New CPP Codified - Updated 52-10

[JeffDG]

I've still not heard an authoritative answer to the following sitution:

A unit plans an event.  They dutifully recruit appropriate co-ed supervision for the event.  Come the day of the event, the female supervisor is striken with a severe case of the flu and cannot attend.

Does the event:
a)  Go forward as planned (probable violation of 52-10)
b)  Send the girls home and proceed (probable violation of EO)
c)  Send everyone home (resulting in resentment of female cadets by male cadets)

[Tim Day]

Honestly, the cheerleading has to stop.

Seriously.

She thinks our uniforms suck. She wouldn't join because she would need to wear one. Double up for a polo/grey pants. She's simply not interested in what we have to offer. But on multiple occasions she's offered to help in plain clothes, which of course isn't an option.

I hope NHQ sees this as a constructive input that could actually help. Let's create a new category of membership (affiliate member?) that is not required to wear a uniform of any kind (maybe one of those magnetic-backed nametages so they're identified as a member). Dads and moms could sign up for a free membership category that allows them to overnight at activities and check the coed adult leadership block. They'd have to take cadet protection training, and that's it.

That's an 80% solution. We'd still have to address how we'll support real-world missions and do activities on military bases, etc. As Eclipse has pointed out, we don't want more untrained folks hanging out around a SAR, for example. Although, that issue may wane as affiliate members hang out with CAP. Maybe it'll turn out to be a "gateway" membership category, much as Cadet Sponsor can be currently.

[LSThiker]

Of the amount of back and forth that is going on in this thread, I am curious.  How many of you have brought your issues up to your commanders?  For those that have, what was the response from the commanders (particularly interested in wing or above commanders, but I know you do not all have direct access to them). 

On both sides of the coin, how many squadrons have truthfully and thoughtfully created a plan to implement the commander's tasking and accomplish the commander's end state?

Not trying to argue one thing over another or point fingers, I am just curious.  So do not read anything into my question.

[Ned]

For CAP, recruiting women is no different than recruiting men.

This needs to stand on its own.

I quite agree.

This is either disingenuous, or woefully misinformed about the state of diversity in the military, Aerospace, GA,
and society as a whole.

I suppose I could swear to you that it isn't disingenuous, but I guess by definition you would not believe me.   

As to "woefully misinformed,"  I should point out that I have been priveliged to sit through countless hours of briefings by various CAP diversity committees, not to mention all the diversity stuff I get at work.  I think I have a pretty good handle on it.

After your recent change, I'm not sure what your current CAP job is these days.  How many diversity reports get channeled through your office? 

We have a verifiable shrinking membership,

Really?  Where are you getting your figures?

I show that as of today, we have 34, 400 seniors.  A year ago today, we had 34,600.  I suppose, technically, a less than 1% decline is a "verifiable shrinking membership;"  it's just not a statistically significant one.

(To be fair, our cadet numbers are down about 6%, after five consecutive years of growth that exceeded 25% in total.)

Historically, over the last 40 years, our membership has varied between 55 - 65 thousand.  Some years we go up; some years we go down, but we have never really been outside that zone.

We can do better, of course.  But we are pretty much where we have always been.

a churn that would kill most similar organizations,

Hmmm, again, I don't think I am following you.  Our turnover is pretty much the same as it has always been.  And, from what I've seen, pretty much the same as comparable organizations like BSA, ARC, USCGA, and others.

Do you have some different data you would like to share?

and a total female membership which is at or less then 20% total (after you remove 000, and patrons).

Well, there you've got me.  Those figures seem to be correct.  And again, historically pretty much what we have always had.  BTW, that suggests to me that we have over 6,000 women currently serving as senior members.

and you say that recruiting females is no different then recruiting males?

Indeed I do.  Individuals serve because they enjoy working in CAP.  And that is true regardless of gender.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Squadron level/Group discussions had. As Eclipse said, it's not like until now units weren't recruiting. I think we're all scratching out heads trying to figure out what to do to get a target recruit (females), because clearly it's not as simple as "go forth, unit level members and be plentiful in your female recruiting goals".

