Proposed new CAPF 50

[SSgt Rudin]

The current CAPF 50 leaves a lot to be desired, I have yet to talk to a senior cadet leader or a senior member who feels the CAPF 50 is adequate. I have a program called NavFit98 on my computer, it is the program the Navy uses for evaluations. I printed off a copy of NAVPERS 1616/26(03-02) the evaluation form used for E1-E6 evaluations, and moved/changed things around for CAP. I think it is better than what we have now (well of course I made it  ) but I am the first to admit it is not perfect, so any advice anyone has is appreciated.

[DC]

I agree that the new Form 50s suck, what was wrong with the old ones in the first place? We still use those at my squadron, says at the bottom of the new ones that the previous edition may still be used so...

As for your form, looks pretty good, a tad long though, and not very much room for notes.

Also, in the signature blocks you have blocks for "Senior Rater" and "Reporting Senior" and the evaluated cadet. Are these to mean that only a SM can complete your proposed form? I have always felt that it is important for cadets to review the cadets under their command. I think it serves not only a benefit to the cadet being reviewed, but it also gives the cadet officer some experince with an admin task, and allows them to see exactly how the cadets under their command are performing. Kind of a reality check for the senior cadet. The new form has only the evaluator's signature, and the evaluated cadet's. The old one requires the evaluator, the evaluatee, and an approving commander (in my squadron usually the DCC signs there).

But again, what's wrong with the old version that can still be used?

[dwb]

Really?  I actually like the phase-appropriate CAPF 50 series we have now.  Used in conjunction with the leadership expectations chart in the 52-16, it provides meaningful feedback to the cadet.

Feedback forms that were adjusted for the phase of the cadet program were long overdue.  You shouldn't evaluate a C/A1C with the same generic criteria as a C/Maj.

[SSgt Rudin]

I agree that the new Form 50s suck, what was wrong with the old ones in the first place? We still use those at my squadron, says at the bottom of the new ones that the previous edition may still be used so...

As for your form, looks pretty good, a tad long though, and not very much room for notes.

Also, in the signature blocks you have blocks for "Senior Rater" and "Reporting Senior" and the evaluated cadet. Are these to mean that only a SM can complete your proposed form? I have always felt that it is important for cadets to review the cadets under their command. I think it serves not only a benefit to the cadet being reviewed, but it also gives the cadet officer some experince with an admin task, and allows them to see exactly how the cadets under their command are performing. Kind of a reality check for the senior cadet. The new form has only the evaluator's signature, and the evaluated cadet's. The old one requires the evaluator, the evaluatee, and an approving commander (in my squadron usually the DCC signs there).

But again, what's wrong with the old version that can still be used?

By senior, I meant the person senior to the rater, IE if the flight commander was the one completing the evaluation, the senior rater would be the C/CD or C/CC. But, I changed it and made some more room in the comments section.

Also it does seem long at first glance, but the performance trait boxes take up almost a page because they offer explanation on what justifies 1.0, 3.0, or 5.0.

[mikeylikey]

I attached what I have used locally in 2 SQD's.  I took it from a few Army ROTC Forms, and adapted it for CAP.

As for the form above, too much work.  Not enough space to write in stuff, and the response statement from the person evaluated should be on the form itself, not a separate piece of paper.  Too much chance of it being lost. 

[SSgt Rudin]

I attached what I have used locally in 2 SQD's.  I took it from a few Army ROTC Forms, and adapted it for CAP.

As for the form above, too much work.  Not enough space to write in stuff, and the response statement from the person evaluated should be on the form itself, not a separate piece of paper.  Too much chance of it being lost. 

what do E S and N stand for?

Also the purpose of having the cadet write their statement on a separate piece of paper is so they don't have to do it right then and there, they can go think about it, build up their evidence, and maybe calm down.

If you give them the form to write their statement on and turn back in then you run the risk of "what evaluation report? I don't remember you giving me that." because in all reality, who writes a statement when they get a good evaluation?

[DC]

I attached what I have used locally in 2 SQD's.  I took it from a few Army ROTC Forms, and adapted it for CAP.

As for the form above, too much work.  Not enough space to write in stuff, and the response statement from the person evaluated should be on the form itself, not a separate piece of paper.  Too much chance of it being lost. 

what do E S and N stand for?

Excellent, Satisfactory, Not Satisfactory?

[SSgt Rudin]

I attached what I have used locally in 2 SQD's.  I took it from a few Army ROTC Forms, and adapted it for CAP.

As for the form above, too much work.  Not enough space to write in stuff, and the response statement from the person evaluated should be on the form itself, not a separate piece of paper.  Too much chance of it being lost. 

what do E S and N stand for?

Excellent, Satisfactory, Not Satisfactory?

That was my guess, but wanted to make sure. My main gripe with the current CAPF 50's is the scale, they only give you 4 choices and the way I view them is:

Needs Improvement - You are horrible
Satisfactory - You are average
Very good - you are above average
Excellent - you are amazing

I feel you need at least 5, there has to be something between absolutely horrible and average. This is also why I don't think only having three works either then you are horrible, average, or amazing. Even if you preform just above average you are more likely to get average than amazing.

I feel like I need a graph of some sort to explain this how I see it in my head... 

EDIT: I made a graph 

[notaNCO forever]

I agree with needing five categories which is the main reason I like the old F50.

[mikeylikey]

I attached what I have used locally in 2 SQD's.  I took it from a few Army ROTC Forms, and adapted it for CAP.

As for the form above, too much work.  Not enough space to write in stuff, and the response statement from the person evaluated should be on the form itself, not a separate piece of paper.  Too much chance of it being lost. 

what do E S and N stand for?

Excellent, Satisfactory, Not Satisfactory?

Correct.