CAP Talk

Scenario:
Cadet Snowflake is absent for several weeks and does not communicate. No attendance communicated. No performance in his duty position. The cadet shows up finally one day. "Sorry, I was grounded and had schoolwork. I promise I'll be around more." A few weeks go by, same issue. "Sorry, I had band practice." A few more weeks go by. Okay, time to drop Cadet Snowflake from his duty position. Randomly one day, he shows back up. Same gig. You've been there before. A disappearance for several weeks. Nothing. Hmmm, still not showing up. It's been two months. Contact mom. "Oh yeah, Snowflake will be back in a few weeks."

At what point do you just say, "Okay, enough?" The cadet really doesn't affect anything on the roster, other than his element leader contacting him each week for attendance, and, as always, no reply.

On one side, there's the attendance policy: You either show up and participate, or we start to initiate action to remove you from the roster. On the other side, what's the big deal, aside from bringing down performance numbers.

Obviously, as you may have guessed, this is an issue we face, not just with one cadet, but with several. On top of that, you have the parents who creep back in and become furious when you even suggest that there are consequences for not showing up. "I paid the membership fee. You have no right to say he can't come back when he wants to." 12 excuses later....

Our Wing does have a supplemental memo to the regulation that we do not 2B our members for such issues, but we notify Wing about it so they can transfer them and handle it from there. I guess the intent is to avoid "kicking out" people that end up returning and have to go back through the process of rejoining CAP; I dunno.

We're not out to anger anyone, nor create extra work. But at the same time, lightening the load wouldn't be too bad.

What's the general consensus on these issues from other units, just to get a vibe as to what goes on elsewhere in the community?

For cadets,  it's essential a "flip of the switch" up to 2 years later.

Hey,  I get it,  you're busy.

Up front we say "The Civil Air Patrol Cadet program is participatory.  You get out of it what you put in.  The cadet oath even says 'attend meetings regularly'. If you're a tourist or a dilettante, maybe this isn't the place for you."



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I've never had that level of difficulty here (nor heard of it). I suspect that part of the solution lies in managing expectations right from the start:

One tradition I started many years ago was having the new cadet sworn in (palm upward) by myself or my Deputy, during closing, with the unit at attention behind him/her and with his parents present (taking photos, sometimes). Hearing the words of the Cadet Oath spoken in front of witnesses, he/she/parents then hear me emphasize several aspects:
"attend unit meetings REGULARLY"
"participate ACTIVELY"
"advance my education and training RAPIDLY"
...etc, you get the picture.


Then, we introduce mutual accountability in our training flight slides, where we teach the GTM standard call down/call up task *(we require all new cadets to pass four ES tasks to earn their unit patch: hot wx safety, cold wx safety, actions on lost, and calldown, all of which are applicable to a wide range of CAP events). We couple that with my Commanders Guidance that 3 things are vastly more important than CAP: ones faith, ones family, and ones job/school, and that it is completely excusable (with request/notice) to focus on those priorities, as long as you let us know and are accountable.


Then we reinforce that accountability concept with mandated participation in a weekly calldown every SUN/MON night from flight staff, with consolidated reporting via Google docs.


Finally, the enforcement via progressive discipline. We do remove members from staff positions after a first verbal counseling, and then a formal review board (Form 50 documentation). Over the past couple of years of my current command tour, I think I've relieved several, mostly due to grades, a couple for disciplinary reasons/nonperformance. Almost all came back strong, and not one parent complained at all (actually, several thanked us).


I have never 2Bd a cadet for lack of attendance, although I've refused them participation in special activities (alone) when they were not upholding the core Cadet Oath (going so far as to contact NHQ/CP to pull them from an NCSA slot). In such cases, I've set a review board which imposed a requirement to resume and maintain active participation and progression before approving 'special' treatment or staff assignments (another e.g., I've twice suspended someone's GTM/GTL rating for cause, and later reinstated both with honor, point made).


Everything can be a teaching moment; at the present it sounds like they may be learning laissez faire participation!


V/r
Spam

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on March 23, 2017, 08:47:17 PM
What's the general consensus on these issues from other units, just to get a vibe as to what goes on elsewhere in the community?

I don't think you're going to find a "consensus" as such, as much due to the allergic reaction many CAP people have to uncomfortable conversations as
to their actual opinion in the matter.

Cadets are kids and will always have competing priorities and activities that conflict, not to mention external pressures from
parents, coaches, and the like.  Nothing says "best interest of the kids" like a coach who insists on "extra" practices that conflict with
holidays and special days cadets might want to "work" elsewhere like a parade.

Occasional absences, with notification and legitimate justification, are going to happen, no biggie,
especially if a cadet is generally progressing, participating, or at least trying, but cadets who treat CAP like a drop-in Rec Center
need to be counseled and usually separated.

The program itself is clear - cadets take an oath to participate and progress, NHQ views 3 missed meetings without justification as a factor for
considering termination for violating the oath in that regard, and 56 days with no promotion is where you begin to take notice in regards to progression
(so while not required or "scheduled", very handy barometers that require attention).  You can't have the latter without the former, as they are interdependent.

They drag down the QCUA and SOM numbers, incur administrative overhead and affect SUIs to no one's advantage, and they certainly
shouldn't be in any position of authority or responsibility, because that sends the decidedly wrong message, and means
"some other dude" has to pick up their slack, which is the exact opposite of the lessons CAP is about.

Unfortunately between inexperienced and negligent CC's, a lot of times the expectations are not properly set before they are even
allowed to join, and mom can legitimately make an issue of something that was never communicated. This is especially troubling
for everyone when a new, experienced CC is appointed and is not beholden to any agreements or compromises his predecessor might
have entertained.


"This CAP thing looks awesome...when do you meet?"

"Tuesdays and most third Saturdays, plus a week or two in the summer for larger activities."

"Well my son has band on Tuesdays, Church Service on Saturdays, and we go to Europe every year from May to August..."

"Unfortunately CAP probably won't be a fit for you as most units meet on Tuesdays, and the one in this wing that meets
on Fridays is 2 hours from your home."

"Friday is family night anyway."

"Alrighty, then come see us when your son's schedule opens up or changes."

"Discrimination!".

Same goes for seniors - there's a reason membership boards are required, and it's the fiduciary responsibility
of a CC to set the expectations properly as well as manage his roster appropriately.  I would have a real issue
with your Wing's supplement as it usurps one of the Unit CC's sacrosanct authorities, but if they are allowing
members to be xferred to 000, then from their it's their problem, so whatever.  The former unit CC would be under
no obligation to accept an absentee cadet back into the roster if they wake up one day and want to be in CAP again.

CAP isn't for everyone, especially every kid, and despite some parents' assertions to the contrary, kids can't do
"everything they want all the time", life is choice and that simple but important lesson is one of the things that CAP can
impart to it's members, even when it makes people sad.

I guess to be a bit more specific, without too many details:

A couple of our "offenders," if that's a way of putting it, are transfers from another unit, the same unit to be more factual. One transferred about two months before the other. Both have been in CAP more than two years, one progressing very slowly and the other one having advanced through the senior C/NCO grades (really, I can't say I know how). I know at their old unit, they were "offenders" as well with similar issues, but that unit was okay with it albeit griping behind the scenes.

I understand that both of these cadets' parents will "ground" them from CAP from time to time, whether due to behavior at home, school, or whatever may be the trigger. I can't say I'm a fan of that philosophy, but that's not my call.

Anyway, these were both not originally our cadets. We welcomed them as transfers; I somewhat expected this to happen knowing them from their former unit. With our new cadets, over the last year, we have done a much better job of stressing to the cadets and their parents that there is the expectation of participation, and those who don't participate will suffer because of it (whether in holding duty positions, promoting, or simply missing out on learning, not to mention the fun surprise activities that may pop up). It's the cadet's loss in most cases. I have seen far less issues from our newer cadets (2016 to present) than I have with, whom I call the "Legacy" cadets before we switched to the Great Start method. Far, far less issues with this.

