CD Sessions & Approved Presenters

[Fubar]

I saw this post in another thread and I didn't want to hijack the discussion:

Though I appreciate the intent, the CAPR 265-1requires all CDIs and Chaplains to use the material approved by the Chief.  This protects both the one who presents as well as the corporation.  I would suggest that the poster finds a published lesson that fits this situation....or writes a lesson based on this situation and gets it approved for use.

What's the point of limiting who can present CD sessions when the content is so strictly controlled? There is nothing that I can see about being a CDI or Chaplain that makes them more qualified to take a lesson from CAPP 265-2 and present it to the cadets than anybody else.

I get the limitation to only approved materials, it keeps everyone on the same page and protects the corporation from an overly enthused member tackling touchy subjects. But being limited eliminates the need for any kind of special person to present the information.

I've seen this issue come up on SUIs, either squadrons don't have anyone but the CC to lead the discussions or CDIs/Chaplains who deviate from the lesson plans. Eliminating who can present pre-packaged topics would solve one of those problems.

Just a random thought.

[Spam]

If by your last sentence, you mean "widening" who can lead discussions on pre-packaged topics, I completely agree. My (approved) CDI has been inactive dealing with an ill parent for three months, and I've been filling in, but for one month where I delegated to one officer, a former commander himself.

No need for "approved" CDIs, if the material is standard, as it probably should be.

Agreed!
Spam

[Fubar]

Hmm, that last sentence didn't come out right. Eliminating restrictions was what I intended, not killing off all our CDIs and chaplains 

[jeders]

As a commander, I've honestly never understood why we restrict who can present CD classes.

[Майор Хаткевич]

As a commander, I've honestly never understood why we restrict who can present CD classes.

Because the Chaplain corps wanted to control Moral Leadership, and thus demanded they have absolute ownership of it. Things have been changing, albeit slowly.

[Chappie]

A bit of history (grab a cup of coffee...it may come in handy)

The CAP Chaplain Corps was established in 1950.

The Character Development program had its beginnings in 1954 when the CAP National Air Chaplain - Ch, Lt Col Robert Preston Taylor (in those days, an activing USAF Chaplain oversaw the CAP Chaplain Service which continued to 2001/2002 - renamed National Staff Chaplain) implemented moral leadership discussion materials that were extracted from "Character Guidance Topics" provided by the Chief of the USAF Chaplains.

In 1959, the "Character and Citizenship" manual was revised and reprinted. This document was replaced in 1969 with the Moral Leadership Syllabus.

In 1972, "Values for Living", Part 1 was first published.  The Air Reserve Personnael Center assigned five USAF reserve Chaplains to CAP to write "Values for Living" curriculum.  In 1974, The Freedom Foundation awarded their Honor Award to CAP for the "Values for Living" publication.  The writing team was provided by the USAF Chaplain Corps until the mid '90s,  With budget cuts and the loss of the CAP-USAF National Staff Chaplain in 2001, the curriculum was in the hands of the CAP Chaplain Corps to produce.

Not sure, when the Moral Leadership Lesson became a mandated feature of the Cadet Program.  However, the Moral Leadership Officer position was established in 1995 to help facilitate the presentation of the Moral Leadership lessons to assure the all cadets received this required training.

In 2008, Moral Leadership was changed to Character Development --- and the Moral Leadership Officer became the Character Development Instructor.

Since my days as a squadron, wing and region chaplain (dating back to 1996) there have been various issues and concerns raised surrounding the whole area of Character Development and the Character Development Instructor.    And keep in mind that in 2005 the Chaplain Corps began being directed by a volunteer, having lost the CAP-USAF Chaplain billet in 2001/2002 and the Deputy Director of the Chaplain Service (paid NHQ position) in '07.   Those issues and concerns include and were not limited to:

1) Role and responsibility

2) Curriculum

3) Training

4) Appointment process

5) Squadron Coverage

The above areas have been the topic of discussion and have seen slight modifications since 1999.  However, in the past 5 years there has been great progress in addressing these concerns:

1)  The role and responsibility of the CDI has been clearly defined in both the CAPR 52-16 and the CAPR 265-1.

