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.

[Chappie]

And on another note...I might add that training for Chaplain Corps personnel is no different than say ES, CP, AE training in that you take some one who comes into CAP with their education, life experience, interests, etc and put the CAP stamp/brand on them through the Professional Development program.  Paraphrase of a movie: "What kind of training?  CAP training, sir."  "That's the fact, Jack." 

[AirAux]

So, how many Squadron have been assigned Chaplains or CDI personnel by the Chaplain program??

[Eclipse]

In the absence of a CDI or Chaplain, the commander either facilitates or deletes delegates another to facilitate the session.

Where is there any allowance for delegation by the Commander?  It's Chaplain, CDI, or Commander per 265-1 & 52-16:

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R265_001_538BD6B239386.pdf Page 4, 4c
"c. Commanders will make character development instruction available during cadet
meetings per guidance in CAPR 52-16 paragraph 1-7 d."

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf  Page
"(b) Character Forums. Unit commanders will provide a character development program
for cadets, using the resources found at capmembers.com/character. A CAP chaplain or character
development instructor (CDI) will coordinate the program. In units without a chaplain or CDI, the
commander may temporarily lead character forums, but must endeavor to recruit a chaplain or CDI as soon
as possible. During character forums, cadets examine moral and ethical issues, but the forums are not
religious meetings. "

[Storm Chaser]

The new CAPR 265-1 removed the provision for commanders to temporarily conduct Character Development instruction while actively trying to recruit a chaplain or CDI. Interesting that CAPR 52-16 still has that provision.

Frankly, now that the requirements to become a CDI have been lessen, there's no reason why every unit can't have a properly appointed CDI.

[Chappie]

AirAux...first of all let me say "thank you" for years of service in CAP. We as an organization are indeed blessed with dedicated volunteers.  I was pastoring when I was recruited to be a CAP Chaplain 20 years ago.  However, it was my volunteer servvice as a Chaplain to a local law enforcement agency/fire department that drew the attention.  My recruiting chaplain spoke highly of the ES mission and how I could play a key part.  On my visit to the squadron, I was surprised to see kids dressed up in uniforms.  It was then I was briefed on Cadet Programs -- the four elements of their training.  And that is what convinced me to join.  Having a part in the development in the leadership skills and moral fabric of America's youth was a good thing to commit to.  So here I am 20 years later

As for the question regarding squadron coverage.  Here are the latest figures by region (Units with CDI or Chaplain/Number of Units/Percentage):

GLR:  92/204  45.10
MER:  75/143  52.45
NCR:  52/108  48.15
NER:  81/212  38.21
PCR:  86/168  51.19
RMR:  39/79   49.37
SER:  95/222  42.79
SWR:  77/172  44.77

It is not our intention to have you pursue another training track to add yet another hat or responsibility of leadership.  We are seeing that recent changes in the application/appointment process of the CDI has tapped into an existing resource within the local squadron.  As pointed out in a previous post, there has been a marked increase of CDI appointments within the past 18 months.

Stormchaser...the new CAPR 265-1 refers to the provision in the CAPR 52-16: Section 4.c. Commanders will make character development instruction available during cadet meetings per guidance in CAPR 52-16 paragraph 1-7.   So it's there   And it is true, with every cadet/composite squadron requiring at least 2 members having completed TLC, there is no reason why every unit in CAP can't have a properly appointed CDI.

Eclipse is correct that there is no mention of delegation as was in the past.  It is the Commander (since it is there responsibility to provide a CD program)...a CDI or a Chaplain.  This assures that CD is conducted in the manner it is intended to be.

[Paul Creed III]

The new CAPR 265-1 removed the provision for commanders to temporarily conduct Character Development instruction while actively trying to recruit a chaplain or CDI. Interesting that CAPR 52-16 still has that provision.

Frankly, now that the requirements to become a CDI have been lessen, there's no reason why every unit can't have a properly appointed CDI.

Now that TLC can be completed online via MDWG, folks that struggled with attending a weekend TLC (especially those folks who are busy on Saturdays or Sundays) can take care of that requirement and become a CDI faster.

