Need some advice re cadets who don't attend meetings

[Brit_in_CAP]

Some context: I am a recently appointed Dep Commander for Cadets.  Along with the Commander and Deputy Commander I'm addressing some matters which have caused some 'drag' and I could use some impartial advice on one matter which has caused us to all to pause for thought.

We have a cadet who continues to pay dues, takes his safety classes via e-services but has not attended a meeting in over 12 months.  We have engaged his parents and we are aware of a difficult family situation - divorce - and we made some allowance for this.  Even so, we have not seen the young person for many, many months  and instead we've received one excuse after another.  His lack of promotion, which itself indicates a lack of training, caused the SUI to take an interest, sympathetically but without any advice.

We have recently counseled a cadet out of the the unit and the CAP for very poor attitude, lack of timely attendance and generally being obnoxious but at least we could do that face to face, and also involve the parent.  I think we've long since passed the point where we can be supportive of this cadet and we're no longer engaging the cadet or his family yet he remains on our roster.  By engaging I mean writing emails, calling the family or considering the cadet as part of our active membership.

Any thoughts from anyone?

[arajca]

If the cadet is causing higher headquarters to take notice (SUI interest), and does not want to leave CAP, consider transferring the cadet to your wing's -000 unit. Make sure that you let both the parents and cadet know about the transfer and what the cadet will need to do to be transferred back into your unit.

[MIKE]

b. Failure to progress satisfactorily in the CAP cadet program.
c. Lack of interest demonstrated by failure to attend three successive regular meetings
without an acceptable excuse.

[Eclipse]

Why is "divorce" an excuse for a cadet not showing up for a year?

If anything, the stability and structure is probably what the cadet needs. 

If it's a case of "no ride", that's not likely to change next year.

Send them a nice letter citing 35-3, and if no change is anticipated, process the termination.

[NIN]

Re-engage the parents, understanding the situation, and let them know that a lack of progression and participation is a problem.

Couch it in terms that you certainly don't want to terminate anybody, but you're under some membership management pressure from higher HQ.  This ain't the boy scouts.

Also, make sure you're documenting all interactions with mom & dad / the cadet in his/her file. Even if its just an MFR that says "On 21 December 2013, spoke to Mrs. Jones and she indicated that Timmy is still interested in CAP, but that he presently cannot attend." or whatever the issue is.

The other thing is: if the cadet is completing safety, but not progressing, at the very least he's not holding up your unit for things like lack of compliance with a unit-wide requirement.   I seldom see the non-progression clause enacted except in cases where a cadet is being some other kind of a troublemaker.  Even most units don't slice-and-dice members off the rolls after 3 meetings, no matter what the 35-3 says.  Most of the time its a "hasn't been here in 3 months, his membership runs out next  month" and they're gone without hassle.

I'd use the 3-meetings/non-progression aspect to retrieve unit issued OCIE "just in case."  That may push people off the dime ("the unit wants my uniforms back.. uhhhh")

But if you document that Timmy isn't there for whatever reasons, you can say "look, the kid wants to be here, but there appear to be parental issues" and I don't know too many IGs that would say "UNACCEPTABLE!!"

[EMT-83]

I wouldn't get too excited about the SUI. Other than a nasty note, or perhaps a dirty look, there's nothing the inspector can do about it.

[flyboy53]

Ever think about having the chaplain or senior leadership contact the cadet and ask how the organization can assist him or her?

Certainly talk with the parents, but remember the cadet may be having issues dealing with what has happened in his home.

Sometimes the behavior is tied to depression, guilt, anxiety, fear or rejection or just not wanting to be asked what's going on. So often in this organization, I've run into cadets who come to CAP to escape what's going on in their personal lives and they thrive because they're offered a couple of hours away from what is really troubling them. If may give you an opportunity to save a kid.

[Brit_in_CAP]

Thank you, one and all, for your replies.  I have enough material to work with here so please consider correspondence on this thread closed!

To answer the last post by flyboy1: we did indeed have the Chaplain contact the family which is how we know more than I am going to disclose here.  I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about youngsters joining to escape – that matches my own experience with enlisted personnel in the Royal Air Force, my children's experience in the USMC and USCG where any number of their colleagues come from terrible situations and my own personal experience in the Air Training Corps – didn't come from a bad situation but needed something to call 'mine'.