2)  Curriculum - made available on-line (archived issues of "Values for Living" and "Flight Time: Values for Living" as well as the most current issue with close to 70 lessons published).  In the works is a process where a lesson can be submitted, reviewed for approval and immediately placed on the web-site.  That way a current situation/issue can be addressed.

3)  The 225 Specialty Track has been completely rewritten and was released earlier this year.

4) and 5)  The appointment process seemed to be more restrictive than it should resulting in the continued concern of lack of squadron coverage (Not only were commanders concerned about this...but many of the wing/region chaplains were as well).  It is the goal of the Chaplain Corps to assist the Squadron Commander -- whose responsibility it is to provide a Character Development program -- by having either a CDI or Chaplain assigned to each squadron.  In the past couple of years, significant progress in this year is taking place with the change in the rquirements of the CDI appointment (CAPR 265-1).   Each month since August of 2014 we are seeing no less than 5-6 CDIs receive appointments.  This past week, 8 appointments were announced.  13 appointments were announced in February.

Character Development is one for the four elements that comprises the Cadet Program.  It deserves and yes, demands the high quality of material and personnel to facilitate these sessions.   All to often, there were reports of Character Development being treated like a briefing ("Now you all just get along and play nicely with each other" - Character Development box checked); Character Development not being presented -- yet cadets receiving credit so they could advance in their phase (what does that say about our "Core Values"?); ill-prepared presentations by well-meaning individuals who just happened to be in wrong place at the wrong time and were (or maybe not) given the material with the instruction "Here, go teach the Character Development session tonight". 

I trust that info is helpful.   The Chaplain Corps is not trying to restrict those who can present CD classes...rather it is endeavoring to provide commanders with trained personnel who are committed to providing for and meeting the needs of the Cadets in fulfilling the Character Development element of their training.

[Chappie]

I saw this post in another thread and I didn't want to hijack the discussion:

Though I appreciate the intent, the CAPR 265-1requires all CDIs and Chaplains to use the material approved by the Chief.  This protects both the one who presents as well as the corporation.  I would suggest that the poster finds a published lesson that fits this situation....or writes a lesson based on this situation and gets it approved for use.

<snip>

I've seen this issue come up on SUIs, either squadrons don't have anyone but the CC to lead the discussions or CDIs/Chaplains who deviate from the lesson plans. Eliminating who can present pre-packaged topics would solve one of those problems. <snip>

It is a goal of the Chaplain Corps to see either a CDI or Chaplain assigned to EACH unit in CAP.   The newest edition of the CAPR 265-1 has taken great strides making changes to the CDI appointment to facilitate meeting this goal and providing unit commanders with either a CDI or Chaplain.   In my previous post I cited the number of new CDI appointments for February and March....as well as mentioning the average number since 2014 when the requirements were beginning to change.   

As for CDIs or Chaplains who deviate from the approved lesson plans....that needs to be brought to the attention of their supervising chaplain (Wing or Region Chaplain) so the issue can be addressed.   As a former Wing and Region Chaplain, I can attest to having a few administrative counseling sessions with Chaplain Corps personnel who "strayed from the path" 

[Chappie]

As a commander, I've honestly never understood why we restrict who can present CD classes.

Because the Chaplain corps wanted to control Moral Leadership, and thus demanded they have absolute ownership of it. Things have been changing, albeit slowly.

Please see the history in the preceding post.  There was no demand of absolute ownership....there would be no Moral Leadership/Character Development program for cadets had it not been for the 1st National Air (Staff) Chaplain introducing this element to CAP...and the subsequent additions/improvements to the original concept.   Things do move slow in CAP.  It was a big "power/learning curve" for the volunteers in the CAP Chaplain Corps to take over a program that had been administered by the CAP-USAF Chaplain for 50 years of our existence and by a Deputy Director for 3 years.   When the volunteer "Chief of the Chaplain Corps" was assigned the directorate, the major tasks/responsibilities went from 3 to 12 overnight.   That is a lot to be on someone's plate.   We are now 4 Chiefs into this transition...and it has taken a bit of time to get our "sea legs" but things are progressing

[Chappie]

Side note: a bio on the first National CAP Chaplain: http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/105393/chaplain-major-general-robert-p-taylor.aspx

[Mitchell 1969]

If by your last sentence, you mean "widening" who can lead discussions on pre-packaged topics, I completely agree. My (approved) CDI has been inactive dealing with an ill parent for three months, and I've been filling in, but for one month where I delegated to one officer, a former commander himself.