[JeffDG]

Deleted...snarky

[Ned]

I've still not heard an authoritative answer to the following sitution:

A unit plans an event.  They dutifully recruit appropriate co-ed supervision for the event.  Come the day of the event, the female supervisor is striken with a severe case of the flu and cannot attend.

Does the event:
a)  Go forward as planned (probable violation of 52-10)
b)  Send the girls home and proceed (probable violation of EO)
c)  Send everyone home (resulting in resentment of female cadets by male cadets)

Sadly, activities sometimes get cancelled because one or more of the required supervisors become ill and cannot be replaced.  It is no different when it occurs because one of the only two available seniors becomes unavailable. 

(And, BTW, the unit leadership's job is to make sure that unit members treat each other fairly and respectfully.  Which includes taking actions to explain when cancellations happen due to illness that it is not the fault of any of the participants.)

[JeffDG]

(And, BTW, the unit leadership's job is to make sure that unit members treat each other fairly and respectfully.  Which includes taking actions to explain when cancellations happen due to illness that it is not the fault of any of the participants.)

Unfortunately, all the explaining in the world doesn't change the fact that the event would have been good-to-go absent the female cadets.  That's merely a fact of life.  All the explaining in the world just makes you look like you're trying to white-wash over an objective fact.

[Майор Хаткевич]

For CAP, recruiting women is no different than recruiting men.

This needs to stand on its own.

I quite agree.

This is either disingenuous, or woefully misinformed about the state of diversity in the military, Aerospace, GA,
and society as a whole.

I suppose I could swear to you that it isn't disingenuous, but I guess by definition you would not believe me.   

As to "woefully misinformed,"  I should point out that I have been priveliged to sit through countless hours of briefings by various CAP diversity committees, not to mention all the diversity stuff I get at work.  I think I have a pretty good handle on it.

After your recent change, I'm not sure what your current CAP job is these days.  How many diversity reports get channeled through your office? 

We have a verifiable shrinking membership,

Really?  Where are you getting your figures?

I show that as of today, we have 34, 400 seniors.  A year ago today, we had 34,600.  I suppose, technically, a less than 1% decline is a "verifiable shrinking membership;"  it's just not a statistically significant one.

(To be fair, our cadet numbers are down about 6%, after five consecutive years of growth that exceeded 25% in total.)

Historically, over the last 40 years, our membership has varied between 55 - 65 thousand.  Some years we go up; some years we go down, but we have never really been outside that zone.

We can do better, of course.  But we are pretty much where we have always been.

a churn that would kill most similar organizations,

Hmmm, again, I don't think I am following you.  Our turnover is pretty much the same as it has always been.  And, from what I've seen, pretty much the same as comparable organizations like BSA, ARC, USCGA, and others.

Do you have some different data you would like to share?

and a total female membership which is at or less then 20% total (after you remove 000, and patrons).

Well, there you've got me.  Those figures seem to be correct.  And again, historically pretty much what we have always had.  BTW, that suggests to me that we have over 6,000 women currently serving as senior members.

and you say that recruiting females is no different then recruiting males?

Indeed I do.  Individuals serve because they enjoy working in CAP.  And that is true regardless of gender.

I would venture to say that of the 20% in CAP, most are cadets, not SMs.

But say it's 6000, drop down to 5200 for an easy number. That's 100/wing. Drop the 000s and others, plus empty shirts. Call it 40-70. How many of those are CP oriented? Say half? So 20-35 per wing, less than one per unit? The realistic outcome is burnout for the few able/willing to do overnight activities, or the cancelation of overnight events.

[Eclipse]

Hmmm, again, I don't think I am following you.  Our turnover is pretty much the same as it has always been.  And, from what I've seen, pretty much the same as comparable organizations like BSA, ARC, USCGA, and others.

Yep 20-30% annually, depending on how you slice it.  That essentially negates recruiting.

Really?  Where are you getting your figures?