We've also had the cadet that thrives because we gave them their two hours a week and I agree with you: right in front of us can be the opportunity to save a young person from going truly off the rails.

Again, many thanks for all your comments and I feel now that I've plenty to work with.  Always help to 'talk it over' with people who've been there but are disconnected from the actual situation we're dealing with.

[Private Investigator]

b. Failure to progress satisfactorily in the CAP cadet program.
c. Lack of interest demonstrated by failure to attend three successive regular meetings
without an acceptable excuse.

Mike has the best and only answer   :clap:

[mwewing]

I am very glad you got the necessary information to inform your decision making. For the benefit others who may be facing a similar situation, it may be useful to further explore some of the points raised here.

b. Failure to progress satisfactorily in the CAP cadet program.
c. Lack of interest demonstrated by failure to attend three successive regular meetings
without an acceptable excuse.

Mike has the best and only answer   :clap:

I must respectfully disagree with the idea that membership termination is the best or the only answer. I think terminating a member should often be the final step in the process, especially for issues limited to attendance/active participation. I would also say that unit leadership should NEVER have allowed a 12 month absence without finding a solution.

The suggestion of a transfer to 000 is much more desirable in my opinion. There are no behavioral issues that need to be addressed, the cadet has indicated they still hold interest in the program, and its easy to transfer out of 000 when the circumstances allow for active participation again. This is a non-punitive way to address the issue when there is no plan established for the cadet to return. As an aside, I would also suggest that issued items be returned to the unit so they can be used by active cadets.

All of this is assuming you have exhausted other options that may be available within your unit, and no workable solution exists at this time.

I have seen many cadets that need extended absences for a variety of things, the most common being athletic seasons. These cadets communicate their situation to the commander, and a decision is made on a case by case basis. It is understood that such absences will impact staffing selections and will slow the cadet's progress, but as young adults they are learning to make these complex decisions based on their priorities.

I have also seen cadets use extended absence because of divorce. One cadet in particular joined while spending the summer with one parent. The cadet returned to the other parent (slightly over 1 hour away) for the academic year. The custodial parent was not interested in arranging for the cadet to participate either in that unit, or one closer to home. The unit commander remained in contact with the cadet through the local parent, and was advised that CAP membership was going to be a topic at a custody hearing. Knowing that our cadet was still interested in the program, and the matter was still open for discussion, the commander left the cadet on our roster. Fast forward a couple of months, and a court order was given for the cadet to participate bi-weekly. With reasonable accommodation, that cadet became active and successful again.

In short, I would never suggest a termination when a cadet desires to participate if circumstances change, and has no behavioral issues that need to be addressed. It closes the door on options that may exist, or could develop in the future.

[Eclipse]

CAP is not a correspondence program nor a rec center, you're either there or you're not, and if you're not,
then wheres and whys of "not" aren't CAP's concern.

This is not the same as the typical summer hiatus a lot of cadets take, or when school activities get in the way of CAP.

There is zero advantage to either side, CAP or the cadet, to leaving them on the books if they can't be there, and
moving them to 000 just makes them someone else's problem.  Many (most?) wings now move everyone in 000
to patron status, which is not an option for cadets, so what's the point of empty shirt cadets?

[NIN]

Its almost like there needs to be a 3rd status (ie. not active, not quit, but like 'inactive' or 'not participating') that a cadet drops into after x amount of meetings missed, to indicate that they are non-active for whatever reason.

Can't test in that status. Can't attend activities. Can only take safety course and MUST to come out of it (commander's clicky-clicky to do so) before allowed to do anything else.  Maybe you have to turn in all CAP-issued equipment & uniforms, etc.

