Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 24, 2017, 03:22:02 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Cadet Programs  |  Cadet Programs Management & Activities  |  Topic: QCUA Streamers
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: QCUA Streamers  (Read 879 times)
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,833

« on: April 17, 2017, 11:44:36 PM »

So 2014 was an anomaly then?

Clearly QCUA recipients will not be receiving streamers for 2016, despite, as I recall, these still being indicated
as part of the award for 2015 / 2016.

A streamer is no longer listed on the QCUA page.  https://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/library/quality-cadet-unit-award/

It's understandable, as with nearly 300 recipients, the cost could be close to $10k depending on the source,
(that's a retail non-quantity, non-government guess, the original QCUA proposal estimated $3k)
however a lot of units don't have a place to display certificates and the like, so those just pile up in a closet,
or get scanned and tossed, while most units do have a flag, and a streamer is a visible, tangible indicator of the
accomplishment which is clearly viewed by NHQ as "important", and gets mentioned all the time as a delimiter of a successful unit.

At the same CAP is touting the high level of financial support from the USAF, and emphasizing that encampments
should increase their fees to be able to pay speaker's travel expenses, this kind of thing, that actually means something to the
cadets accomplishing the goals, is left by the wayside without any comment or notice.

$10K is both a lot of money, and also nothing in the grande scheme.

Is this the reason units should get QCUA?  No.

Does it mean something to a flag bearer who marches a little straighter because of the extra plumage on the flag?
A lot of times, yes, it's what we're told here all the time.

CAP asks people to step up, set goals, and accomplish difficult tasks, changes the rules on awards, and then, again,
wonders why it has retention issues.

One here...one there...another over here...
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Paul Creed III
Forum Regular

Posts: 187
Unit: GLR-OH-254

« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2017, 08:27:20 AM »

I agree with you 100% on the streamer. With the percentage of units that earn the QCUA being in the neighborhood of 30%, these units should certainly have a streamer as an option, even if that option is for local purchase.

$10k doesn't seem that much to invest in our people who have worked hard and achieve.
Logged
Lt Col Paul Creed III, CAP
Great Lakes Region Cyber Programs Officer
Ohio Wing Group 3 Commander
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 863

« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2017, 12:58:38 PM »

I agree with you 100% on the streamer. With the percentage of units that earn the QCUA being in the neighborhood of 30%, these units should certainly have a streamer as an option, even if that option is for local purchase.

$10k doesn't seem that much to invest in our people who have worked hard and achieve.

I didn't realize the numbers were that low. That's a real shame. What's the deal?
Logged
Paul Creed III
Forum Regular

Posts: 187
Unit: GLR-OH-254

« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2017, 01:31:20 PM »

I agree with you 100% on the streamer. With the percentage of units that earn the QCUA being in the neighborhood of 30%, these units should certainly have a streamer as an option, even if that option is for local purchase.

$10k doesn't seem that much to invest in our people who have worked hard and achieve.

I didn't realize the numbers were that low. That's a real shame. What's the deal?

Other than the handful of new units that are building up and don't have the required 10 cadets, it's a statistic that floors me.

I mean, any unit can have a bad year and miss the award by a criteria or 2. But, still, such a low percentage and so many that achieve so few of the criteria?

These aren't "above and beyond" or "nice to have's" but are literally core components to the cadet program. I don't understand why there's such a low percentage.
Logged
Lt Col Paul Creed III, CAP
Great Lakes Region Cyber Programs Officer
Ohio Wing Group 3 Commander
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,833

« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2017, 01:45:07 PM »

There are now 11 criteria a unit can pick from with only 6 points to accomplish it.

1. Adult Leadership: Unit has at least 3 Training Leaders of Cadets graduates on its roster

2. Aerospace: Unit earned the Aerospace Excellence Award (AEX) or sent in an after-action report on a STEM Kit during the school year

3. Cadet Achievement: 40% of cadets on roster have attained the Wright Brothers Award

4. RRLA: Unit hosted an RRLA

5. Encampment: 50% of cadets on roster have completed encampment

6. Enrollment: Unit has at least 35 cadets listed on its roster

7. Growth: Unitís cadet roster increased by 10%, or 10 cadets (from 1 September 2016)

8. Orientation Flights: 70% of cadets on roster have participated in at least 1 flight

9. Retention: Unit retained 50% of first year cadets (cadets that joined from 1 September 2015 through 31 August 2016)

10.  CyberPatriot: Members that actively participate in CyberPatriot will earn their squadron credit. 

11. Emergency Services:  60% of cadets on roster have GES certification

The 6 highlighted are fully within the unit's general control, and should be happening as a matter ofcourse.
If you're not doing at least those things, why are you there?

I was very disappointed to see DDRX removed in favor of Cyberpatriot.  DDRX is something every unit
should be doing "because kids", but Cyberpatriot is something out of reach for many for any number of reasons,
and not a part of the core mission (recent rhetoric notwithstanding).