No need for "approved" CDIs, if the material is standard, as it probably should be.

Agreed!
Spam

I don't see the materials or the instructions as being the kind of things that can be picked up by someone and delivered cold. We've already progressed beyond the concept of requiring a chaplain to do character development. The requirements to be a CDI aren't onerous. There is value in having the CD delivered by someone with specific training in not only the materials, but in the peripherals.

We wouldn't tell a pilot to deliver a class on ground team methods unless GT qualified.  We wouldn't ask the chaplain to teach drill and ceremonies based on chaplain skills alone. Why think that the testing officer or aero ed officer could simply pick up a pamphlet and facilitate a CD session?

There is more to it than reading the scenario, presenting it, having a discussion and then wrapping it up with a resounding "Good talk, cadets, tickets punched." What happens if the session results in a cadet wanting to talk about it further? Where are the limits between CD and chaplain business, both practical limits and legal limits? If only there was a way to make sure that CD facilitators knew what to do...oh, yes. There is a way. Training and certification as a CDI!

The answer isn't in saying "Not enough of those guys, so let's let more people do their work." (Which is why we don't have barbers pulling teeth anymore). The answer is in getting more of those guys, specifically, CDIs.

[Eclipse]

I don't see the materials or the instructions as being the kind of things that can be picked up by someone and delivered cold.

Cold?  No.  After reading it?  Yes.  The topics are subjects which affect everyone, especially a parent or grandparent of cadet-aged kids.

We wouldn't tell a pilot to deliver a class on ground team methods unless GT qualified.  We wouldn't ask the chaplain to teach drill and ceremonies based on chaplain skills alone. Why think that the testing officer or aero ed officer could simply pick up a pamphlet and facilitate a CD session?

Because the AEO has likely and literally encountered the actual issues in the text himself, again and especially if he is a parent.  You can't compare things which are technical in nature to things which one generally acquires through life experience as an adult, not to mention the fact that this is supposed to be facilitation of discussion, not instruction.

Where are the limits between CD and chaplain business, both practical limits and legal limits? If only there was a way to make sure that CD facilitators knew what to do...oh, yes. There is a way. Training and certification as a CDI!

The question remains, "Why is CD continuing to be wrapped inside the Chaplain Corp's wheelhouse, when it is supposed to be a secular situation within Cadet Programs?"

Like it or not, religion is an increasingly divisive issue in this country, and a lot of people prefer to simply not make their beliefs known,
or even engage in the discussion, which should not preclude them from secular discussions of topics involving character, but as soon as
they see they need to be involved with the Chaplain Corps, they disengage.

As I have said before, I have been lucky in that, through random happenstance, some of the best Chaplains in CAP have helped me
in accomplishing CAP's mission, I've also had to deal with a couple who...didn't...As a general rule, clergy tend to be more inclined towards
listening and empathy by the nature of their vocation, but the same could be said for professional therapists and psychologists, not to mention
teachers, and hopefully the adult CP staff that are mentoring the cadets the majority of the time.

Why isn't CAP seeking those types of professionals instead of clergy, per se?  There is a regular thread of "recruiting Chaplains", but rarely is there
discussion of seeking out youth counselors, professionals in running NFP organizations, or other highly relevantly qualified individuals for this role.

[Fubar]

I don't see the materials or the instructions as being the kind of things that can be picked up by someone and delivered cold.

Agreed, but that holds true for any training materials that NHQ provides.

We wouldn't tell a pilot to deliver a class on ground team methods unless GT qualified.  We wouldn't ask the chaplain to teach drill and ceremonies based on chaplain skills alone. Why think that the testing officer or aero ed officer could simply pick up a pamphlet and facilitate a CD session?