[Eclipse]

We are seeing that recent changes in the application/appointment process of the CDI has tapped into an existing resource within the local squadron.  As pointed out in a previous post, there has been a marked increase of CDI appointments within the past 18 months.

I would hazard that this is due to people who were, up until the change, facilitating CDI already having to request appointment so they can continue.
CDCs, Leadership Officers, etc.   They were able to fill in with no issues in the past, now come CDI night, the Unit CC has to do it, best qualified or not.

Your statistics indicate that at least in excess of half of the units nationwide are in this situation - another extra duty for the unit CC.

Now that TLC can be completed online via MDWG, folks that struggled with attending a weekend TLC (especially those folks who are busy on Saturdays or Sundays) can take care of that requirement and become a CDI faster.

That's very nice for MDWG, but not much help to the other 51 wings.  Especially if you consider TLC as a local exercise in networking and
team building and not just a check box.

[Chappie]

Eclipse...having 50%-60% of our units without a CDI or Chaplain was/is a major concern.  It was not the lack of personnel which was the driving force in CD/CDI program...rather it was the concern of how CD was (or in many cases, wasn't) being conducted.  While it may look like the commander has an additional duty to perform in the present (should there not be a CDI or Chaplain currently assigned), there is a process in place that will benefit the unit down the road as personnel are recruited/appointed to fulfill this responsibility.  The change in the regulation regarding the CDI appointment is a major stride in making this happen.

As mentioned before there is a requirement for every cadet/composite squadron to have people who have completed TLC.  If those squadrons don't meet that requirement, are they in compliance to the regs??

The numbers of appointments over the past 18 months mentioned are NEW appointments.  Those who were already appointed did not go through the new process. Their appointments were already made and continued to be recognized.  It might be true that some may have been facilitating these sessions previously...who knows...I know of several who weren't ...the point is that the number of appointments of CDIs have increased and squadron coverage is improving.

[Paul Creed III]

Now that TLC can be completed online via MDWG, folks that struggled with attending a weekend TLC (especially those folks who are busy on Saturdays or Sundays) can take care of that requirement and become a CDI faster.

That's very nice for MDWG, but not much help to the other 51 wings.  Especially if you consider TLC as a local exercise in networking and
team building and not just a check box.

Actually, the online TLC from MDWG is open to other wings; I had one senior complete the course through MDWG who said that it was a great course with lots of networking.

[AirAux]

One of the problems we have come across is the 2 year or 60 college credit requirement.  This is an unusual requirement for CAP members.  I have had a couple of people that were interested and were lay speakers in their congregations, but did not have the requisite college experience.  I had a high school graduate Mother of 4 that would have been a good fit, but?? 

[Chappie]

One of the problems we have come across is the 2 year or 60 college credit requirement.  This is an unusual requirement for CAP members.  I have had a couple of people that were interested and were lay speakers in their congregations, but did not have the requisite college experience.  I had a high school graduate Mother of 4 that would have been a good fit, but??

AirAux....couldn't agree with you more. That is exactly why the new CAPR 265-1 addresed that issue and changed that requirement to having completed both the Training Leaders of Cadets course and Basic Instructor Course.   The individual (s) you were referring to would certainly now be ideal candidates for becoming a CDI.

[Майор Хаткевич]

To be honest, we have a chaplain, and a CDI-in the works at our unit. I'm glad that someone else can facilitate instead of me.

What does Grind-My-Gears(TM), is the little mandate that came out of nowhere on E-services.

Before, in multi-entry, I picked a date, it auto populated, and I clicked the cadets who participated in CD. Then at some point, I go in to do that, and lo and behold, I've got two more selections to make! Now I have to pick the instructor (and not just from my unit list, but from the wing list! Fun!), and the Lesson type (Wingman Course,  Flight time, MoH, None of the above - what?). Here's the kicker. I get to pick the date, and it auto-populates. But when I need to select the Instructor/Lesson, I have to do it manually, for each cadet. This basically makes the multi-entry just marginally more usefull than manually checking each and every cadet.

