Squadron Of Distinction/Merit

[SKI304]

This has been a mystery to me for a while, but how exactly does the Squadron of Distinction program work?  I know the requirements outlined in CAPR 39-3, but what I'm after is how these criteria are utilized in the final determinations of the winners.  The description makes it sound like there is a quantitative analysis set on a specific formula, but there is no explanation of what that formula is.  Taking a look at the Squadron of Merit Listing Report (which I assume is what the respective Commanders get their data from), it only clouds things up further by not aligning with CAPR 39-3.  I guess the best way to ask these questions is to break it down by criteria:

1.) Squadron Strength.  Is this a simple Yes/No checkbox prerequisite or are points awarded for the total number of cadets?
2.) Squadron Growth Rate.  The report makes it easy to tell what that number is, but how does that figure add into the final score?
3.) Cadet Achievement.  The reg does not include the Wright Brothers, but the report does.  Is this included now?  Also, is the score derived from the total number of milestones combined, or are the milestones weighted?
4.) Cadet Encampment Attendance.  Seems pretty clear cut.  Is it safe to assume this is just the raw number of first year attendees that figures into the score?
5.) Cadet Orientation Flight Participation.  The report makes it appear that this is just a Yes/No question on whether the unit did at least one O-Flight in the past year.  However, it also includes a Flight 99 (Back Seat) Percentage.  I've been racking my brain for a while trying to figure out where this number is coming from, and I haven's yet figured it out.  Is this to assume that is preferable to just have cadets along for the ride as opposed to participating in the Orientation Flight syllabus?

Sorry if this seems to be a pedantic series of questions, but I'd really like to know how this system works.  Would any of our resident Corporate Officers or DCP's be willing to shed some light on this award?  Thanks in advance. 

[lordmonar]

There is no real guidance of how exactly each area is scored.

They take all the factors into consideration.

So just because you are the largest squadron on the planet does not make you automatically the Squadron od Merit.  Nor does the fact that you have grown 1000%  (1 cadet to 10 looks good...but it is only 10 cadets!).

If you truely want to know how your wing weighs each factor you need to talk to your wing CP Director.

[BillB]

Lordmonar
What your saying is there are no set guidelines to prevent favoritism. The DCP can just pick and choose among favorite squadrons

[jimmydeanno]

Which is one of the great things about the proposed "Quality Cadet Unit" Award:

http://www.capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/Quality_Unit_Award_Proposal_E1DFEA3EBD3A9.pdf

[lordmonar]

Lordmonar
What your saying is there are no set guidelines to prevent favoritism. The DCP can just pick and choose among favorite squadrons

If the DCP has no integrity...sure.

One would hope that the DCP is in it for the betterment of the entire program and would judge who the "Best" cadet program was based on the criteria set by national and not his own personal preference.

YMMV.

[lordmonar]

Which is one of the great things about the proposed "Quality Cadet Unit" Award:

http://www.capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/Quality_Unit_Award_Proposal_E1DFEA3EBD3A9.pdf

Absolutely!  The BSA has used this program for years...with out having to carry it any farther to a "unit of the year/unit of merit" type competition.

They set clear objective standards....either a unit meets those standards and gets the ribbon for their flag and the right to wear the quality unit patch or they don't.

CAP can certainly benifit from that.  It allows smaller/new units to get some sort of recognition for their efforts to meet program goals with out having to pit them against established units who have the resources to exceed those goals and be identified as a squadron of Merit/Distinction.

[Bluelakes 13]

I take the data NHQ gives me and easily in Excel compile the rankings of every unit in the Region.  Bill, I would be happy to share OHWG's 2010 data with you if it's OK with Col. Winters (can't imagine it would not be).  This was a major discussion point at the region staff meeting and standardization was proposed.

I used Excel's Rank function to rank each: Recruitment, Retainment, No Mitchells, No Earharts, No Eakers, No Spaatz, No Wright Bros, No 1st Encampments, % F99 rides.  These 9 individual ranks are added and the totals are ranked for the final listing.

I can go into the details of each individual ranking if you wish.

[Bluelakes 13]

Also, the Region's SOD may not necessarily be that Wing's SOM.  It all depends on how you use the numbers given.  Also, the person doing the work may decide one criteria weighs more than another, ie. No of Spaatz would weigh more than the No of Wright Bros.  And they would adjust their math accordingly.  Further more, we make our recommendation to the echelon commander, who may or may not take our top recommendation, but one of the top three, for example. 

This variability, I think, is good, or else NHQ could just run the numbers themselves and give the awards out without needing input from anyone.

I have a lot more specifics about GLR if you wish to discuss offline.  And for 2011 I will be comparing procedures with couple of my counterparts in other regions.

[Eclipse]

The stats are the objective part of the decision, the subjective areas of relative unit size, age, other challenges, etc., are not in those numbers.  Some CC's stress encampment participation, some want cadets in the airplanes, including 99's, some think progression is
the most important (though those tend to be simple matters of timing vs. any concerted unit effort).

In regards to stats, when they are pulled is as important as what they contain, and I think this needs to be set in stone as well.
The stats on eServices are always "current", so pulling them later, perhaps waiting for that last Spaatz to finish his test, could push
the numbers towards a specific unit.

When I was asked by wing to provide an SOM candidate, my goal was to be as objective as possible - I took the scores, gave the "winner" in each category 1 point, did the math and presented the winner.  I know that the conspiracy theorists will find this impossible, but the unit with the best numbers was also one of my top performers.  (I know, weird).