But those who do have that longer history in CAP and have gotten away with this sort of issue---it's a lot of "that's not fair" from both the cadets and their parents. It's so much easier with an adult, say 40 years old, to go "Look, you volunteered; you signed up. Either show up or quit. We can't count on you to be here." It's tougher with cadets because they don't necessarily understand it at that age, not to make excuses, and their parents are often the reason for it. But still, it's hard to teach leadership and responsibility to someone who isn't there. At the core of the Cadet Program, it's a leadership program, not a hobby club.


We have had the "But Jimmy plays baseball on Thursdays." "Well, that's when our meeting is." "Can he participate on weekends?" "No." That's fairly easy. It's the ones that show up, and then do that sporadic hiatus thing. Four months later: "Oh, no! I'm coming back!" Mhmmm....

Whether it be a prospective cadet or senior member, becoming a member in CAP is a privilege and not a right.  As Nin rightly observes (and I think it is an universal principle that we all agree on), "You get out of it, what you put in".   The key words are "commitment" and "participatory".  On the front end, they should be told what is expected of them as a member and should meeting those expectations is a problem due to schedules or other commitments...well, CAP is not for you.  I have "encouraged" more than one member of the Chaplain Corps during my tenures as a Wing and Region Chaplain to find another venue of service if all they wanted to do is wear an uniform and show up for a squadron meeting or activity "whenever the Spirit moved them" or "encouraged" more than one prospective Chaplain or CDI to look for another place to serve in the community when it was apparent that expectations were not attainable.  Bottom Line: CAP is not for everybody.

IIRC, the regulations state that a school activity will be an acceptable absence.  Some cadets miss months due to sports or band, but then are active the rest of the time.  It is what it is..

Quote from: AirAux on March 24, 2017, 01:58:28 PM
IIRC, the regulations state that a school activity will be an acceptable absence.  Some cadets miss months due to sports or band, but then are active the rest of the time.  It is what it is..

Sure, and when a cadet comes to us and says "Hey, yeah, I have soccer on Thursdays from now till June.." we go "great, come back when you're done. Good luck, score some goals." or "I have a play that I'm in at school, so I'm going to miss the next 6 Thursdays.." "Super, Shakespeare, keep your element leader in the loop."

Quote from: AirAux on March 24, 2017, 01:58:28 PM
IIRC, the regulations state that a school activity will be an acceptable absence.  Some cadets miss months due to sports or band, but then are active the rest of the time.  It is what it is..

For many of the more motivated and dedicated cadets, CAP is not the only activity that they're involved in. Varsity sports, community theater, volunteer EMS/fire service are common among this group. Find ways to leverage their abilities at the same time allowing them to explore their interests and grow as productive citizens. Just because CAP didn't issue it, doesn't mean that it isn't a worthwhile endeavor. That being said, it is important that the cadets and their families communicate with the unit. I had an Earhart cadet that was just outstanding in every way. He was a qualified GTL, had a role in the wing level ES training activities and encampment, and was also a varsity athlete and lieutenant in his local EMS squad. We found ways to use him and encourage his "outside" activities. It made him a better cadet and took the uncertainty out of the mix when he had to miss meetings while he was competing or saving lives.

Quote from: AirAux on March 24, 2017, 01:58:28 PM
IIRC, the regulations state that a school activity will be an acceptable absence.  Some cadets miss months due to sports or band, but then are active the rest of the time.  It is what it is..

They also state that cadets are both required to participate, to notify in the event of absence, and that
those same school activities do not absolve other promotion requirements, a major one of which is
"active participation".

CAPR 52-16, Page 14.
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf
"a. Expectations of Cadets. Cadets are required to participate actively in their local unit if they are
to progress in the Cadet Program. Excessive, unexcused absences may be cause for termination from CAP
(see CAPR 35-3, Membership Termination). Any school-related activity is considered an excused absence.
Cadets are responsible for informing their leaders in advance."

No participation, no progression. No progression & no participation equals "on the bubble".

Yet some parents and cadets think it's perfectly acceptable to show up once a quarter to promote, and
that they should be appointed to important staff roles, even at major activities, simply based on
their check-box participation, and mainly because they are resume-building.

They can't march in a straight line, have no idea what leadership (or even followership) is, and
everyone else picks up their slack.

You want to really break a kid?  Punch his ticket through a diamond and then put him into a position of
authority over other cadets who actually did the work. Cadets are not dumb, they understand these lessons
better then anyone because they are in the middle of it. BTDT, it's not pretty for anyone involved.

CAP opportunities come with expectations.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2017, 02:30:49 PMYou want to really break a kid?  Punch his ticket through a diamond and then put him into a position of authority over other cadets who actually did the work.

On the other hand, this is a great life lesson about the harsh realities of adult life.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2017, 02:30:49 PM
CAP opportunities come with expectations.

They sure do, and a cadet who is not communicative with their squadron proactively is looking for problems.  There is an old saying; "If your interested, you make time".  Any member who just disappears for weeks at a time is not really interested in the program.  I'm not buying excuses.  CAP is a commitment, and there are expectations.  Help in achieving them should always be available, however we can't force it.  I have no problem with removing a cadet's membership if all "motivation" attempts fail...

I lean greatly to what Eclipse said, as well as FW, on the point regarding how those school activities and motivations interlink with their CAP participation requirements.

My issue with: "Any school-related activity is considered an excused absence." Okay, how long does that last for?

If you're in the school play this month, and next month you have band every week on our meeting night, and the three months after that sports, and the follow three months the sports of the next season, and then come and tell me during June that you have a family trip out of town.....at some point in here, you're no longer an active member of CAP. There needs to be a line drawn. 

If someone attends for 2 months and is absent for 10 months, are they still a CAP member? So long as they communicate their anticipated absence and keep their membership renewed. That seems to be very subjective. "Hey, I won't be here for the next 6 months." "Okay, no problem. Let us know when you return." After 6 months: "Hey, I won't be here for the next 4 months." Why are you still in CAP at that point? If you don't show up at the meeting for months at a time, and you don't participate in weekend activities (whether squadron-hosted, Wing-hosted, or National-level), and you don't communicate attendance, and then randomly one day say "I plan to come back; I've just been busy," where in there do you cut the loss and just bump them out?


To give another example here, we have a C/CMSgt on our roster who told us well in advance that he wanted to go on hiatus during the early 2017 months due to athletics. He was very active, and wanted to know what his role would be outside of the meeting. "I can participate online." We're not an online program; come on. We keep him in the loop on everything via email, and now and then he still communicates. We had an event one Monday evening; he showed up. We had an event one Saturday evening; he showed up. He can't make Thursdays; fair enough. Depending on how the team does through Spring, he may come back in May, he may come back in June. It is what it is. But when he comes back, I don't see why he can't return to an available duty position. I've had some of the senior cadets say, "He shouldn't get a duty position; he doesn't show up to meeting." I disagree. When he comes back, that's not an issue. He has no record of not participating. 

I have another C/CMSgt who doesn't communicate attendance. Every week, it's "he didn't respond to my email or return my call" from his Element Leader and Flight Sergeant. I know mom from when she was in CAP. We sort of became friends when she was in, but have more or less lost touch since she dropped her membership. Anyway, she straight up told me that her other sons have sports the same night. I asked her, "Is CAP not as important?" "That's right. I have to be there for their games." Fine. It's not my kid. "Is there any way to get him a ride? Dad? Grandma?" No, no, and no, of course. Yet her answer is still "He plans to come back eventually." And that's where this topic comes back into play. He's not the only one in a similar position, but that's a perfect example for this case.

A statement from our Wing memorandum on inactive members:
"Unit Commanders will make a list of members which have been inactive for a period of ninety (90) continuous days....." It goes on to talk about how they will be transferred to an inactive roster and out of the unit.

But that comes with a consequence:
"How dare you kick my son out!"

That statement is much easier responded to on a message board than it is when mom brings her son to the meeting and we have an awkward moment.

So on one end, I get pinged with "Our performance percentages are low because of inactive members," whether safety education, physical fitness, or what have you. On the other end, "We plan on coming back."

At this point, I've basically been told, "We'll do whatever you think we should do." Personally, I vote Gilligan off the island. But there's always that thought in the back of my head of "What if they start showing up again?" It's never happened before. We've 2B'd two cadets in the past for inactivity. Only one of them actually ended up falling off our roster (which was odd), before we realized that there was a Wing instruction specifically not to do that. One of those cadets, we actually ran into before her membership expired, and dad was all excited to start showing back up (they never did of course---it's been 6 months since we last saw them outside of CAP).