I even get why NHQ/Chaplain Corps may want to know who's teaching, what, to how many, and how often. But then...why did this mandate fall on the Cadet Programs staff? Why aren't the Chaplains entering this info? Why couldn't they submit this information direct from their end, but leave the CP crews to click the boxes as before? I've submitted a ticked on E-Services, asking if it would be possible to add two drop boxes to I can pick 1 chaplain/CDI and 1 topic to auto-populate, but haven't heard back on that.

And for those interested, the ILWG list shows me 20 Chaplains - 2 GLR, 18 ILWG, 9 CDIs. IIRC, ILWG currently has 30-35 Units.

[Chappie]

<snip>
Before, in multi-entry, I picked a date, it auto populated, and I clicked the cadets who participated in CD. Then at some point, I go in to do that, and lo and behold, I've got two more selections to make! Now I have to pick the instructor (and not just from my unit list, but from the wing list! Fun!), and the Lesson type (Wingman Course,  Flight time, MoH, None of the above - what?). Here's the kicker. I get to pick the date, and it auto-populates. But when I need to select the Instructor/Lesson, I have to do it manually, for each cadet. This basically makes the multi-entry just marginally more usefull than manually checking each and every cadet.

I even get why NHQ/Chaplain Corps may want to know who's teaching, what, to how many, and how often. But then...why did this mandate fall on the Cadet Programs staff? Why aren't the Chaplains entering this info? Why couldn't they submit this information direct from their end, but leave the CP crews to click the boxes as before? I've submitted a ticked on E-Services, asking if it would be possible to add two drop boxes to I can pick 1 chaplain/CDI and 1 topic to auto-populate, but haven't heard back on that. <snip>

Chaplain Corps personnel can only input the above data for the units they are assigned to.   We are trying to work out the "bugs" with IT for those CDIs and Chaplains who are assigned to one unit yet facilitate CD sessions in neighboring squadrons -- and in a couple of situations -- wings.

[Eclipse]

Why aren't the Chaplains entering this info? Why couldn't they submit this information direct from their end,

Mine does - did it last week.  I had been doing it and felt like I was usurping his duties so I emailed him the list from the
last session and he mass entered them.  I'm pretty sure my CDC was able to do it as well and she isn't a CDI.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Why aren't the Chaplains entering this info? Why couldn't they submit this information direct from their end,

Mine does - did it last week.  I had been doing it and felt like I was usurping his duties so I emailed him the list from the
last session and he mass entered them.  I'm pretty sure my CDC was able to do it as well and she isn't a CDI.

Well, I am the CDC, so yea, obviously I can enter this info. I am not aware that Chaplains have access to the cadet promotions module, and it still doesn't quite make sense that with multi entry they added extra fields that aren't...multi-entry.

[Eclipse]

I am not aware that Chaplains have access to the cadet promotions module, and it still doesn't quite make sense that with multi entry they added extra fields that aren't...multi-entry.

Chaplains are granted data entry permissions in the Cadet Programs module through duty position.

[AirAux]

Chappie, I just passed my Basic Instructor exam, so I will get my recommendation and send my application in for CDI.  thanks for the help!!

[Chappie]

Chappie, I just passed my Basic Instructor exam, so I will get my recommendation and send my application in for CDI.  thanks for the help!!

Outstanding!!!

[Майор Хаткевич]

I am not aware that Chaplains have access to the cadet promotions module, and it still doesn't quite make sense that with multi entry they added extra fields that aren't...multi-entry.

Chaplains are granted data entry permissions in the Cadet Programs module through duty position.

Add that to the list of "would be nice to know as a CP guy".

[Brit_in_CAP]

Chappie, I just passed my Basic Instructor exam, so I will get my recommendation and send my application in for CDI.  thanks for the help!!

Good job!  I'll look forward to seeing your appointment identification!

[Fubar]

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.

Sorry, I was attempting to use humor to underscore my point.

[Fubar]

<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.

That is a good point, but the training isn't specific to being a CDI. Perhaps add BIC to the CP senior rating and all senior rated CP are authorized to lead a CD discussion. Or even just complete TLC and BIC regardless and with CC approval, you're good to go.

As I mentioned in another thread, we need to eliminate hoops in this organization, this seems like an easy one.