The other stuff ebbs and flows, but can fill in when a unit falls short on something that should always be happening.

Even a unit not aware of QCUA should be getting by accident.

Rather then "Congrats on QCUA." the question should be raised each September to those who didn't get it. why not, and what's your plan?
We review these and SOM numbers every month to see if we have any trends that will become problems.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2017, 01:48:22 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 863

« Reply #5 on: April 18, 2017, 02:12:36 PM »

Even a unit not aware of QCUA should be getting by accident.

Rather then "Congrats on QCUA." the question should be raised each September to those who didn't get it. why not, and what's your plan?
We review these and SOM numbers every month to see if we have any trends that will become problems.

I'll be honest, and I can't recall if I told Lt Col Creed this or not when he came to visit us a few weeks back, but I rarely go back and review the criteria for the QCUA. I don't shoot the numbers game (now, I know I brought that up to him regarding another participation topic).

I'm not out to get the recognition. I think the recognition speaks for itself. If you run a morally sound and entertaining (fun AND educational) program, you should meet a lot of these without even knowing it.

In fact, Lt Col Creed, we presented an Achievement Award to a cadet during your visit who had no idea she was getting an award or why she deserved it. She told me, "I was just doing my job." And that's it. If you do your job, great. If you exceed your job, without really even realizing it, fantastic. That's what earns you the recognition.

It takes almost no effort to meet CAP standards for a "quality cadet unit," and they should all be of CAP's standard for quality, and then some.
Logged
NC Hokie
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 879
Unit: MER-NC-057

« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2017, 03:01:53 PM »

I was very disappointed to see DDRX removed in favor of Cyberpatriot.  DDRX is something every unit
should be doing "because kids", but Cyberpatriot is something out of reach for many for any number of reasons,
and not a part of the core mission (recent rhetoric notwithstanding).

CyberPatriot has been a part of the calculations for several years, and coexisted with DDRx until this year.

I'm no great fan of the DDR program as a whole, but I wish they would have kept DDRx instead of RRLA. DDRx serves our cadets and is far more relevant and beneficial to the typical squadron than hosting an RRLA for outsiders.
Logged
William Hess, Maj, CAP
Tar River Actual
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 863

« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2017, 04:02:57 PM »

I was very disappointed to see DDRX removed in favor of Cyberpatriot.  DDRX is something every unit
should be doing "because kids", but Cyberpatriot is something out of reach for many for any number of reasons,
and not a part of the core mission (recent rhetoric notwithstanding).

CyberPatriot has been a part of the calculations for several years, and coexisted with DDRx until this year.

I'm no great fan of the DDR program as a whole, but I wish they would have kept DDRx instead of RRLA. DDRx serves our cadets and is far more relevant and beneficial to the typical squadron than hosting an RRLA for outsiders.

Wholly agree.

The DDR program is minute. Really, it's more of something we bring up on occasion as a leadership point during evaluations, career goals, and talking with cadets about their progress. But we haven't much done the "booze goggles" or the more hands-on, strongly-emphasized DDR activities.

I think both RRLA and DDRx are more examples of "check the box" for people. I'll be totally honest: it was a check off the Specialty Track list for me and another member of ours early on. But we also dive very deep into leadership traits and characteristics, emphasizing the healthy, drug-free lifestyle through talking point more than we do running actual classes.

I'd say a lot of what we really push for goes undocumented in most cases. But as I've stated before, I'm here for results, not tick marks on the checklist.
Logged
kwe1009
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 696

« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2017, 04:07:46 PM »

Even a unit not aware of QCUA should be getting by accident.

Rather then "Congrats on QCUA." the question should be raised each September to those who didn't get it. why not, and what's your plan?
We review these and SOM numbers every month to see if we have any trends that will become problems.

I'll be honest, and I can't recall if I told Lt Col Creed this or not when he came to visit us a few weeks back, but I rarely go back and review the criteria for the QCUA. I don't shoot the numbers game (now, I know I brought that up to him regarding another participation topic).

I'm not out to get the recognition. I think the recognition speaks for itself. If you run a morally sound and entertaining (fun AND educational) program, you should meet a lot of these without even knowing it.

In fact, Lt Col Creed, we presented an Achievement Award to a cadet during your visit who had no idea she was getting an award or why she deserved it. She told me, "I was just doing my job." And that's it. If you do your job, great. If you exceed your job, without really even realizing it, fantastic. That's what earns you the recognition.

It takes almost no effort to meet CAP standards for a "quality cadet unit," and they should all be of CAP's standard for quality, and then some.

For you personally this is fine but for others they like to get that recognition.  As has been stated here, the QCUA is not difficult to attain and it can be another tool to help with recruiting.  If you can tell potential cadet parents that your unit is consistently earning this that may just be the final push they need to sign up (as an example).   I would encourage you to pay attention to the criteria and where your unit stands, not for you but for others who may gain a certain level of pride in reaching that goal.
Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 863

« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2017, 04:23:58 PM »

Even a unit not aware of QCUA should be getting by accident.