From there, had any of them conquered a mountain, overcome diversity, or saved the President, I would have considered that as a factor, but since most of my units worked through the same general issues of meeting place, funding, staff shortages, etc., as the others, I used the raw numbers and sent my recommendation.

Granting the general value of recognition, I really have no use for SOM, SOD, Nat SOD, or any of the "of the year nonsense", this despite the fact that I was an SOM recipient a few years back.  They are all too subjective to provide the value they intend, and as often as not cause more hard feelings which ultimately negatively impact the initiative and benevolence of the members .  Further, the fact that the national award is not a roll-up, but is directly subjective as well, seems like an incorrect application of the program.. (i.e. how can the national winner not have been the best from their respective wing and region as well).

I have been pushing to use the stats only simply to remove the subjective doubt from the situation.

[Bluelakes 13]

Bob said "The stats on eServices are always "current"

Actually, NO.  The stats are refreshed only on January of that year, available February 1.  I just ran the report and it has Jan  2010 data.  It also says on the top "This report is based upon data that is created once a year (January)."

I wished the stats were updated more frequently.  I sent that recommendation to NHQ for consideration.  I would love to run the report monthly and see how each unit in the Region is trending and share that with the Wing staffs....

[lordmonar]

I agree that the numbers are used for an objective decision....but should not be the main driver for the SOM/SOD.

A new unit with a really strong program but no time to get any Mitchells or a lot of O-rides and Encampments in should have a chance to be highlighted as a SOM/SOD.

Otherwise the large established units would just dominate year after year and weaking the whole SOM/SOD program.

[RiverAux]

I have long contended that our current program is biased towards the larger cadet and cadet-heavy composite squadrons since so many of the categories are based on absolute numbers and don't take into account squadron size.  A large unit that is merely doing an average job will most likely always trump a small squadron that might be doing a lot more than its share in other categories.  The only category the small squadrons have a potential advantage in is growth rate since doubling a 12 cadet unit is much easier than doubling a 50 cadet unit. 

[ol'fido]

My squadron won SOM in '80 and SOD in '82 with only about 12 active cadets and 3-4 active seniors. The key is to document and submit. A good admin officer was the key.

[Eclipse]

Bob said "The stats on eServices are always "current"

Actually, NO.  The stats are refreshed only on January of that year, available February 1.  I just ran the report and it has Jan  2010 data.  It also says on the top "This report is based upon data that is created once a year (January).

This conflicts with my experience, but it isn't worth arguing about - perhaps the indication about a Jan-only refresh is new.  I've runn it at different times of year with different results.

Assuming what you're saying is true, we still need that word out, as I know for a fact that in some years DCP's have run the numbers "early",  which would mean they are using bad data anyway.

[SKI304]

Also, the Region's SOD may not necessarily be that Wing's SOM.  It all depends on how you use the numbers given.  Also, the person doing the work may decide one criteria weighs more than another, ie. No of Spaatz would weigh more than the No of Wright Bros.  And they would adjust their math accordingly.  Further more, we make our recommendation to the echelon commander, who may or may not take our top recommendation, but one of the top three, for example. 

This variability, I think, is good, or else NHQ could just run the numbers themselves and give the awards out without needing input from anyone.

I have a lot more specifics about GLR if you wish to discuss offline.  And for 2011 I will be comparing procedures with couple of my counterparts in other regions.

I guess that answers it.  I kept hearing rumors here and there about how those numbers actually worked, but they must have just been the way the wing was doing it "back when."  Thanks for the info.

As for the GLR/OHWG specifics, being the Cadet Programs stats junky that I am, I would love to see it if you can share it.  My updated and augmented "Cadet Programs Electronic Almanac" I presented at a TLC a few weeks ago is testament to that.    If you don't still have my email address from RCC/NCC, let me now.  Thanks!

[Eclipse]

Also, the Region's SOD may not necessarily be that Wing's SOM.

The Region should be selecting from the Wing SOM's - the fact that the top unit in the region may not be the top unit in that respective wing makes no logical sense and should show everyone just how subjective this process is.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Also, the Region's SOD may not necessarily be that Wing's SOM.

The Region should be selecting from the Wing SOM's - the fact that the top unit in the region may not be the top unit in that respective wing makes no logical sense and should show everyone just how subjective this process is.

That's how COY works, so SOM should too.

[jimmydeanno]

It's sometimes like that with the "of the year awards."  I know someone who was a region cadet programs officer of the year, but the person selected as the national one was from the same region...

[Eclipse]

It's sometimes like that with the "of the year awards."  I know someone who was a region cadet programs officer of the year, but the person selected as the national one was from the same region...

The over-thinking (or underthinking) of processes like these are at the heart of CAP's weaknesses.

If a staffer at the Region or National level  knows enough about the performance of an individual member, or even a unit, that they can make an unqualified decision separate from the rest of the chain on an OTY or SOM award, it has to be that the staffer knows the person or unit personally (or close to it), the person is actually on Region or Wing staff (as is often the case), or the decision is largely arbitrary.

As a Group CC I can hardly know the 200 people in 6 units in my AOR to make these decisions, let alone 1200 in 35 at the wing level
or 4-5000 in 100 units at the region level.  Is it any wonder why in a lot of cases these awards are won by units that share quarters with the respective Wing or members on the respective echelon's staff?  It's just human nature to reward the people you know and see often vs. those out of your eyeshot.

Here's a suggestion:

What if we exempt Group, Wing, Region, and National staff members from consideration for "OTY" awards for the duration of their posting to a -001 unit?  None of these echelons is operational in the normal sense, and their members tend to pile up plenty of accolades, anyway, and this would leave the awards for rank and file members.