This also solves the problem of enrolling folks into a speciality track they may not be interested in. On the cover of the 225 pamphlet has this in big letters:

God does not call the qualified, he qualifies the called.

Bam, I'm already out. I'm enrolled, but I won't be participating nor advancing (which isn't required). So again, if I want to do is lead CD discussions, why is there so much associated baggage with it? I mean, to be blessed (pardon the pun) to facilitate a CD discussion, why should I be asked to also do this:

Provide non-clergy support to assist chaplains in providing ministry to the CAP community. These duties may include, providing administrative or logistical support at an activity, acquiring/performing musical accompaniment for services, visiting sick, injured, elderly and home-bound members, providing non-denominational prayers, or other duties.

Noble objectives to be sure, but I'm not looking to be a chaplain-lite.

I underestand and appreciate Moral Leadership started thanks to the chaplain corps. It is time however to move CD under cadet programs and have requirements that pertain to CP be the path to being qualified to lead a CD discussion.

[Chappie]

<snip>.... why should I be asked to also do this:

Provide non-clergy support to assist chaplains in providing ministry to the CAP community. These duties may include, providing administrative or logistical support at an activity, acquiring/performing musical accompaniment for services, visiting sick, injured, elderly and home-bound members, providing non-denominational prayers, or other duties.

Noble objectives to be sure, but I'm not looking to be a chaplain-lite. <snip>

No one is mandating that a CDI be a "chaplain-lite".  Please note the word "may" and not "shall".  This item simply provides the latitude for a CDI to perform such responsibilities if they choose to. There are many CDIs who want to be involved in these areas...there are others who desire to limit their responsibility to facilitate CD sessions.   Like all members of members of CAP, CDIs should have the opportunity to grow personally and professionally. 

[Fubar]

This part isn't may or should:

Provide non-clergy support to assist chaplains in providing ministry to the CAP community.

There's no way I'm assisting anybody, chaplain or otherwise, in providing ministry to the CAP community. It's something I simply cannot and will not do. Now the second sentence you quoted does seem to attempt to backtrack a bit from the first by trying to define "providing ministry" with a bunch of may be this or that. But it's all framed under "providing ministry" and that's religious and not appropriate for me to be anywhere near that type of mission statement.

So, again, why do I need to be providing non-clergy support to assist chaplains in providing ministry to the CAP community when all I want to do is be the adult facilitator of a cadet CD discussion.

The roles and responsibilities of the CDI is broken down into two areas of responsibilities:

• Assist the chaplain
• Conduct CD discussions for the cadet program

I'm simply saying the two are not related and life would be easier for cadet programs if the second responsibility was given to cadet programs officers who meet certain requirements (as previously discussed). It would also be easier for members who want to focus on the first responsibility to shed something they don't have interest in. Best of both worlds: folks who want to do both can, folks that don't pick one or the other.

Lastly, I know tone is hard to pick up on the internet sometimes. I hope everyone is receiving this in the respectful tone that is intended.

[Brit_in_CAP]

Lastly, I know tone is hard to pick up on the internet sometimes. I hope everyone is receiving this in the respectful tone that is intended.

Good point, and I'm certainly getting the 'positive vibe'.

I may have more on your observations later today but I'm going to take some time to think about that.  Good discussion, I have to say!

[Chappie]

This part isn't may or should:

Provide non-clergy support to assist chaplains in providing ministry to the CAP community.

There's no way I'm assisting anybody, chaplain or otherwise, in providing ministry to the CAP community. It's something I simply cannot and will not do. Now the second sentence you quoted does seem to attempt to backtrack a bit from the first by trying to define "providing ministry" with a bunch of may be this or that. But it's all framed under "providing ministry" and that's religious and not appropriate for me to be anywhere near that type of mission statement.

So, again, why do I need to be providing non-clergy support to assist chaplains in providing ministry to the CAP community when all I want to do is be the adult facilitator of a cadet CD discussion.