The same place everyone else does, and as to "diversity reports" I can chew a spreadsheet like anyone else.
Number don't lie.  Perhaps only the areas I have access to are shrinking, but I doubt it.

Also, in terms of manpower reporting, NHQ rarely filters for empty shirts, 000, 999, patrons, and HQ units,
which are a pretty good chunk of the membership at this point. 000 & patrons are something like 10-15%
of the total membership, yet NHQ rarely removes those numbers when reporting totals.


So...

In your own words...

Our recruiting and retention is "the same as always", our female membership is the "same as always",
yet somehow that's going to change because of supervisory requirements?

The best intentions of the most able commanders is not going to change the demographics of an organization
which have bene essentially constant for 60-70 years, especially with no national initiative beyond "you must".

[FW]

Let me take this discussion in another direction.

Ned (and others) say, "recruit more women," and point to the cadet sponsor membership as a way to do so.  My biggest concern with the CSM option is that we (CAP) are asking non-involved parents to pay US to help run OUR program.  I suspect that CSM recruitment might creep upwards if we didn't make parents pay for the privilege of helping CAP.

Thoughts?  Do other organizations do this as well?  I'd really like to know.

Anyone who believes CSMs are the savior here really has no idea.

CSM's are used for one purpose, to serve as drivers and chaparones for events.  They are perfect to help "supervise" cadets at an overnight activity.  Should there be some training involved? Of course. They are basically that extra pair of eyes to keep our cadets safe.  It is "an" answer to the problem of coed supervision; not "the" answer.

Many other youth organizations have parents helping out in some capacity at one time or another. I don't see any reason why we are different in this situation, and the more I think about it, the more it doesn't bother me.  I know the commanders in CAP will figure out how to deal with this.  I've heard the same complaints of woe everytime a significant change to our OS was made, and we made it thru the transition with little colateral effect. 

Yes, it means a slight change in our ops, but that is what makes the world go around... Just sayn' :angel:

I've still not heard an authoritative answer to the following sitution:

A unit plans an event.  They dutifully recruit appropriate co-ed supervision for the event.  Come the day of the event, the female supervisor is striken with a severe case of the flu and cannot attend.

Does the event:
a)  Go forward as planned (probable violation of 52-10)
b)  Send the girls home and proceed (probable violation of EO)
c)  Send everyone home (resulting in resentment of female cadets by male cadets)

Jeff, things happen.  There should always be a "plan B". 

[Eclipse]

We have a verifiable shrinking membership,

Really?  Where are you getting your figures?

Per NHQ we had over 61,000 members in Nov 2010, we have ~59,000 members today, that's
~2500 members or a shrinkage of about 3.5%.  A year-to-year comparison is not going to be as
valid an indication of program's health as a multi-year view, and the multi-year is decidedly negative.

Neither of us wants to discuss the squandered opportunity of the in excess of 65K we had just after 2001.

But more telling is the program shrinkage.  Members come and go, but unless there is membership opportunity,
they won't come back.  Membership opportunity requires a place to actually join and serve.

In the same 3.5 year period above, CAP has lost in excess of 80 charters nationally.  That is verifiable program
shrinkage, and not easily recoverable.

And if you go back to 99 when I joined, the rhetoric was about 1500 units, which make the program shrinkage all the worse.

[lordmonar]

Okay....here is a hint.    Parents.......when child x comes to your meeting you have both the child and the parent there.    You make your pitch and convince them to join.

Sure it's not going to be easy.

But it has got to be done.

It is that simple.

End of message.

MSgt, if it were simple, perhaps your squadron would have a lot of female SM. That fact that you don't (as you've previously stated) indicates you are not yet qualified to assert that it's simple.

Besides, the issue isn't recruiting female SM. The main issue is increased scheduling complexity (cost) without empirical evidence or supporting arguments that the coed requirement will increase the safety of cadets (value). This is as true for units that have predominantly female SM involved in their squadron's CP as it is for units like yours that have not been able to recruit sufficient female SM to provide coed supervision.