Our Group Commander is visiting soon; I'm essentially planning on putting it in his hands (he'll probably read this anyway). But for when we have those periods when he isn't visiting and this discussion isn't as convenient as that, it's a paradox. What to do, what to do.... I'm fine with ditching the cargo, until I get the phone call three days later, "Why did you kick my kid out?!"

Then your answer could be to play the Vicomte de Valmont: just cite policy. It is, after all, beyond your control.  :)


"But, my son was... but, but butbutbut..." - "Ma'am, CAP and Wing policy clearly direct us to remove nonparticipants to focus our scant volunteer time and effort on cadets who actually are regular, who are participating, and who make CAP their priority". Couple that with "We'd love to have your delightful child back with us, and would consider their application to transfer back into the unit after they demonstrate some consistent attendance for _______ weeks as a visitor, in order to show their commitment to the 'attend unit meetings regularly' element of the Cadet Oath which they swore upon joining".


The world is filled with people who nod and smile, say "Inshallah!" "some day soon!", or such, but who may have little to no intent to actually do as requested (or as they say). In many such cases, "Inshallah", or "I plan on coming back" are equivocal statements which allow the individual to put polite but potentially meaningless noises out of their mouth at you to gain a momentary advantage while persuading themselves that they're in the right. If you've ever dealt with manipulators (hey, go audit any 12 step program!!!) you can see real masters at this. You must preserve the program against the dilettantes, and the manipulators who are raising them, by being firm, and setting the limits that so many American citizens are not being raised to deal with.


So, just nod and smile right back, and tell them that you will be happy to reinstate/request a transfer back from the 000 unit for their dear little child when they've built a record of 90 days (or whatever) of consistent attendance as a visitor.


V/r
Spam

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on March 24, 2017, 11:14:45 PM
A statement from our Wing memorandum on inactive members:
"Unit Commanders will make a list of members which have been inactive for a period of ninety (90) continuous days....." It goes on to talk about how they will be transferred to an inactive roster and out of the unit.

I don't think I'm your Group CC, but I know I'm in your Wing. If you want to be technical, with the new regulations last year, that Memo is null and void. We currently don't have a supplement regarding that, only about awards and aircraft maintenance. What I suggest is to flat out call the cadet's parents and say if he doesn't start showing up, he'll get the 2b. That way, it doesn't come as a surprise. I'd also advise your Group CC just to be safe.

I know a lot of people are for 2b for cadets who are inactive but what does that really serve?  You now have a young person who will never come back.  I know some will talk about safety currency percentages but I'm more concerned about helping to make cadets better young adults than worrying about a number.  I understand that a cadet can reapply but how many do you think actually go through the trouble of reinstatement?  I think NHQ is dropping the ball here.  Even if the member isn't active, they are giving money to CAP.  If you kick them out then you have less money coming in.  Why would we want to reduce our limited revenue?

Quote from: kwe1009 on March 25, 2017, 05:15:46 PM
I know a lot of people are for 2b for cadets who are inactive but what does that really serve?  You now have a young person who will never come back.  I know some will talk about safety currency percentages but I'm more concerned about helping to make cadets better young adults than worrying about a number.  I understand that a cadet can reapply but how many do you think actually go through the trouble of reinstatement?  I think NHQ is dropping the ball here.  Even if the member isn't active, they are giving money to CAP.  If you kick them out then you have less money coming in.  Why would we want to reduce our limited revenue?

These cadets hurt metrics. O-flights within 180 days of joining? O-Flight percentages? WBA percentages? Encampment percentages? Have 30 on the roster, but only 15 show up?

It's not about the money. It's about expectations.

If a member, cadet or senior, contributes​ nothing to the organization and there are no consiquenses, what is motivation for the members who are there every week working their butts off?

How many cadets retain membership after 1 year and are inactive?  Do inactive cadets reduce morale in a squadron?  Do active members in a squadron pay "extra" when there are inactive cadets remaining on the roles?  The answers vary from squadron to squadron, and it is the commander's responsibility to determine when, and if a non participating cadet should go.  As had been said, there are no easy answers.  The cadet program develops individuals from followers to leaders.  Participation is mandatory.  Letting someone go because they won't or can't participate is part of that development.  Learning about the consequences of one's actions are all part of life.  Let's not worry about the few dollars lost. I would rather worry about developing a more active cadet corps and future adult leaders of our nation.

Quote from: Майор Хаткевич on March 25, 2017, 05:36:14 PM

Quote from: kwe1009 on March 25, 2017, 05:15:46 PM
I know a lot of people are for 2b for cadets who are inactive but what does that really serve?  You now have a young person who will never come back.  I know some will talk about safety currency percentages but I'm more concerned about helping to make cadets better young adults than worrying about a number.  I understand that a cadet can reapply but how many do you think actually go through the trouble of reinstatement?  I think NHQ is dropping the ball here.  Even if the member isn't active, they are giving money to CAP.  If you kick them out then you have less money coming in.  Why would we want to reduce our limited revenue?

These cadets hurt metrics. O-flights within 180 days of joining? O-Flight percentages? WBA percentages? Encampment percentages? Have 30 on the roster, but only 15 show up?

So what is more important, numbers or developing leaders?  Teenagers go through all sorts of changes and if we kick one out who is going through a time where they won't or can't participate we lose that person forever.  What is the gain to the overall program?  Having some percentages look good?  I'm more concerned about developing good young adults.  That is the metric that should matter.  I have had cadets stop showing up for one reason or another and then magically reappear after a year or more.  Some have went on to be very successful cadets and mentors to other.  If I would have simply 2b'd them then they wouldn't come back.

Quote from: kwe1009 on March 25, 2017, 07:01:42 PM
So what is more important, numbers or developing leaders?

Strawman - these are not mutually exclusive, and a good CC is responsible for both.

Absentee members are a detriment to the program across the board.  They break the metrics,
generate false numbers in things like "Reports to Congress", and give CC's a false sense of accomplishment
where none may exist.

CAP is not an "affinity club" or association like AARP or the AMA where the member's main value is a check to
allow for lobbying money.  It's supposed to be a service organization, either the member being served (cadets),
or serving (seniors).  Absentee members do neither.

We can argue metrics all day long and things like developing leaders etc.  At the end of the day the reality is if a cadet is not showing up and is not communicating what is going on then they are dead weight and should be transferred to a charter that will accommodate that or 2b them.  Harsh yes, opinion yes.  But at the end of the day part of developing leaders is teaching consequences for actions and accountability. 

How many of you would continue to employ someone who just upped and disappeared with no communication for a year or more?  By sheltering and coddling folks who are not showing up for the sake of developing is a lame excuse.  If they are not contributing and are just there then cut the dead weight. 

We have too much of the snowflake, self entitled generation who have no clue how to be responsible or accountable. 

Quote from: chuckmilam on March 24, 2017, 06:47:17 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2017, 02:30:49 PMYou want to really break a kid?  Punch his ticket through a diamond and then put him into a position of authority over other cadets who actually did the work.

On the other hand, this is a great life lesson about the harsh realities of adult life.

The USAF doesn't fund us to pencil whip cadets through to Mitchell. Attaining that milestone is supposed to mean something, which is why enlisted get an extra stripe when they graduate from BMT in the Army and Air Force.

Quote from: foo on March 26, 2017, 04:50:23 PM

Quote from: chuckmilam on March 24, 2017, 06:47:17 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2017, 02:30:49 PMYou want to really break a kid?  Punch his ticket through a diamond and then put him into a position of authority over other cadets who actually did the work.

On the other hand, this is a great life lesson about the harsh realities of adult life.

The USAF doesn't fund us to pencil whip cadets through to Mitchell. Attaining that milestone is supposed to mean something, which is why enlisted get an extra stripe when they graduate from BMT in the Army and Air Force.

Last I knew having your Mitchell granted E3 upon enlistment into the AF not at the end of BMT.