The roles and responsibilities of the CDI is broken down into two areas of responsibilities:

• Assist the chaplain
• Conduct CD discussions for the cadet program

I'm simply saying the two are not related and life would be easier for cadet programs if the second responsibility was given to cadet programs officers who meet certain requirements (as previously discussed). It would also be easier for members who want to focus on the first responsibility to shed something they don't have interest in. Best of both worlds: folks who want to do both can, folks that don't pick one or the other.

Lastly, I know tone is hard to pick up on the internet sometimes. I hope everyone is receiving this in the respectful tone that is intended.

First off...I have no issues whatsoever in the tone of your posting.  To be able to interact this way is a good thing.  The Chaplain Corps endeavors to be responsive to the membership...hence many of the sweeping changes that have occurred in recent years.  I can honestly (and joyfully) say that this is not the same Chaplain Corps that I first saw in 1996.   Change does come slow in any organization...but it happens

In reviewing the CAPR 5-4 Publications and Forms Management (13 Jan 15), there are a couple of items that I would like to highlight:

1.Definitions

c. "May" indicates an acceptable or suggested means of accomplishment [nondirective].

i. "Pamphlets" are nondirective, informative, "how-to" type publications that may include suggested methods and techniques for implementing CAP policies.

l. "Regulations" announce policies, direct actions and prescribe standards.

The responsibility of the CDI to teach Character Development is set forth in the following regulations: CAPR 52-16 and CAPR 265-1.

The concern that you have raised is found in the pamphlet and not the regulation.  The pamphlet contains non-directive, suggested methods.  The "assisting the chaplain" is one.  As posted previously, no one is mandating that a CDI be a "chaplain lite".  This provision in the pamphlet gives latitude to those CDIs who desire to take on those type of tasks to do so.  Keep in mind that we have a diversity of members within CAP and within its Chaplain Corps.  There are several CDIs who are either clergy who do not meet the criteria for a Chaplain appointment and lay leaders within their local congregations  who want to do more.  This provides them that opportunity.  If a CDI chooses not to, that is their decision. No harm-no foul.

What I appreciate about CAP is the breadth of opportunities one can delve into the area of Professional Development (21 specialty tracks - I have a Master rating in 3: Cadet Programs; Chaplain; Professional Development; Wilson - #2XXX) and ES (a boat-load of ratings there - hold a Mission Chaplain and Mission Staff Assistant rating).  One can select what area interests them and pursue it.  Providing opportunities to serve our members is vital.  For too long within the Chaplain Corps many of our CDIs felt their hands were tied and they were restricted as to what they could and couldn't do. So that item was included in the pamphlet.   Not everyone in CAP is going to be a historian, testing officer, observer, incident commander, aerospace officer, deputy commander for cadets, finance officer,  wing commander, or a Character Development Instructor.  But every member should have the opportunity to serve where they find a good "fit".

And it is truly a privilege to be able to serve with you in CAP.

[Brit_in_CAP]

The concern that you have raised is found in the pamphlet and not the regulation.  The pamphlet contains non-directive, suggested methods.  The "assisting the chaplain" is one.  As posted previously, no one is mandating that a CDI be a "chaplain lite".  This provision in the pamphlet gives latitude to those CDIs who desire to take on those type of tasks to do so.  Keep in mind that we have a diversity of members within CAP and within its Chaplain Corps.  There are several CDIs who are either clergy who do not meet the criteria for a Chaplain appointment and lay leaders within their local congregations  who want to do more.  This provides them that opportunity.  If a CDI chooses not to, that is their decision. No harm-no foul.

Initially I was of the opinion that the revision didn't allow for proper support to the chaplain, and then I became concerned that the revision mandated such support even if you weren't a CDI desiring to do so.  On balance, and after reading the documents thoroughly, it all works, IMHO.  I am a lay speaker in my denomination, and I decided to remain as a CDI once the revision was complete as it made the track meaningful.  I was also pleased to see that a religious endorsement was no longer mandatory - I know of at least one CAP member who is a committed member of their faith group but who didn't want to seek such endorsement.  With some coaxing we may yet get another CDI as a result.