My squadron does not have a lot....because we have not focused our recruiting specifically to women.    That changed three weeks ago and we are not having any problems meeting the requirements for the new CPP reg.

So......what's your excuse?

Sorry to be blunt......but really it is not rocket science.....we have orders from on high....our job is to do the mission.

[lordmonar]

Honestly, the cheerleading has to stop.

Will I do my best? Of course. Can I voice my issues? I'm pretty sure I can. If NHQ doesn't like that, they can block my renewal. I'm sure that will benefit the cadets I work with, at my unit, and at encampment. I get enough complaining from my wife to push the needle in the "why do I bother" turf without the cheerleaders. MSgt Harris is a product of the military - salute and execute. Great. It works for them. We're a volunteer organization. Things get tough, loose their rewarding feeling, and members leave. We don't have contracts, just a lesser of $60 bucks on the line year after year.

I'm quite honestly disappointed in Ned. Talk about getting emotional. Eclipse pointed out that as a matter of fact women are less inclined for aviation, military, roughing it in the woods, and gets labeled a sexist? Really? We're all products of our culture. I've know cadets from Alabama who can't wear pants. Their faith prohibits it from the ladies. Didn't hear anyone bashing their culture because of it, though I'm sure most of us disagree with it. War has been for a long time, in the majority of cultures a male endevour. Flight has been, for the majority of its history. Forget the Earhart's of the world, they were the exception not the rule. Women couldn't even vote in this country until a century ago! Of all our named awards achievements...by my quick recollection, 13, only 2 are named for women! That's our culture. Is it right? Depends. Do I think women are less capable? Nope, my wife reminds me of that every day. Less interested? Definitely. I've had this talk with my wife. We have things she can help with, at the unit, at an encampment. She can't commit to overnight, because if I'm there, who is taking care of the dogs and other pets we have? Eventually, who's taking care of the kids when I'm gone doing CAP stuff? But you know what else? She thinks our uniforms suck. She wouldn't join because she would need to wear one. Double up for a polo/grey pants. She's simply not interested in what we have to offer. But on multiple occasions she's offered to help in plain clothes, which of course isn't an option. So there you have it. She could be testing officer, freeing me up to do "cadeting" stuff. She could be a finance officer. She could be a PAO at encampment. But she won't. Because while those things get her interested, she doesn't care for the uniforms. So most will say CAP isn't for her. I'd agree. But she's representative of the majority of women her age and lifestyle. And she lives with a member for over 5 years!

The cheer leading won't stop....because as leaders we are supposed to be supporting our leaders and supporting our peers and subordinates.    Right now we got two camps....those of us who Salute and Solder on and those who just want to keep saying "it can't be done and CAP is doomed!"    Either you get the mission done or you accept that the problem is too big for you and move on and let someone else take a swing at it.

Maybe you are right......it can't be done......if so the powers that be will have to make changes.  Until then our job is to get the mission done.

[lordmonar]

I've still not heard an authoritative answer to the following sitution:

A unit plans an event.  They dutifully recruit appropriate co-ed supervision for the event.  Come the day of the event, the female supervisor is striken with a severe case of the flu and cannot attend.

Does the event:
a)  Go forward as planned (probable violation of 52-10)
b)  Send the girls home and proceed (probable violation of EO)
c)  Send everyone home (resulting in resentment of female cadets by male cadets)

Already answered.   If you do not have the proper supervision for the event.....it must be canceled.   End of discussion.

This is no different under the old rules......if you had two seniors and on drops out...you cancel.  If you have a day event plan and the one senior who was going to attend drops out....you cancel.

[lordmonar]

Of the amount of back and forth that is going on in this thread, I am curious.  How many of you have brought your issues up to your commanders?  For those that have, what was the response from the commanders (particularly interested in wing or above commanders, but I know you do not all have direct access to them). 

On both sides of the coin, how many squadrons have truthfully and thoughtfully created a plan to implement the commander's tasking and accomplish the commander's end state?