Quote from: abdsp51 on March 26, 2017, 05:57:30 PM

Quote from: foo on March 26, 2017, 04:50:23 PM

Quote from: chuckmilam on March 24, 2017, 06:47:17 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2017, 02:30:49 PMYou want to really break a kid?  Punch his ticket through a diamond and then put him into a position of authority over other cadets who actually did the work.

On the other hand, this is a great life lesson about the harsh realities of adult life.

The USAF doesn't fund us to pencil whip cadets through to Mitchell. Attaining that milestone is supposed to mean something, which is why enlisted get an extra stripe when they graduate from BMT in the Army and Air Force.

Last I knew having your Mitchell granted E3 upon enlistment into the AF not at the end of BMT.

That could be, but those are just details. Tell me how it contradicts the larger point being made.

Quote from: foo on March 26, 2017, 06:05:38 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on March 26, 2017, 05:57:30 PM

Quote from: foo on March 26, 2017, 04:50:23 PM

Quote from: chuckmilam on March 24, 2017, 06:47:17 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2017, 02:30:49 PMYou want to really break a kid?  Punch his ticket through a diamond and then put him into a position of authority over other cadets who actually did the work.

On the other hand, this is a great life lesson about the harsh realities of adult life.

The USAF doesn't fund us to pencil whip cadets through to Mitchell. Attaining that milestone is supposed to mean something, which is why enlisted get an extra stripe when they graduate from BMT in the Army and Air Force.

Last I knew having your Mitchell granted E3 upon enlistment into the AF not at the end of BMT.

That could be, but those are just details. Tell me how it contradicts the larger point being made.

The larger point was that those of us who do the work often get to work for those who didn't--and in fact have no idea how to do the job.  Did I mention I'm in IT? 

Quote from: Spam on March 25, 2017, 12:15:23 AM
The world is filled with people who nod and smile, say "Inshallah!"

I just have to say that the moment I read this, I laughed out loud.

Quote from: kcebnaes on March 25, 2017, 01:14:45 AM
I don't think I'm your Group CC, but I know I'm in your Wing. If you want to be technical, with the new regulations last year, that Memo is null and void. We currently don't have a supplement regarding that, only about awards and aircraft maintenance. What I suggest is to flat out call the cadet's parents and say if he doesn't start showing up, he'll get the 2b. That way, it doesn't come as a surprise. I'd also advise your Group CC just to be safe.

You are not, Sir. And I was not aware that this memo was nullified; neither are my counterparts in my unit. So, we'll definitely look into this. As far as we've discussed, informally, with personnel at Wing, the protocol is all over the place. One person says A, another says B. Not just on this subject, but in general. I do, definitely, intend to discuss this with the Group CC in the near future. Priority-wise, it's definitely not urgent. But thank you for the info.

Quote from: kwe1009 on March 25, 2017, 05:15:46 PM
I know a lot of people are for 2b for cadets who are inactive but what does that really serve?  You now have a young person who will never come back.  I know some will talk about safety currency percentages but I'm more concerned about helping to make cadets better young adults than worrying about a number.  I understand that a cadet can reapply but how many do you think actually go through the trouble of reinstatement?  I think NHQ is dropping the ball here.  Even if the member isn't active, they are giving money to CAP.  If you kick them out then you have less money coming in.  Why would we want to reduce our limited revenue?

I think this hits an important point that I constantly try to bring up with people. "Okay, I understand that we can just leave them on the roster, but their inactivity brings down our numbers." Yeah, and who cares? But like someone else mentioned, the metrics still look poorer than what they actually are. What is the percentage of those who participate in Safety Education? Well, this could be 50% on a roster, or 80% in actuality. I don't know if that looks poorly on the unit or not. I've never been someone who favored the numbers game or "paper members."

Terminating someone's membership, however, doesn't cause us to lose money if they don't renew. So I don't align with the logic there.

Quote from: FW on March 25, 2017, 05:45:19 PM
How many cadets retain membership after 1 year and are inactive?  Do inactive cadets reduce morale in a squadron?  Do active members in a squadron pay "extra" when there are inactive cadets remaining on the roles?  The answers vary from squadron to squadron, and it is the commander's responsibility to determine when, and if a non participating cadet should go.  As had been said, there are no easy answers.  The cadet program develops individuals from followers to leaders.  Participation is mandatory.  Letting someone go because they won't or can't participate is part of that development.  Learning about the consequences of one's actions are all part of life.  Let's not worry about the few dollars lost. I would rather worry about developing a more active cadet corps and future adult leaders of our nation.

Again, I'm not so sure it "costs more" to keep someone on. One thing I will say is that it can be difficult to judge participation in an event. If we decide to provide food, how much food do we need? 30 people or 15 people? Okay, so you have a sign-up roster. "Look, if you don't sign up, you don't eat." Yeah, because that works out if they still show up. "No, you don't get to eat." You know that doesn't go over well. But still, "We need 40 MREs." 30 people show up. Great. Something that will sit in the cabinet, take up space. "But it saves us money next time." Does it? What if we do the same thing next time?

Unless I completely missed the mark and this has something to do with the higher echelons and their funding.

On the side of morale, I do think it hurts morale. Losing someone from the roster hurts morale, too, though. Every time it happens, I think our Retention Officer goes into a coma like it was his fault. No, it wasn't. yes, we need to provide a fun program to retain members. No, we can't reach everyone and keep them; some will leave. It's inevitable.

Quote from: kwe1009 on March 25, 2017, 07:01:42 PM
I have had cadets stop showing up for one reason or another and then magically reappear after a year or more.  Some have went on to be very successful cadets and mentors to other.  If I would have simply 2b'd them then they wouldn't come back.

Wouldn't their membership be expired if they left anyway? Perhaps there's that brief period where they just never renewed in time and re-upped after a year and a week, but I haven't seen that from anyone who was absent for a year, only those late renewals who showed up regularly.


It seems like there's a majority lean toward "drop the dead weight" with a few still saying "don't act too quickly" without a defined timeline of when to actually act. Perhaps let them fall off the roster on their own?

So the regs say actively participate, use the 2B to terminate inactive members, yadda yadda. Apparently, my Wing supplement is void. Like I said initially, I'm really okay, myself, with just saying "Hey, this person hasn't been here in 3 months. We reached out to them. They didn't return calls. They didn't respond to emails. Don't give me that business about how busy you were. Bye."

My feeling is that if your kid was grounded, the kid should still tell someone. If mom or dad say "absolutely not," then mom or dad should inform someone. You don't show up to basketball practice, you're off the team. Why is this any different?

"That's not fair! What kind of leadership program kicks someone off the team?!"
"What kind of person calls their self a leader in training and doesn't show up?" That's a life lesson right there.

But still, there's a process for it. I'll just bring this discussion back to my own chain of command and see where it goes. Just wanted to have some more education on the subject before I started making my recommendations.

Quote from: abdsp51 on March 26, 2017, 05:57:30 PM

Quote from: foo on March 26, 2017, 04:50:23 PM

Quote from: chuckmilam on March 24, 2017, 06:47:17 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2017, 02:30:49 PMYou want to really break a kid?  Punch his ticket through a diamond and then put him into a position of authority over other cadets who actually did the work.

On the other hand, this is a great life lesson about the harsh realities of adult life.

The USAF doesn't fund us to pencil whip cadets through to Mitchell. Attaining that milestone is supposed to mean something, which is why enlisted get an extra stripe when they graduate from BMT in the Army and Air Force.

Last I knew having your Mitchell granted E3 upon enlistment into the AF not at the end of BMT.

You get paid as an E3, but you don't wear it until Graduation.

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on March 26, 2017, 08:05:41 PM
But still, there's a process for it. I'll just bring this discussion back to my own chain of command and see where it goes. Just wanted to have some more education on the subject before I started making my recommendations.

The Wing Supplement on Inactive Members has not been rescinded.

We'll discuss my expectations of the units under my command when I visit on Thursday.

Quote from: PHall on March 27, 2017, 12:08:36 AM

Quote from: abdsp51 on March 26, 2017, 05:57:30 PM

Quote from: foo on March 26, 2017, 04:50:23 PM

Quote from: chuckmilam on March 24, 2017, 06:47:17 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2017, 02:30:49 PMYou want to really break a kid?  Punch his ticket through a diamond and then put him into a position of authority over other cadets who actually did the work.