Rather then "Congrats on QCUA." the question should be raised each September to those who didn't get it. why not, and what's your plan?
We review these and SOM numbers every month to see if we have any trends that will become problems.

I'll be honest, and I can't recall if I told Lt Col Creed this or not when he came to visit us a few weeks back, but I rarely go back and review the criteria for the QCUA. I don't shoot the numbers game (now, I know I brought that up to him regarding another participation topic).

I'm not out to get the recognition. I think the recognition speaks for itself. If you run a morally sound and entertaining (fun AND educational) program, you should meet a lot of these without even knowing it.

In fact, Lt Col Creed, we presented an Achievement Award to a cadet during your visit who had no idea she was getting an award or why she deserved it. She told me, "I was just doing my job." And that's it. If you do your job, great. If you exceed your job, without really even realizing it, fantastic. That's what earns you the recognition.

It takes almost no effort to meet CAP standards for a "quality cadet unit," and they should all be of CAP's standard for quality, and then some.

For you personally this is fine but for others they like to get that recognition.  As has been stated here, the QCUA is not difficult to attain and it can be another tool to help with recruiting.  If you can tell potential cadet parents that your unit is consistently earning this that may just be the final push they need to sign up (as an example).   I would encourage you to pay attention to the criteria and where your unit stands, not for you but for others who may gain a certain level of pride in reaching that goal.

That wasn't so much the intent of my point.

I was stating that, I believe, if you actually met the training requirements of CAPR 52-16, and followed the guides that exist to aid in running a sound program, most of these should be met without "trying." That's not to say "with ease" or "without effort." It takes a great deal of effort.

But aiming for the standards in the regulation worked well for me early on when I first assumed my post as CDC. Then, I expanded off of that once I knew our minimums were made.

Minimum monthly cadet training requirements:
- 1.5 hours of leadership (to include drill)
- 1.5 hours of Aerospace Education
- 1 hour of fitness (to include the Cadet Physical Fitness Test)
- 1 hour of Character (to include CDI and/or DDR)
*plus 1 weekend activity outside the norm of the unit meeting

That's 5 hours of minimum mandatory training right there. In a month, if you hold, say, 2.5-hour meetings (10 training hours total in a 4-week month), that's still 5 hours left to fill. Making 7.5 of those 10 hours fun, since most people don't find the CPFT "fun," or drill, the rest should make up for it, and thus boost retention. Add in those weekend activities, and the rosters should stay higher with a good influx to at least offset those that leave if not grow the unit.

Use that 1.5 hours of AE by combining it with the weekend activity, and have a field trip. Now you've freed up that 1.5 hours from the meeting and covered one of your AEX fulfillments. Fill it with a practical activity to enforce what they've learned elsewhere.

It's not easy to plan, but it can be easy to sustain if you get into the rhythm of things. I aim to meet those minimum training hours, but I do it in my own style by employing my cadet staff and training them to be a staff that can coordinate and function without me running every activity.

This is one of those moments when I look back at some of the training classes I've had, and like discussed in another thread, a lot of that really wasn't "taught" in those classes. There was a lot of "this is what cadets feel; they're teenagers," and not a lot of "here's how to run a quality cadet unit." I made the point earlier on this board that a lot of what you need to know is right there in the regulations, and it goes a long way to actually read. Now you just need some hand-holding to help guide you.

Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,833

« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2017, 06:01:31 PM »

The issue with RRLA is that it's just not a reasonable expectation for the majority of squadrons.
Sure there may be random places it's getting done, but the average metropolitan school system is not going
to allow 3+ hours of time to CAP, or anyone else.

These days just about every hour is accounted for as curriculum time against some mandated
classwork that they need for funding, accreditation, etc., etc. Throw in a snow day or two and
the whole schedule goes sideways.

There's also the non-trivial issue of most people having jobs that occur during school hours.

RRLA should be a wing-level activity being coordinated at the school-board level with support of the
NEA or similar so that CAP is on the table or even on the call sheet, and the plans need to be 2-3
school years out.

A lot of schools >need< resources and materials, and this isn't a bad fit, probably, but between the
politics of "THE MINI-EICHMANNS FROM THUH R-ME COMING IN AN BRAINWURSHIN' MAH KIDS...", to the practical
reality of executing it, RRLA is not something the average squadron is going to even take a stab at.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,075
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2017, 06:36:03 PM »

I inquired with some teacher friends regarding RRLA. Best they said I could get was a class period -45 mins. It would have to be an out of school weekend activity to make it work.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
CAP Talk  |  Cadet Programs  |  Cadet Programs Management & Activities  |  Topic: QCUA Streamers
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.481 seconds with 20 queries.