Not trying to argue one thing over another or point fingers, I am just curious.  So do not read anything into my question.

I alerted my commander the day the new reg went warm....and again the next day when it went hot.  The next meeting we met with our CP guys and started looking at where we stood and started formulating a plan to make sure we could meet our mission goals.

Right now we are going to focus on cadet parents.....and to expand our general recruiting to focus a little more of women specifically.

[Ned]

An observation:

For the last several pages we have been discussing whether or not recruiting females requires a different strategy and/or method.  It is safe to say that there is significant disagreement on this point.

Interestingly, all the voices in the conversation have been male.  Arguing about "what women want" and how that fits with CAP.




So, I'd like to invite some diversity to this conversation.

Ladies,

1)  Should CAP have a separate recruiting strategy for women?

2) What sort of differences would that entail?

3)  What would the ideal woman-friendly recruiting strategy look like?

4)  Are there any different considerations for retention of women than for men?



Ladies only please, at least until we have a significant number of responses.

And we promise to discuss the matter civilly . . . 

[Al Sayre]

Just as an aside, when my daughter was younger, she was in Girl Scouts before she joined CAP.  I attended one of their weekend events that was a "Daddy & Daughter Campout" They did pretty much the things I did as a cadet back in the 70's.  Camping was in a wood floor cabin type tent, they had archery, fishing hiking and swimming as well as some more "girly" arts and craft type events.  There were about 300 girls from ages 11 to 17 and 200 or so Dads in attendance.  The girls seemed to enjoy all of it although I did see some who didn't like using worms for bait...  The only thing that was really different from one of our old "bivouacs" was no BDU's or firecracker wars etc. which we couldn't do nowdays anyway.  I guess my point is that emphasizing camping etc. may not be the turn off for the girls you think it is. 

Not to turn this into a uniform thread, but one thing that might help is to add a simple informal uniform (for CSMs and Cadets) for these types of overnight events.  Just a black CAP tee-shirt ($10  or less price point) and jeans that every cadet or CSM can wear until they (or their parents) can afford or scrounge up a set of BDU's.  That might help solve a few of our recruitment (cost of membership) issues.   Most squadrons I'm aware of have a similar unofficial "newbie uniform" of some kind or other already, and a similar uniform is already approved for glider flights.  Why not make it official?

[Tim Day]

An observation:

For the last several pages we have been discussing whether or not recruiting females requires a different strategy and/or method.  It is safe to say that there is significant disagreement on this point.

Interestingly, all the voices in the conversation have been male.  Arguing about "what women want" and how that fits with CAP.




So, I'd like to invite some diversity to this conversation.

Ladies,

1)  Should CAP have a separate recruiting strategy for women?

2) What sort of differences would that entail?

3)  What would the ideal woman-friendly recruiting strategy look like?

4)  Are there any different considerations for retention of women than for men?



Ladies only please, at least until we have a significant number of responses.

And we promise to discuss the matter civilly . . . 

Ned, with great respect I would like to invite you to address the  issues I have raised that are not specific to gender.

[Tim Day]

Of the amount of back and forth that is going on in this thread, I am curious.  How many of you have brought your issues up to your commanders?  For those that have, what was the response from the commanders (particularly interested in wing or above commanders, but I know you do not all have direct access to them). 

On both sides of the coin, how many squadrons have truthfully and thoughtfully created a plan to implement the commander's tasking and accomplish the commander's end state?

Not trying to argue one thing over another or point fingers, I am just curious.  So do not read anything into my question.

I alerted my commander the day the new reg went warm....and again the next day when it went hot.  The next meeting we met with our CP guys and started looking at where we stood and started formulating a plan to make sure we could meet our mission goals.

Right now we are going to focus on cadet parents.....and to expand our general recruiting to focus a little more of women specifically.

So you've just now started recruiting efforts that are inclusive? Interesting. Our unit's cadet program has been doing that for two years and we have a great group of SM including females.

Which is partly why I can say recruiting females is not the issue.

This is a cost versus value issue that has yet to be explained.