On the other hand, this is a great life lesson about the harsh realities of adult life.

The USAF doesn't fund us to pencil whip cadets through to Mitchell. Attaining that milestone is supposed to mean something, which is why enlisted get an extra stripe when they graduate from BMT in the Army and Air Force.

Last I knew having your Mitchell granted E3 upon enlistment into the AF not at the end of BMT.

You get paid as an E3, but you don't wear it until Graduation.

Hence your an E3 even in BMT...

Quote from: abdsp51 on March 27, 2017, 12:17:27 AM

Quote from: PHall on March 27, 2017, 12:08:36 AM

Quote from: abdsp51 on March 26, 2017, 05:57:30 PM

Quote from: foo on March 26, 2017, 04:50:23 PM

Quote from: chuckmilam on March 24, 2017, 06:47:17 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on March 24, 2017, 02:30:49 PMYou want to really break a kid?  Punch his ticket through a diamond and then put him into a position of authority over other cadets who actually did the work.

On the other hand, this is a great life lesson about the harsh realities of adult life.

The USAF doesn't fund us to pencil whip cadets through to Mitchell. Attaining that milestone is supposed to mean something, which is why enlisted get an extra stripe when they graduate from BMT in the Army and Air Force.

Last I knew having your Mitchell granted E3 upon enlistment into the AF not at the end of BMT.

You get paid as an E3, but you don't wear it until Graduation.

Hence your an E3 even in BMT...

At least in the way that counts most, on payday!!!

Quote from: Paul Creed III on March 27, 2017, 12:08:53 AM

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on March 26, 2017, 08:05:41 PM
But still, there's a process for it. I'll just bring this discussion back to my own chain of command and see where it goes. Just wanted to have some more education on the subject before I started making my recommendations.

The Wing Supplement on Inactive Members has not been rescinded.

We'll discuss my expectations of the units under my command when I visit on Thursday.

Appreciate it, Sir. Thank you.

It's interesting what some of the other Groups do---where I see some units with very large rosters and 50% of those members inactive for upwards of 9 months.

Do some units just find it too much work to track down inactive members and process them for removal/transfer, or do they just figure it's not worth the time? I mean that as a serious question, not a dig. I think Administration, Personnel, and Retention are three roles that a lot of people don't realize the amount of work that really goes into those positions, especially as a unit grows.

This ties in a lot with another thread someone initiated about "how things are" today versus the last couple of decades. The level of communication via technology has greatly increased through email, message boards, texting, as well as automated systems like eServices. But they don't always make the job easier because, at the end of the day, you're always dealing with people, not just automated machines.

Yeah I know the problem and I would just kick 'em out if it isnt a big deal. Parents will gruff but rules are rules Cadet Snowflake doesnt get special treatment.

"A failure to plan on your part doesnt constitute a emergency on mine"

Quote from: kwe1009 on March 25, 2017, 05:15:46 PM
I know a lot of people are for 2b for cadets who are inactive but what does that really serve?  You now have a young person who will never come back.  I know some will talk about safety currency percentages but I'm more concerned about helping to make cadets better young adults than worrying about a number.  I understand that a cadet can reapply but how many do you think actually go through the trouble of reinstatement?  I think NHQ is dropping the ball here.  Even if the member isn't active, they are giving money to CAP.  If you kick them out then you have less money coming in.  Why would we want to reduce our limited revenue?

If you see them as revenue streams you don't 2b them.  IF you think they should be living up to their oaths you do

Quote from: Alaric on May 04, 2017, 07:27:23 PM

Quote from: kwe1009 on March 25, 2017, 05:15:46 PM
I know a lot of people are for 2b for cadets who are inactive but what does that really serve?  You now have a young person who will never come back.  I know some will talk about safety currency percentages but I'm more concerned about helping to make cadets better young adults than worrying about a number.  I understand that a cadet can reapply but how many do you think actually go through the trouble of reinstatement?  I think NHQ is dropping the ball here.  Even if the member isn't active, they are giving money to CAP.  If you kick them out then you have less money coming in.  Why would we want to reduce our limited revenue?

If you see them as revenue streams you don't 2b them.  IF you think they should be living up to their oaths you do

I definitely don't see them as revenue streams.  I see cadets as young people who often get distracted by the world around them.  If we simply kick them out for not attending x number of meetings then how can we be a good influence and mentor to them?  I have had cadets who slipped out of the program for whatever reason and then came back in a few months and became great leaders.  If I would have 2b'd them I'm not sure if any would have gone through the process to reapply.   A Senior Member may be a different story.

If someone could explain to me how 2b'ing a cadet simply for not attending x number of meeting benefits CAP or the cadet, I would love to listen.  I understand safety currency, core values, and the cadet oath but we are talking about teenagers and they can be easily distracted.  Show we really punish them for that?  I would agree with not letting them renew a membership, but what is the point in terminating the membership? 

Wouldn't the better approach be to deny membership renewal for cadet and move Senior Members to patron status?

Quote from: kwe1009 on May 04, 2017, 07:39:16 PM

Quote from: Alaric on May 04, 2017, 07:27:23 PM

Quote from: kwe1009 on March 25, 2017, 05:15:46 PM
I know a lot of people are for 2b for cadets who are inactive but what does that really serve?  You now have a young person who will never come back.  I know some will talk about safety currency percentages but I'm more concerned about helping to make cadets better young adults than worrying about a number.  I understand that a cadet can reapply but how many do you think actually go through the trouble of reinstatement?  I think NHQ is dropping the ball here.  Even if the member isn't active, they are giving money to CAP.  If you kick them out then you have less money coming in.  Why would we want to reduce our limited revenue?

If you see them as revenue streams you don't 2b them.  IF you think they should be living up to their oaths you do

I definitely don't see them as revenue streams.  I see cadets as young people who often get distracted by the world around them.  If we simply kick them out for not attending x number of meetings then how can we be a good influence and mentor to them?  I have had cadets who slipped out of the program for whatever reason and then came back in a few months and became great leaders.  If I would have 2b'd them I'm not sure if any would have gone through the process to reapply.   A Senior Member may be a different story.

If someone could explain to me how 2b'ing a cadet simply for not attending x number of meeting benefits CAP or the cadet, I would love to listen.  I understand safety currency, core values, and the cadet oath but we are talking about teenagers and they can be easily distracted.  Show we really punish them for that?  I would agree with not letting them renew a membership, but what is the point in terminating the membership? 

Wouldn't the better approach be to deny membership renewal for cadet and move Senior Members to patron status?

If they're not willing to be there we won't be able to mentor them anyway.  If the CC did their job they know what's expected.  Part of mentoring is teaching people about consequences

Quote from: Alaric on May 04, 2017, 07:40:51 PM
If they're not willing to be there we won't be able to mentor them anyway.  If the CC did their job they know what's expected.  Part of mentoring is teaching people about consequences

This has nothing to do with if the CC does their job or not.  Yes mentoring teaches consequences but we are talking about teenagers.  What happens with the cadet decides he wants to come back after a month or so only to find out he has to pay dues and request to be reinstated?  Most would probably just walk away and then how do you mentor them when all you have done is turn them against CAP.  From a customer service perspective this is not a good idea either as this one person will most likely bad mouth the organization every chance they get and that just hurts recruiting.

So I will ask again, what is the benefit to CAP and to the cadet for membership termination for missing meeting?  They definitely should not be allowed to renew, but what is the gain from terminating membership?

Quote from: kwe1009 on May 04, 2017, 07:39:16 PM
Wouldn't the better approach be to deny membership renewal for cadet and move Senior Members to patron status?

This is not currently an option.

Your only recourse with non-participating / no contact cadets is termination.

There's a difference between missing a meeting and being a "no call / no show" for weeks or months.
A good CC would follow up and try to contact them to see why they aren't showing up, but
if they won't answer the phone or return emails, or the mails bounce, etc., at some point, you submit
the form and move on.  They made their choice, no sense in agonizing over it.

When I took over my current squadron, I had a banker's box full of members who been inherited from another
failed unit, and hadn't shown up to a meeting ever, some in more then a year. 

Those members skew the readiness, QCUA, SOM, and other metrics, to no advantage to the unit.  why
would CAP want to keep them?

If CAP wants the revenue, then take the records and create a cadet patron category, otherwise, "click".

Quote from: Eclipse on May 04, 2017, 08:07:56 PM

Quote from: kwe1009 on May 04, 2017, 07:39:16 PM
Wouldn't the better approach be to deny membership renewal for cadet and move Senior Members to patron status?

This is not currently an option.

Your only recourse with non-participating / no contact cadets is termination.

I am aware that it is currently not an option.  My questions is, wouldn't it be a better approach?  This is something that NHQ could easily implement in the same way that active duty commanders have to approve their members to allow for reenlistment.  I'm not concerned about revenue, I'm concerned about keeping teens in the program and not giving them a reason to bad mouth CAP if they decide to stop attending.  Kicking them out is just giving them a reason to spread bad seeds about CAP.  What is the advantage of that?  I know that it happens anyway but why are we creating another avenue for people to complain? 

What is the advantage? 

Quote from: Eclipse on May 04, 2017, 08:07:56 PM
They made their choice, no sense in agonizing over it.

Yes they did make a choice.  Why are we basically making that choice permanent and creating potential bad blood?  Again, what is the advantage?  We should not create artificial barriers for teens who step away from CAP for a period of time.

Quote from: kwe1009 on May 04, 2017, 09:19:08 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on May 04, 2017, 08:07:56 PM

Quote from: kwe1009 on May 04, 2017, 07:39:16 PM
Wouldn't the better approach be to deny membership renewal for cadet and move Senior Members to patron status?

This is not currently an option.

Your only recourse with non-participating / no contact cadets is termination.

I am aware that it is currently not an option.  My questions is, wouldn't it be a better approach?  This is something that NHQ could easily implement in the same way that active duty commanders have to approve their members to allow for reenlistment.  I'm not concerned about revenue, I'm concerned about keeping teens in the program and not giving them a reason to bad mouth CAP if they decide to stop attending.  Kicking them out is just giving them a reason to spread bad seeds about CAP.  What is the advantage of that?  I know that it happens anyway but why are we creating another avenue for people to complain? 

What is the advantage? 

Quote from: Eclipse on May 04, 2017, 08:07:56 PM
They made their choice, no sense in agonizing over it.

Yes they did make a choice.  Why are we basically making that choice permanent and creating potential bad blood?  Again, what is the advantage?  We should not create artificial barriers for teens who step away from CAP for a period of time.

It (non-renewal) gives bad or malicious commanders the ability to make people they don't like go away.

^^ We don't "non-renew" anyone.  It has long been determined to be a morale busting implement which CAP has made clear it should not be used. That said, I really think it is the Sq. Commander's responsibility to insure clear lines of communication and support for Cadets.  We have a Chaplain Corps and CDOs who are there to help cadets with problems dealing with choice.  There is also the cadre of cadets in a unit which should help each other with each other's progress and advancement.

Most members are well aware of the choices cadets must make.  We should help them, and encourage them to make the best decisions possible.  We all make choices in life, and must be accountable for them.  Isn't this part of what life is all about? 

I think some people spend way too much time trying to convince themselves that "mentoring" is a cure-all for every teenager that "fails to perform."

The CAP Cadet Program is a youth leadership program, not a program to aid troubled youths. Sure, maybe we can reach into some of them and change what kind of person they are/mold who they become, but that's not the overall intent of the program. We're not trained therapists and we do what we can with what we've got.

At some point, though, you need to recognize when there's a cadet who doesn't really want to be a part of this. If we try to make contact and they decide not to engage us, carry on. There's other stuff that needs tending to. We can't chase after every situation and try to find a way to solve it.

A cadet who shows up sporadically, we can explain consequences via the review/feedback process. We can withhold duty positions. There are a number of ways to address that. But with a cadet who doesn't show up for 90 days plus, there needs to be a limit to chasing after them.

I've had the discussion with people as to what they think the end point is, and been responded to "once we've exhausted all efforts." Frankly, if the cadet staff sends the email and makes the phone call, and I send the email and make the phone call, that suffices to me that this person isn't interested, or perhaps their parents don't want them in the program. I'm not going to call them again and start ringing their doorbell.

Most people who "drop" from CAP don't want to be hunted down.

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on May 11, 2017, 12:58:14 AM
I think some people spend way too much time trying to convince themselves that "mentoring" is a cure-all for every teenager that "fails to perform."

The CAP Cadet Program is a youth leadership program, not a program to aid troubled youths. Sure, maybe we can reach into some of them and change what kind of person they are/mold who they become, but that's not the overall intent of the program. We're not trained therapists and we do what we can with what we've got.

At some point, though, you need to recognize when there's a cadet who doesn't really want to be a part of this. If we try to make contact and they decide not to engage us, carry on. There's other stuff that needs tending to. We can't chase after every situation and try to find a way to solve it.

A cadet who shows up sporadically, we can explain consequences via the review/feedback process. We can withhold duty positions. There are a number of ways to address that. But with a cadet who doesn't show up for 90 days plus, there needs to be a limit to chasing after them.

I've had the discussion with people as to what they think the end point is, and been responded to "once we've exhausted all efforts." Frankly, if the cadet staff sends the email and makes the phone call, and I send the email and make the phone call, that suffices to me that this person isn't interested, or perhaps their parents don't want them in the program. I'm not going to call them again and start ringing their doorbell.

Most people who "drop" from CAP don't want to be hunted down.

Sums up my view.  There's a point beyond which you're wasting effort.  I think SkyHornet has it right - cadets staff try, you try, and in the end you need to cut your losses for the benefit of all concerned.  I always aim to get back anything we've loaned on signature to a cadets - or SM - and they usually do that.  In the end, save your strength for those who will really benefit from the help.

Why not actually use the checkbox in the Cadet record for "active participant"? If the squadron/group/wing commander unchecks the box then the cadet isn't included in any of the NHQ reports. That way we can put inactive cadets into an inactive status without transferring them to a 000 squadron or even 2B-ing them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In NVWG Cadet or senior, if you're not active/all of a sudden go poof we put them in I believe it's the triple 0 squadron. We refer to it as "Ghosting". Granted I'm a new senior (Flight Officer) but I would NEVER EVER 2B a cadet for failure of attendance. 2B's are a LAST RESORT. I would say a 2b should be used as a disciplinary tool when all other options have been exhausted, similar to expelling a student from school. Progressive discipline.

This is coming from a former cadet who successfully fought 2 wrongful 2B Attempts (thank god my dad was IG to help me through that process, it is NOT easy appealing a 2B....)

I understand hurting metrics and percentages and all that (trust me I know, my dad is NVWG RRO I get tired of hearing stats all the time LOL), but that's no reason to 2B Them. Ghosting them gets them off your roster, problem solved.

Quote from: Shieldel on May 22, 2017, 02:49:37 PM
In NVWG Cadet or senior, if you're not active/all of a sudden go poof we put them in I believe it's the triple 0 squadron. We refer to it as "Ghosting". Granted I'm a new senior (Flight Officer) but I would NEVER EVER 2B a cadet for failure of attendance. 2B's are a LAST RESORT. I would say a 2b should be used as a disciplinary tool when all other options have been exhausted, similar to expelling a student from school. Progressive discipline.

This is coming from a former cadet who successfully fought 2 wrongful 2B Attempts (thank god my dad was IG to help me through that process, it is NOT easy appealing a 2B....)

I understand hurting metrics and percentages and all that (trust me I know, my dad is NVWG RRO I get tired of hearing stats all the time LOL), but that's no reason to 2B Them. Ghosting them gets them off your roster, problem solved.

There's so much wrong here...

Quote from: Майор Хаткевич on May 22, 2017, 02:56:14 PM

Quote from: Shieldel on May 22, 2017, 02:49:37 PM
In NVWG Cadet or senior, if you're not active/all of a sudden go poof we put them in I believe it's the triple 0 squadron. We refer to it as "Ghosting". Granted I'm a new senior (Flight Officer) but I would NEVER EVER 2B a cadet for failure of attendance. 2B's are a LAST RESORT. I would say a 2b should be used as a disciplinary tool when all other options have been exhausted, similar to expelling a student from school. Progressive discipline.