When the SUI comes along, they look at "active" versus "inactive" as a metric (perhaps "inactive" cannot be used to keep your sq afloat in the event of a question of membership numbers to remain chartered) and then all other metrics (ie. currency, etc) are based on "active" members.  So if you have 100 cadets and 25 are "inactive," then your safety participation, encampments, O-Flights, etc are based on the 75 actives.  The other 25 are either "on their way out" or "other"

[Private Investigator]

When the SUI comes along, they look at "active" versus "inactive" as a metric (perhaps "inactive" cannot be used to keep your sq afloat in the event of a question of membership numbers to remain chartered) and then all other metrics (ie. currency, etc) are based on "active" members.  So if you have 100 cadets and 25 are "inactive," then your safety participation, encampments, O-Flights, etc are based on the 75 actives.  The other 25 are either "on their way out" or "other"

Not only for the SUI but some Commanders desire that 100% participation. Over the years I am have been asked to transfer personnel to "000" or change their status to 'Patron' because a Senior Member had a stroke or is in rehab after a heart attack or a Cadet that broke his neck. They all recovered and was great resources to CAP when they got to be 100% again. Each indiviual is on a case by case basis.

[NIN]

When the SUI comes along, they look at "active" versus "inactive" as a metric (perhaps "inactive" cannot be used to keep your sq afloat in the event of a question of membership numbers to remain chartered) and then all other metrics (ie. currency, etc) are based on "active" members.  So if you have 100 cadets and 25 are "inactive," then your safety participation, encampments, O-Flights, etc are based on the 75 actives.  The other 25 are either "on their way out" or "other"

Not only for the SUI but some Commanders desire that 100% participation. Over the years I am have been asked to transfer personnel to "000" or change their status to 'Patron' because a Senior Member had a stroke or is in rehab after a heart attack or a Cadet that broke his neck. They all recovered and was great resources to CAP when they got to be 100% again. Each indiviual is on a case by case basis.

sure, that too.

my unit commander has been told that he basically can't  terminate anybody for non-participation.  not sure if that was wing or region or what...

[Майор Хаткевич]

Seems...illogical.

Numbers are nice, but what's the point of being a 60 cadet squadron if 20 show up.

[Eclipse]

Its almost like there needs to be a 3rd status (ie. not active, not quit, but like 'inactive' or 'not participating') that a cadet drops into after x amount of meetings missed, to indicate that they are non-active for whatever reason.

Can't test in that status. Can't attend activities. Can only take safety course and MUST to come out of it (commander's clicky-clicky to do so) before allowed to do anything else.  Maybe you have to turn in all CAP-issued equipment & uniforms, etc.

When the SUI comes along, they look at "active" versus "inactive" as a metric (perhaps "inactive" cannot be used to keep your sq afloat in the event of a question of membership numbers to remain chartered) and then all other metrics (ie. currency, etc) are based on "active" members.  So if you have 100 cadets and 25 are "inactive," then your safety participation, encampments, O-Flights, etc are based on the 75 actives.  The other 25 are either "on their way out" or "other"

Outstanding idea, and along with it we should be tracking attendance and other participation in eServices so this becomes automatic.

Should also be accounted for in QCA, SOM, etc.

my unit commander has been told that he basically can't  terminate anybody for non-participation.  not sure if that was wing or region or what...

Told by who?

That usurps command authority.

[NIN]

my unit commander has been told that he basically can't  terminate anybody for non-participation.  not sure if that was wing or region or what...

Told by who?

That usurps command authority.

I don't exactly recall this circumstances.   

I know that before I un-retired, we had a cadet who "quit in a huff" (actually, he showed up in the wrong uniform one night. No factor, but the chain of command said 'hey, since you live around the corner, any chance you can call dad and have him bring your uniform over?'.  Junior called dad to get the right uniform, dad showed up with all of junior's CAP stuff in a bag, had junior change out of the uni he was wearing,  and dad quit junior in a huff) and when the commander processed a voluntary resignation 2B, he was told he needed to have a statement from the cadet or something.

so basically "don't do that."

[Eclipse]

The USAF has been asking more and more about real strength vs. empty shirts (as well they should), and
there's been a fair amount of effort to normalize the ranks.

"quit in a huff" is probably in the top 3 reasons why people quit!

[Panache]

The USAF has been asking more and more about real strength vs. empty shirts (as well they should), and
there's been a fair amount of effort to normalize the ranks.

Normalize the ranks?

[Eclipse]

i.e. put everyone in proper status.