Because there is nothing special to being a CDI? As noted, the process is extremely simple now. Have your CC bless you and pay one of your neighbors to write a letter saying something nice about you. Bam, you're a CDI! That's not exactly high-level training. In fact it's not training at all.

A process that has no real requirements is a process that's not needed.

[Mitchell 1969]

I don't see the materials or the instructions as being the kind of things that can be picked up by someone and delivered cold.

Cold?  No.  After reading it?  Yes.  The topics are subjects which affect everyone, especially a parent or grandparent of cadet-aged kids.

We wouldn't tell a pilot to deliver a class on ground team methods unless GT qualified.  We wouldn't ask the chaplain to teach drill and ceremonies based on chaplain skills alone. Why think that the testing officer or aero ed officer could simply pick up a pamphlet and facilitate a CD session?

Because the AEO has likely and literally encountered the actual issues in the text himself, again and especially if he is a parent.  You can't compare things which are technical in nature to things which one generally acquires through life experience as an adult, not to mention the fact that this is supposed to be facilitation of discussion, not instruction.

Where are the limits between CD and chaplain business, both practical limits and legal limits? If only there was a way to make sure that CD facilitators knew what to do...oh, yes. There is a way. Training and certification as a CDI!

The question remains, "Why is CD continuing to be wrapped inside the Chaplain Corp's wheelhouse, when it is supposed to be a secular situation within Cadet Programs?"

Like it or not, religion is an increasingly divisive issue in this country, and a lot of people prefer to simply not make their beliefs known,
or even engage in the discussion, which should not preclude them from secular discussions of topics involving character, but as soon as
they see they need to be involved with the Chaplain Corps, they disengage.

As I have said before, I have been lucky in that, through random happenstance, some of the best Chaplains in CAP have helped me
in accomplishing CAP's mission, I've also had to deal with a couple who...didn't...As a general rule, clergy tend to be more inclined towards
listening and empathy by the nature of their vocation, but the same could be said for professional therapists and psychologists.

Why aren't we seeking those types of professionals instead of clergy, per se?

So, what are we actually talking about? Is it that there is no need for training or certification to deliver the CD product? Or is it to an objection to CD being under the Chaplain Corps? I can't agree with the former. I don't see the problem with the latter.

Assuming that there is a need for CD, with trained CDIs or not, then what shop should be the OPR, if not the chaplains? Cadet Programs? Fine. But at what point in the CP PD progression could/should someone be qualified or allowed to deliver CD? Tech? Senior? Master?

Now it's getting complicated. I see justification for training and certification as a CDI. It doesn't have to be a backbreaking academic load, but it has to be enough to catch all of the crumbs and recognize all of the hot buttons and red flags, lest a CD session leave somebody worse off. Which shop serves as OPR isn't my issue, but the chaplains have done right by it as time has gone by.

[Mitchell 1969]

I don't see the materials or the instructions as being the kind of things that can be picked up by someone and delivered cold.

Agreed, but that holds true for any training materials that NHQ provides.

We wouldn't tell a pilot to deliver a class on ground team methods unless GT qualified.  We wouldn't ask the chaplain to teach drill and ceremonies based on chaplain skills alone. Why think that the testing officer or aero ed officer could simply pick up a pamphlet and facilitate a CD session?

Because there is nothing special to being a CDI? As noted, the process is extremely simple now. Have your CC bless you and pay one of your neighbors to write a letter saying something nice about you. Bam, you're a CDI! That's not exactly high-level training. In fact it's not training at all.

Not exactly in keeping with Core Values or good character development, either. And I don't even need to be a CDI to figure that out.

[Eclipse]

So, what are we actually talking about? Is it that there is no need for training or certification to deliver the CD product?

As it stands today?  Not really.  The topics are generally real-world, common situations with a clear "NHQ Stance", and the
facilitator is supposed to guide the discussion in the direction presented.  For every parent happy or unconcerned about having
a member of clergy as facilitator, there are usually a few who would just as well not (though none yet in my experience who
has pulled their cadet...yet).