What I appreciate about CAP is the breadth of opportunities one can delve into the area of Professional Development (21 specialty tracks - I have a Master rating in 3: Cadet Programs; Chaplain; Professional Development; Wilson - #2XXX) and ES (a boat-load of ratings there - hold a Mission Chaplain and Mission Staff Assistant rating).  One can select what area interests them and pursue it.  Providing opportunities to serve our members is vital.  For too long within the Chaplain Corps many of our CDIs felt their hands were tied and they were restricted as to what they could and couldn't do. So that item was included in the pamphlet.   Not everyone in CAP is going to be a historian, testing officer, observer, incident commander, aerospace officer, deputy commander for cadets, finance officer,  wing commander, or a Character Development Instructor.  But every member should have the opportunity to serve where they find a good "fit".

My feelings exactly - to serve is the honor and it matters only that we do so to the best of abilities that we have.  All contributions accepted!

Personally, I'm committed to making the role a success, and I think it will be.

[Fubar]

The concern that you have raised is found in the pamphlet and not the regulation.  The pamphlet contains non-directive, suggested methods.

I completely understand what you're saying here, and this is an issue that extends far beyond being a CDI or cadet programs. We have regulations that say pamphlets are not regulatory, yet you have to follow the pamphlets in order to advance in a speciality track. So it's not required, because it's not in a regulation, but it is required because your leadership expects you to advance.

But I don't want to derail the conversation here (especially since it's been so productive). The chaplain service is by definition religious. The character development sessions are by definition not religious, so having a requirement that one must be a member of the religious chaplain service in order to facilitate non-religious character development sessions does not compute for me. What we can do is make life easier for everyone and remove the chaplain/CDI restriction and move the requirements in-house to cadet programs where we already have qualified personnel. Less paperwork, less admin, less headaches.

If there are enough people who aren't chaplains who still feel very strongly about supporting them as a duty position, then by all means keep all the requirements for a CDI that aren't related to giving CD sessions and move them to a speciality track called chaplain assistant or something. I certainly don't want to take away any opportunities for people to serve in CAP in a way that is meaningful to them. Plus, provided those chaplain assistants meet the cadet programs requirements to lead CD discussions, they can do that too!

I still see it as a win/win, although admittedly it doesn't completely solve the issue with qualified CD facilitators. I'm sure there are plenty of smaller squadrons who don't have a senior rated CP member.

[Chappie]

Fubar....Appreciate your observations and input.  Knowing that you don't want to derail the conversation...I will not engage and will withhold my comments and thoughts

[Fubar]

By derail, I meant into a patented Captalk rabbit hole™ about pamphlets vs regulations. I'm still interested in the cost/benefit analysis of moving the qualification of senior members who can facilitate CD discussions from HC to CP and making the process streamlined while reducing administrative requirements.

[lordmonar]

By derail, I meant into a patented Captalk rabbit hole™ about pamphlets vs regulations. I'm still interested in the cost/benefit analysis of moving the qualification of senior members who can facilitate CD discussions from HC to CP and making the process streamlined while reducing administrative requirements.

Baby steps.

When CD was ML....it was the baby of HC....and MLO's were considered demi-chaplains and were de=facto chaplain assistance officers.
CP and HC fought over them for years.   Getting HC to change the name was a major step in the right direction.
Removing the religious affiliation requirements and the college study requirements is a giant step forward.

The next step is to get non-religious affiliated CP officers  into the CD positions and help crank that oyster open just a little bit.

I'm working on my application now. 

[LSThiker]

I'm working on my application now. 

I am putting serious consideration in doing so as well.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Lord, why does your last message reminds me of the Patton movie scene where Gen Bradley is just transferred to Gen Patton's staff in the desert scene? The scene where Gen Patton is just arriving to take command after the Kasserine battle?

[Chappie]

By derail, I meant into a patented Captalk rabbit hole™ about pamphlets vs regulations. I'm still interested in the cost/benefit analysis of moving the qualification of senior members who can facilitate CD discussions from HC to CP and making the process streamlined while reducing administrative requirements.

Baby steps.

When CD was ML....it was the baby of HC....and MLO's were considered demi-chaplains and were de=facto chaplain assistance officers.
CP and HC fought over them for years.   Getting HC to change the name was a major step in the right direction.
Removing the religious affiliation requirements and the college study requirements is a giant step forward.