This is coming from a former cadet who successfully fought 2 wrongful 2B Attempts (thank god my dad was IG to help me through that process, it is NOT easy appealing a 2B....)

I understand hurting metrics and percentages and all that (trust me I know, my dad is NVWG RRO I get tired of hearing stats all the time LOL), but that's no reason to 2B Them. Ghosting them gets them off your roster, problem solved.

There's so much wrong here...

Please do enlighten me then sir. Nevada Wing ghosts their members as a way to get them off the squadron's rosters, so they can focus on things such as the Quality Cadet Unit Award. If they're in the ghost squadron, it doesn't affect squadron metrics. Your wing may have a method, we have ours.

I don't agree with the idea of 2Bing personnel for lack of attendance for the aforementioned reasons. It's detrimental and...."counter-intuitive" (counter-purpose? I couldn't think of a better word so I used intuitive) when a 2B should be used for progressive discipline, as the last tool and the last level of said discipline.

Quote from: Shieldel on May 22, 2017, 06:43:09 PM

Quote from: Майор Хаткевич on May 22, 2017, 02:56:14 PM

Quote from: Shieldel on May 22, 2017, 02:49:37 PM
In NVWG Cadet or senior, if you're not active/all of a sudden go poof we put them in I believe it's the triple 0 squadron. We refer to it as "Ghosting". Granted I'm a new senior (Flight Officer) but I would NEVER EVER 2B a cadet for failure of attendance. 2B's are a LAST RESORT. I would say a 2b should be used as a disciplinary tool when all other options have been exhausted, similar to expelling a student from school. Progressive discipline.

This is coming from a former cadet who successfully fought 2 wrongful 2B Attempts (thank god my dad was IG to help me through that process, it is NOT easy appealing a 2B....)

I understand hurting metrics and percentages and all that (trust me I know, my dad is NVWG RRO I get tired of hearing stats all the time LOL), but that's no reason to 2B Them. Ghosting them gets them off your roster, problem solved.

There's so much wrong here...

Please do enlighten me then sir. Nevada Wing ghosts their members as a way to get them off the squadron's rosters, so they can focus on things such as the Quality Cadet Unit Award. If they're in the ghost squadron, it doesn't affect squadron metrics. Your wing may have a method, we have ours.

I don't agree with the idea of 2Bing personnel for lack of attendance for the aforementioned reasons. It's detrimental and...."counter-intuitive" (counter-purpose? I couldn't think of a better word so I used intuitive) when a 2B should be used for progressive discipline, as the last tool and the last level of said discipline.

For starters, gaming the QCUA criteria pretty much defeats the purpose of the QCUA program. Outside of that, moving dead weight around hits a number of metrics no matter what, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that a C/Amn Noshow is 000ed, but C/TSgt Lostinterest is kept on the books for the sake of the game. Other wings specifically prohibit the use of 000 for such purposes for this reason as well.


As for CAPF2Bs for cadets, refer to CAPR 52-16 and the form itself. You may have an opinion on the matter, but it's neither correct, nor what the intent is.

Do any of you old timers remember CAP-MAP? The "CAP Management Analysis Program", upon which unit citations, unit of the year awards, funding allocations and many, many other decisions were based?

This is exactly the sort of gamesmanship with stats which caused most of us working at unit level at the time to lose any shred of respect for the CAP-MAP system, and to stop playing the "CAP statistics" game. Every year we'd see the same units win "awards" which the rest of us had ceased to care about, because many of the frequent "winners" were masters at juggling the numbers.

Juggling the numbers to "win", "awards" can become the end in and of itself for many people of a certain mind set, to the detriment of actually caring about WHY the members are inactive, WHY they've quit or lost interest, and HOW we can actually reinvent ourselves to remain relevant and serve our members/customers. Rearranging the deck chair on the Titanic may win awards, but doesn't save the ship.


V/r
Spam

I've terminated several cadets over attendance over the last year. It's not that big a deal, if they wanted to be there they would have responded to the multiple communication attempts I made to advise them of where they were headed.

This bunch of crap about how you should NEVER, oooohhh mercy sakes NEVER 2B a cadet for attendance is silly, and that's the most polite way I can put that.  There's carrots and sticks, and you need to be willing to use both as appropriate. Enough with the "woe of the busy teenager" ballad.

Also, I was under the impression that cadets couldn't be "ghosted"; they're either in or their out. Seniors, though, can be placed in patron status.

Quote from: Jester on May 23, 2017, 02:45:55 AM
I've terminated several cadets over attendance over the last year. It's not that big a deal...

Your opinion differs from the organization's:

https://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2704/

QuoteCommanders do have the ability to terminate a cadet's membership if they fail to "progress satisfactorily" in the program. This should be a highly unusual situation and under normal leadership it would only take place as a last resort after an escalating series of mentoring conversations, formal contracts and lesser consequences proved ineffective. As a rule, we want young people to join our program and we believe that they will benefit from the lessons they learn. It's counterproductive to remove this positive influence from a cadet who could benefit from it. Of course, if there are disruptive behaviors or other factors involved, those should be addressed proactively. We would discourage termination in the face of a simple failure to promote on the part of an otherwise motivated cadet.

Quote from: Blanding on May 23, 2017, 11:42:23 AM

Quote from: Jester on May 23, 2017, 02:45:55 AM
I've terminated several cadets over attendance over the last year. It's not that big a deal...

Your opinion differs from the organization's:

https://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2704/

QuoteCommanders do have the ability to terminate a cadet's membership if they fail to "progress satisfactorily" in the program. This should be a highly unusual situation and under normal leadership it would only take place as a last resort after an escalating series of mentoring conversations, formal contracts and lesser consequences proved ineffective. As a rule, we want young people to join our program and we believe that they will benefit from the lessons they learn. It's counterproductive to remove this positive influence from a cadet who could benefit from it. Of course, if there are disruptive behaviors or other factors involved, those should be addressed proactively. We would discourage termination in the face of a simple failure to promote on the part of an otherwise motivated cadet.

That's spectacular and all, but these vaunted mentoring sessions can't happen if you can't get them to come back in the first place. Trust me, I'm not cutting them willy-nilly, but I don't have the time to go tracking them down like they went AWOL or something.

Also, I don't work for the help desk. The reg is the governing document here.

We're also not, or you weren't, talking about non-progression , which is always on the table.

You were discussing not showing up, which the 2b clearly defines as 3 meetings with no valid excuse.

It's difficult to mentor people who don't come to meetings and / or don't respond to their last contact information.

Quote from: Jester on May 23, 2017, 12:43:23 PM

Quote from: Blanding on May 23, 2017, 11:42:23 AM

Quote from: Jester on May 23, 2017, 02:45:55 AM
I've terminated several cadets over attendance over the last year. It's not that big a deal...

Your opinion differs from the organization's:

https://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2704/

QuoteCommanders do have the ability to terminate a cadet's membership if they fail to "progress satisfactorily" in the program. This should be a highly unusual situation and under normal leadership it would only take place as a last resort after an escalating series of mentoring conversations, formal contracts and lesser consequences proved ineffective. As a rule, we want young people to join our program and we believe that they will benefit from the lessons they learn. It's counterproductive to remove this positive influence from a cadet who could benefit from it. Of course, if there are disruptive behaviors or other factors involved, those should be addressed proactively. We would discourage termination in the face of a simple failure to promote on the part of an otherwise motivated cadet.

That's spectacular and all, but these vaunted mentoring sessions can't happen if you can't get them to come back in the first place. Trust me, I'm not cutting them willy-nilly, but I don't have the time to go tracking them down like they went AWOL or something.

Also, I don't work for the help desk. The reg is the governing document here.

I respect the nuanced difference between non-progression and non-attendance; I'm simply suggesting that if you don't have the time to keep track of your people, you might as well leave them as members. Certainly terminating their membership isn't going to inspire them to return, right? My argument is that doing nothing would be preferable to a membership action.

And to your second point, the help desk answer doesn't contradict the regulation. It gives insight that (to me) is more valuable than my own opinion regarding how to conduct the corporation's business.

The way I look at it: I juggle a full-time course load, a part-time job, a wife and 2 kids, and a leadership position in CAP. I'm there 99.9% of the meetings and probably half of the extra activities if not more. I go to encampment.

If Cadet Snuffy just decides he doesn't want to do CAP anymore and decides to use his crushing varsity kickball schedule as justification, I'll talk to him about it and help him try to figure it out.   I'll work with him as much as I can because I know that like most coaches, Coach Kickball thinks the world revolves around him and his epic contest of skill and guts. I really try, and I do my best.

But if they just stop coming, I'm pretty limited in what I can do. Initially I have the cadet's first line supervisor attempt contact, since they need to learn to get accountability of their people. Then I'll get involved. I never cut them at 3, so technically I'm more lenient than the regulation. Maybe I should get a job at the help desk.

My last step is an email to every address I can associate with that cadet advising them of their status and giving them 30 days to think about it and contact me. I include references to the regulation, and make sure they know that they can contact me at any time and we'll figure out how they can continue if they want to contribute. At the end of the 30 days I make the decision for them. 

They're dragging down the unit with metrics. They're dragging down the cadet leaders who are struggling to keep track of them and the ones who show up. And they're dragging down their teammates who contribute.  The juice isn't worth the squeeze. It's an easy decision at that point.

They get more than enough rope. We have another thread about demotion and how it doesn't really work.  So what's the answer?

Quote from: Blanding on May 23, 2017, 01:22:57 PM

Quote from: Jester on May 23, 2017, 12:43:23 PM

Quote from: Blanding on May 23, 2017, 11:42:23 AM

Quote from: Jester on May 23, 2017, 02:45:55 AM
I've terminated several cadets over attendance over the last year. It's not that big a deal...

Your opinion differs from the organization's:

https://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2704/ (https://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2704/)

QuoteCommanders do have the ability to terminate a cadet's membership if they fail to "progress satisfactorily" in the program. This should be a highly unusual situation and under normal leadership it would only take place as a last resort after an escalating series of mentoring conversations, formal contracts and lesser consequences proved ineffective. As a rule, we want young people to join our program and we believe that they will benefit from the lessons they learn. It's counterproductive to remove this positive influence from a cadet who could benefit from it. Of course, if there are disruptive behaviors or other factors involved, those should be addressed proactively. We would discourage termination in the face of a simple failure to promote on the part of an otherwise motivated cadet.

That's spectacular and all, but these vaunted mentoring sessions can't happen if you can't get them to come back in the first place. Trust me, I'm not cutting them willy-nilly, but I don't have the time to go tracking them down like they went AWOL or something.

Also, I don't work for the help desk. The reg is the governing document here.

I respect the nuanced difference between non-progression and non-attendance; I'm simply suggesting that if you don't have the time to keep track of your people, you might as well leave them as members. Certainly terminating their membership isn't going to inspire them to return, right? My argument is that doing nothing would be preferable to a membership action.

And to your second point, the help desk answer doesn't contradict the regulation. It gives insight that (to me) is more valuable than my own opinion regarding how to conduct the corporation's business.

QuoteCAPR 52-16 a. Expectations of Cadets. Cadets are required to participate actively in their local unit if they are to progress in the Cadet Program. Excessive, unexcused absences may be cause for termination from CAP (see CAPR 35-3, Membership Termination). Any school-related activity is considered an excused absence. Cadets are responsible for informing their leaders in advance if they expect to be absent. School-related absences do not excuse cadets from promotion requirements.

QuoteCAPR 35-3 c. Lack of interest demonstrated by failure to attend three successive regular meetings without an acceptable excuse.

Quote from: Jester on May 23, 2017, 02:21:51 PM
They're dragging down the unit with metrics.

I agree with everything you said and are doing; and I really appreciate the effort you put into the program! I guess my only pitch for you would be to not worry so much about metrics.

In my opinion (which I encourage you to ignore, if you disagree) metrics set leadership up to lose focus on the mission and narrow their concentration down to meeting the requirements of the metric.

For example, we used to have an award that was given to units who went without a mishap during the course of a year. The intent of the award was clearly to recognize units who were operating safely; however, it resulted in unit safety programs which focused on "zero mishaps" instead of "reduced risk". Units who focused on earning the award were the ones who reported none of their mishaps.

QuoteThey get more than enough rope. We have another thread about demotion and how it doesn't really work.  So what's the answer?

What's my answer? Give them a reason to prioritize CAP above kickball. If they don't agree with the reason and aren't motivated, don't force it. Telling a cadet they picked the wrong thing, and then punishing them for it with demotion or termination is certainly not going to motivate them to attend.

With a termination they have probably... what... 0-5% chance of returning? Would you agree the percentage chance is the same or higher if you don't terminate? If so, I would argue that no inactive cadet should be terminated simply because they're inactive. CAPR 52-16 does not require us to terminate an inactive cadet. My opinion is (again, ignore away!) that we should focus on providing cadets the option of experiencing a top notch program, vs. dedicating labor to figuring out who to terminate.

Ignorance or failure to act on metrics is, and has been historically, one of CAP's biggest problems.

The data is right there, but math is hard and makes people was, so just ignore the numbers and hope it gets better.

This is an organization which purports to be a ready asset to the nation, yet doesn't track participation and has literally no idea how many "active" members it actually has.

Quote from: Blanding on May 23, 2017, 03:03:14 PM

Quote from: Jester on May 23, 2017, 02:21:51 PM
They're dragging down the unit with metrics.

I agree with everything you said and are doing; and I really appreciate the effort you put into the program! I guess my only pitch for you would be to not worry so much about metrics.

In my opinion (which I encourage you to ignore, if you disagree) metrics set leadership up to lose focus on the mission and narrow their concentration down to meeting the requirements of the metric.

For example, we used to have an award that was given to units who went without a mishap during the course of a year. The intent of the award was clearly to recognize units who were operating safely; however, it resulted in unit safety programs which focused on "zero mishaps" instead of "reduced risk". Units who focused on earning the award were the ones who reported none of their mishaps.

QuoteThey get more than enough rope. We have another thread about demotion and how it doesn't really work.  So what's the answer?

What's my answer? Give them a reason to prioritize CAP above kickball. If they don't agree with the reason and aren't motivated, don't force it. Telling a cadet they picked the wrong thing, and then punishing them for it with demotion or termination is certainly not going to motivate them to attend.

With a termination they have probably... what... 0-5% chance of returning? Would you agree the percentage chance is the same or higher if you don't terminate? If so, I would argue that no inactive cadet should be terminated simply because they're inactive. CAPR 52-16 does not require us to terminate an inactive cadet. My opinion is (again, ignore away!) that we should focus on providing cadets the option of experiencing a top notch program, vs. dedicating labor to figuring out who to terminate.

I'm not against tracking and using metrics as an indicator for whether a unit is doing what they're supposed to be doing.  CAP gets overly worked up about them, and I'm just feeding that beast the minimum amount possible so it leaves me alone to actually work.  It's not THE factor regarding if a cadet gets sent on down the road, it's A factor.

Improving our program has led to greater participation, and I've been able to have one return to the fold and be productive.  One out of maybe 5.  Another responded and voluntarily resigned.  The rest were administratively terminated.  It doesn't mean they can't rejoin at a later date, as it's not a punitive measure (such as a misconduct termination).  "Some folks, you just can't reach."

It's a last resort, after a considerable amount of effort (usually not on the part of the cadet in question).  I'm not opposed to letting a cadet expire if they're right on the bubble of expiring by the time this process has played out, since the end result and impact of them rejoining at a later date is the same.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 23, 2017, 03:33:41 PM

..... doesn't track participation and has literally no idea how many "active" members it actually has.

Would be an interesting study, trying to figure all out.  So much is seasonal. You would need to make the assessment 4 or 5 times in a year and then average it out.

Someone who is very active for 10 months out of the year, except for baseball season. Do we consider them inactive as an average or do we celebrate the 10 months of good service? 

Isn't it just part of the game, in this volunteer service?

On the capwatch report, cadets, 50 year, patrons, and SMs are all listed as "active" status.