Like anything else, the more training and experience the better, but the topics aren't rocket science (that's AE).

This is a typical CAP situation where the underlying thread is that only certain people are qualified to do a "thing", but
that stance does not hold up well against the practical reality of an organization that is hemorrhaging members and can't
compel anyone to a job they aren't interested in.

Absent a CDI and Chaplain, it falls to the CC, despite not necessarily having any training or knowledge in this regard and who
might well have been in CAP less time then the cadets he's "mentoring".  At a minimum it should be the discretion of the CC to delegate to
someone else, or others, in his absence. 

My CDC is at >least< as qualified as I am, even moreso as she was a cadet, to present anything in 265, and I can name
a number of other highly qualified members with relevent experience who should be allowed to facilitate but are currently
banned from doing so because they have no interest in being a CDI.

[Chappie]

<snip>
Because there is nothing special to being a CDI? As noted, the process is extremely simple now. Have your CC bless you and pay one of your neighbors to write a letter saying something nice about you. Bam, you're a CDI! That's not exactly high-level training. In fact it's not training at all.

A process that has no real requirements is a process that's not needed. <snip>

You forgot to include in the application process that the applicant needs to have completed the Training Leaders of Cadets course and the Basic Instructor Course....and once appointed begin the 225 Specialty Track. 

[Brit_in_CAP]

<snip>
Because there is nothing special to being a CDI? As noted, the process is extremely simple now. Have your CC bless you and pay one of your neighbors to write a letter saying something nice about you. Bam, you're a CDI! That's not exactly high-level training. In fact it's not training at all.

A process that has no real requirements is a process that's not needed. <snip>

You forgot to include in the application process that the applicant needs to have completed the Training Leaders of Cadets course and the Basic Instructor Course....and once appointed begin the 225 Specialty Track.

Indeed....personally, I think the former CDI track was far less useful than the new version, which does, IMHO, seek to produce CDIs of good quality and offers a proper track.  The selection process should screen out anyone who has taken the 'pay the neighbor' route.

Eclipse has an interesting point, I must admit.  Allowing the CC to delegate an occasional CD session to a suitable SM when a CDI / Chaplain isn't available *might* be better than requiring the CC to take the session - my own CC has taken a couple, and he breathed a huge sigh of relief when I was able to return from a work-enforced absence    Food for thought certainly.

[NC Hokie]

Eclipse has an interesting point, I must admit.  Allowing the CC to delegate an occasional CD session to a suitable SM when a CDI / Chaplain isn't available *might* be better than requiring the CC to take the session - my own CC has taken a couple, and he breathed a huge sigh of relief when I was able to return from a work-enforced absence    Food for thought certainly.

Extend that delegation prerogative to the squadron CDI or Chaplain and you have a way to evaluate prospective CDIs without making them jump through all of the hoops only to find out that they're not really cut out for leading a group discussion.

[Chappie]

As stated in a previous post...it is the Commander's responsibility to provide a CD program. In the absence of a CDI or Chaplain, the commander either facilitates or deletes another to facilitate the session. The goal of the Chaplain Corps is to assist the commander in fulfilling this responsibility by providing individuals who are committed, prepared and trained for this aspect of the cadet's training experience.  With the newer - less restrictive elements of the CDI application process (past: the recommendation letter from a religious leader/60 hours of academic work from an accredited institution <no standardization there--just 60 hours>; current: recommendation letter from someone in the community; CAP training - TLC and BIC <standardized>), there have been a significant amount of CDI appointments -- which is beneficial to commanders in that it takes another item of concern off his/her plate.   

[AirAux]

Chappie, you noted, " It is the goal of the Chaplain Corps to assist the Squadron Commander -- whose responsibility it is to provide a Character Development program -- by having either a CDI or Chaplain assigned to each squadron."  Exactly how many squadrons have a CDI or Chaplain assigned to them?  I have not seen the Chaplain Corps active in this area.  I have over 30 years in the program.  I wear many hats, several command positions.  I really do not want to have to pursue another training track in order to teach Moral Leadership/Character Development.