The next step is to get non-religious affiliated CP officers  into the CD positions and help crank that oyster open just a little bit.

I'm working on my application now. 

I could say a lot here but it would just muddy the waters...but it has taken a while for the role/responsibility of the CDI to be defined/clarified, etc. and in the process there have been many misconceptions and perceptions which hopefully have been addressed in the regulation changes and the specialty track.

The name change came about in 2007 by the NEC -- not the HC  (thanks for giving us credit, though    ) -- to have the ML program reflect the name of CD used at the USAF academy (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/2007_Nov_NEC.pdf).    There was also an underlying reason as CAP was putting its program into the public schools --- and Moral Leadership...well...not a selling point.  Whereas Character Development had a better ring.

You will find, as a whole, that the majority of the Chaplain Corps personnel are accommodating and are working to improve our service to the membership of CAP in all areas.  There are a few areas where it is high visibility or under the microscope for the Chaplain Corps...but we are here to serve.

As mentioned in a previous post, the Chaplain Corps has undergone significant changes since 2005 -- though one thing hasn't changed and that is our commitment to provide Character Development to our cadets -- which is evident in the recent changes to the reg and the release of the 225 specialty track. 

[Brit_in_CAP]

This is an interesting discussion....as a minimum we seem to be on track to acquire 3 more CDIs with significant experience in CAP and a willingness to use that and their life experiences to provide quality CD sessions to our cadets....sounds like a winner to me! :clap:

The CAP Chaplain branch has undergone significant and much needed change in the past few years, and Chappie has been in the middle of that.  He and I have known each other for a while    and his commitment and drive impress me.  I hope he'll agree with me when I write that, in my opinion, the Chaplain branch of both the USAF and CAP will undergo further significant change over the next few years.  I think that's inevitable, and even desirable, as organizations that fail to change inevitably fail.  It doesn't happen instantly but a good start is, as we've seen here, when people of experience and skill make both available to our cadets in what has, in the past, been an underserved program.

(if Chappie doesn't agree, I'm sure he'll let me know.... )

What won't change, I hope, is our commitment to provide a quality CD program to our cadets.  Young people of their age *need* that space to discuss and challenge accepted ideas, and that is increasingly denied to them in other spheres.  Educators, in the broadest use of the word, are worried that challenging someone over their thinking will lead to complaints and the audience gets all upset when they are challenged to defend their thinking.  It all leads to a much poorer society in general.  Combined with the rest of CP, and the other opportunities that CAP offers, I think the CD program enhances the abilities of our youngsters greatly.  Hopefully, when they leave us for the wide and scary world, irrespective of what they do and where they do it, we'll have helped to equip them to lead lives of good quality that add values to their communities.  If even a handful of our former cadets start by putting "we" before 'me" we'll have scored a huge victory!

I may not have the best set of words here but I have run out of time so I'll 'post' at this point!  Happy Thursday all round!

[Chappie]

By derail, I meant into a patented Captalk rabbit hole™ about pamphlets vs regulations. I'm still interested in the cost/benefit analysis of moving the qualification of senior members who can facilitate CD discussions from HC to CP and making the process streamlined while reducing administrative requirements.

From my perspective:  the Chaplain Corps and the Cadet Programs have a very good working relationship and are working together to provide the best for our cadets in their personal and professional training.

[Ned]

From my perspective:  the Chaplain Corps and the Cadet Programs have a very good working relationship and are working together to provide the best for our cadets in their personal and professional training.

Wholeheartedly agree.

Ned Lee
National Cadet Programs Manager

[Brit_in_CAP]

By derail, I meant into a patented Captalk rabbit hole™ about pamphlets vs regulations. I'm still interested in the cost/benefit analysis of moving the qualification of senior members who can facilitate CD discussions from HC to CP and making the process streamlined while reducing administrative requirements.

From my perspective:  the Chaplain Corps and the Cadet Programs have a very good working relationship and are working together to provide the best for our cadets in their personal and professional training.

Absolutely!!  :clap: :clap: