it's easy to mandate everyone does it.  This issue is additionally compounded when the mandate is pushed onto the 12-14 year old bracket.

So say that a suicide prevention training was mandated to be conducted.  The initial requirement met by "the uppers" would be short and done quickly, but the recurring training would just be more and more time that we are unable to focus on AE, ES or providing leadership training opportunities and activities.

In my example, in 6 months I have 20 hours dealing with these mandates.  That's already nearly 2 months worth of weekly meetings.  The trickle at the top is a flood at the bottom.  I think that's what people are trying to get at.

[FW]

I understand well the nature of "floods"

Our problem, IMHO: we tend to overwork things.  Make the wheel a bit wider, longer, more spokes, bigger axle...  When the solution to our "problems" may just be to let the member be.  I don't think it is prudent for a PD officer to personally train each new member individually or, set up a new class right away every time a member joins up or someone from above issues a new "mandate". 

As a new member, I would expect however, I get the resources needed to participate fully in my unit.  I would expect to obtain the information easily and, I would expect I can do this type of training at my convenience (within time constraints).  This is why NHQ has set up CAP University and, a plethera of online courses to complete at home. 

I'm sure things can be better however,  we can't expect perfection.  OK , maybe expect it but, we aren't going to get it.

Anyway, Ned hit things right on.   This topic is about a paper we (the NB) have not discussed, have not debated on, don't have any idea of its' validity and, have no clue on what will be done about it.  Like I said before, I'd rather go flying.

[jimmydeanno]

Here's an article I came across this morning:

15% of Teens Expect to Die Young

CHICAGO -- A surprising number of teenagers -- nearly 15 percent -- think they're going to die young, leading many to drug use, suicide attempts and other unsafe behavior, new research suggests.

The study, based on a survey of more than 20,000 kids, challenges conventional wisdom that says teens engage in risky behavior because they think they're invulnerable to harm. Instead, a sizable number of teens may take chances "because they feel hopeless and figure that not much is at stake," said study author Dr. Iris Borowsky, a researcher at the University of Minnesota.

That behavior threatens to turn their fatalism into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Over seven years, kids who thought they would die early were seven time more likely than optimistic kids to be subsequently diagnosed with AIDS. They also were more likely to attempt suicide and get in fights resulting in serious injuries.

Borowsky said the magnitude of kids with a negative outlook was eye-opening.
Adolescence is "a time of great opportunity and for such a large minority of youth to feel like they don't have a long life ahead of them was surprising," she said.

The study suggests a new way doctors could detect kids likely to engage in unsafe behavior and potentially help prevent it, said Dr. Jonathan Klein, a University of Rochester adolescent health expert who was not involved in the research.
"Asking about this sense of fatalism is probably a pretty important component of one of the ways we can figure out who those kids at greater risk are," he said.

The study appears in the July issue of Pediatrics, released Monday.

Scientists once widely believed that teenagers take risks because they underestimate bad consequences and figure "it can't happen to me," the study authors say. The new research bolsters evidence refuting that thinking.

Cornell University professor Valerie Reyna said the new study presents "an even stronger case against the invulnerability idea."

"It's extremely important to talk about how perception of risk influences risk-taking behavior," said Reyna, who has done similar research.

Fatalistic kids weren't more likely than others to die during the seven-year study; there were relatively few deaths, 94 out of more than 20,000 teens.

The researchers analyzed data from a nationally representative survey of kids in grades 7 to 12 who were interviewed three times between 1995 and 2002. Of 20,594 teens interviewed in the first round, 14.7 percent said they thought they had a good chance of dying before age 35. Subsequent interviews found these fatalistic kids engaged in more risky behavior than more optimistic kids.

The study suggests some kids overestimate their risks for harm; however, it also provides evidence that some kids may have good reason for being fatalistic.

Native Americans, blacks and low-income teens -- kids who are disproportionately exposed to violence and hardship -- were much more likely than whites to believe they'd die young.

[Gunner C]

I knew that the chaplains had to be somewhere behind this.   

[Ned]

I knew that the chaplains had to be somewhere behind this.   

Of course they are.  Along with CP and HS.

FWIW, I spoke with the National Chaplain last night on this topic, and we are having a face to face on it in about two weeks.  We are also working closely with the National HSO in this arena.

That's why it's called a "coordinating staff."

Ned Lee
National Cadet Advisor
(Cool job, Crummy job title)

[DogCollar]

I knew that the chaplains had to be somewhere behind this.   

Yeah, we also killed Lincoln, we covered up the Roswell UFO, and we are keeping Elvis out of sight.  That's just how CAP Chaplains roll.

[Chappie]

I knew that the chaplains had to be somewhere behind this.   

Yeah, we also killed Lincoln, we covered up the Roswell UFO, and we are keeping Elvis out of sight.  That's just how CAP Chaplains roll.

Bill...now you went and done it.  Since you have exposed our secrets I will be requesting the Chaplains Templar to expel you from our order.

[notaNCO forever]

I knew that the chaplains had to be somewhere behind this.   

Yeah, we also killed Lincoln, we covered up the Roswell UFO, and we are keeping Elvis out of sight.  That's just how CAP Chaplains roll.

Wait you killed Lincoln, that means you are older than CAP; I smell a giant conspiracy.

[NC Hokie]

Yeah, we also killed Lincoln, we covered up the Roswell UFO, and we are keeping Elvis out of sight.  That's just how CAP Chaplains roll.

Wait you killed Lincoln, that means you are older than CAP; I smell a giant conspiracy.

No, they're not older than CAP...they got a TIME MACHINE! 

[MIKE]

It would appear that this one is done.