New CPP Codified - Updated 52-10

[Ned]

I would like to invite you to address the  issues I have raised that are not specific to gender.

Tim, let me go back through and see what I can address.  This is a lot of cut-n-paste.

Both the way these uncoordinated changes were rolled out and the attitude that suddenly it's our duty to comply without stating the unintended consequences on our mission are completely at odds with the content of that curriculum.

I'm not sure I can agree that these were "uncoordinated changes."  As you know, the reguatlion went through several drafts and public comment periods before the final publication.  Significant changes were made in part due to the public comments, including deleting much of the proposed guidance about senior - cadet contact outside of activities, tracking of boundary violations, and some of the language about transportation to and from meetings.

At some point the regulation has to be published.  In contrast to some other CAP regulations, I'm kinda proud that the CP staff put it out for comment, revised it, put it out again, and revised it again.  Then we passed it along to the commander and it was published.

I certainly understand that any regulation, no matter how carefully crafted or coordinated, can have unintended consequences.  it is important for us to know about them, evaluate them, and perhaps change things a bit to mitigate or avoid unwanted effects.

But we had always pushed coed supervision as a "best practice."  (But not a requirement until the publication.)  I'm sure you would agree that many parents are concerned about this, particularly parents of our younger cadets.  It's not like this came out of the blue.

It'd help if NHQ could take the time to explain things like the mandatory (no exceptions) coed supervision rule.

Maybe it's just a matter of perspective.  We did, if fact, publish several white papers concerning the proposed changes.  The whole point of the white papers was to "explain things" so that we could get meaningful comments on the draft regulation and help members in the field prepare for what may occur.  We explained the proposals at length here and on the Cadet Blog.  We responded to individual member questions as best as we could.  We also briefed the senior CAP leadership and took their feedback.

You may be right that out of all the changes in the proposed regulation (the key changes being the concept of boundary violations, changes in our two deep supervision policies even on non overnight activities, etc) that were discussed in the white papers, that the "coed overnight mandate" was not highlighted or discussed in depth when compared to the other changes.

But the point remains that the regulation was developed in the most transparent way possible.  We announced a conference to which outside agencies and non-NHQ members were invited.  We gathered data from open sources.  We created a draft, circulated it, and revised it several times based on feedback from multiple sources, including right here on CT.

I feel a little sorry for the corporate CP staff.  It almost feels like a game of CAP "Gotcha."  They briefed and explained Significant Changes 1-20 by way of white papers, briefings, and on line interactions.  But some members are seizing upon Moderate Change #4 that was not explained in the same detail as the others to "prove" that "NHQ does not take the time to discuss the changes or provide the peer-reviewed research to show why Moderate Change #4 is being foisted on the field."

Obviously we now have 14 pages of discussion on essentially one of the dozens of significant changes made to the CPP.  Although it pleases me that the Boundary Violation concept seems to have been accepted (frankly, that was the provision I expected to be most controversial), clearly the coed mandate seems to be drawing the most comments.

Ned, mission pilots come to us because we offer them something they want (to fly). Chaplains are motivated to serve others and while it's ideal to have a chaplain, we also have mitigating policies that allow us to designated Character Development Instructors. If no Chaplain or CDI is available, the Commander can facilitate CD.

There is no such mitigation for the coed adult supervision requirement. What I think would be helpful here is to help members understand why coed adult supervision is so critical to abuse prevention that we will not hold overnight activities without it.

Some MPs come to us, some are recruited. Same with chaplains.

On the issue of coed supervision mitigation, in my view there are at least two mitigators.  First, as Col Weiss and others have pointed out, is the CSM program.  The whole point of the CSM program is to provide chaperones and drivers when needed.  Although we have hung a few more requirments on the CSM program over the years than I would like (mostly online courses), they remain an extremely valuable tool to assist with coed supervision.

The second mitigation is the over six month ramp-up of the requirement.  Which should allow units plenty of time to plan for and achieve the necessary coed supervision by the effective date.  Some (perhaps most) units won't have to do anything because they have the necessary female seniors.  Some will simply coordinate with nearby units to borrow a senior once or twice a year.  Some units may need to recruit CSM or regular senior members.  Six months should be more than adequate for that process.

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.

Forgive me, but that sounds a little bit like reinventing the CSM program.  I have no great objection if we need to fine tune the CSM program and lower fees, redesign or eliminate uniforms, or whatever.

But I think it puts the cart before the horse.  I am not yet convinced that our current CSM program can not meet the need perfectly adequately.  Sure, it could always be cheaper, easier to administer, or whatever.

But I will reserve judgment on this until units have tried in good faith to meet the requirement using regular seniors or CSMs under the current program.



Did I miss anything, sir?

[dwb]

I'm not sure I can agree that these were "uncoordinated changes."  ...  At some point the regulation has to be published.

Indeed it was published. Then two days later, the start date for significant changes was moved up from Oct 1 to "immediately". On a Friday afternoon. Right before a bunch of squadrons had weekend activities scheduled that didn't have CAPF 32s, or two-deep leadership, or coed seniors for an overnight activity.

I think that's the crux of Tim's complaint. Not only did we not receive warning of the implementation date, but in fact we were told one thing then it changed abruptly without explanation, and really threw a lot of people off.

And oh by the way, this is the third time this year something like this has happened to CP. CAPP 216 and AGH for o-flights being the first two times.

I understand exactly what you're saying, and I agree with what you're saying, but I think we can "salute and execute" while also acknowledging that the people complaining about uncoordinated changes might have a valid point.

[Eclipse]

I'm sure you would agree that many parents are concerned about this, particularly parents of our younger cadets.  It's not like this came out of the blue.

Misinformed parents are "concerned" about a lot of things - many refuse to vaccinate their children because a celebrity told them not
to based on a fraudulent study.

Competent, informed parents want their children to be properly supervised, something gender does not control or influence.

It would also be very interesting to know what, exactly, type of comfort, service, supervision, or aid a non-parent chaperon
of the same gender can provide that one of a different gender cannot.

As the rules are written today, a female can't be in any more proximity, location, or alone in any way that a male can't for a female
cadet, and vice versa.

Locker room / bathroom?  Nope.  Not if the senior has any sense, and especially not when dressing or taking care of personal needs.

Sleeping area?  Nope.

"Lady issues"? No way.

So... other then incorrect assumptions, this provides, what?

Exactly?

[Tim Day]

Ned,

Come on. You can do better. Lots of us agreed with coed adult supervision as a best practice for overnight activities. The freedom to proceed without it if we briefed parents wand obtained parental permission was more than enough of a safety net, although I would have accepted even more stringent notification requirements like informing the next echelon in advance, or even submitting a risk mitigation plan on paper if it could be asserted that there was some protective value in doing so.

Changing something without coordination is by definition uncoordinated. I read the white papers. I read and commented on both drafts. I participated faithfully, thank you, and then NHQ sprung an uncoordinated change on me. Don't pretend ir was coordinated when it clearly was not.

Ned, simple math illuminates the problem. If I need 2 out of 4 SM to provide overnight supervision, I'm about twice as likely to succeed as if I need 1 out of 2 males and 1 out of 2 females.

All I'm asking us that we apply some intelligent analysis to the problem before implementing a solution that BSA uses for a limited subset of their members.

Did you really mean to imply that we have not shown good faith in our recruiting efforts in the past? Now I'm beginning to believe that NHQ really thinks we're stupid and lazy out here.

[SunDog]

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.

I missed the posts from the group "who just want to keep saying it can't be done and CAP is doomed". Maybe my back-arrow doesn't go far enough? I did pick up on Ned's polite and pleasantly folksy, but totured, logic supporting discrimination in order to correct. . .what are we correcting?  Something about at least one chaperone having the same reproductive organs as at least one cadet, on an overnight? Come to think of it, I haven't ever seen anothers member's, uh plumbing. It's possible we may be deceived on occasion. . .

So the General signed it. Ned has happy, if uninformed, ideas about female recruiting.  They had committees and white papers.  We should all shut-up and soldier.

Man, childhood has to end at NHQ someday, don't it? How many times can you stop, stumble, and fall through basic leadership? How bad can comms get?  Geez, we can't give away free flying! We can't use two vetted, adult, humans of the same gender to look out for kids?  This is getting depressing. . .

[Tim Day]

Let's actually do some math.

We've stated here that our average senior membership is about 20% female. But let's assume we attain a 50/50 split by 1 Oct.

Let's state that Podunk Composite Squadron will have 20 senior members on the books by then, of which 16 are flying club members, members who have BTDT (and are done dealing with the CP), or members who only show up electronically, leaving 4 to regularly manage the cadet program. Assume (ideally) that 2 are male and 2 are female. Since they have jobs, families, churches, and other interests, let's assume they have a 25% probability of being available on a given weekend.

Probability that the CDC could schedule 2 of those 4 for a weekend overnight activity is around 40%.

(1 - (1-.25)^4) x (1-(1-.25)^3) = 40%

However, probability that the CDC could schedule 1 male and 1 female is around 19%.

(1-(1-.25)^2) x (1-(1-.25)^2) = 19%

By policy you've cut in half the chance of successfully scheduling Podunk Composite's bivouac. At a minimum, you've narrowed the dates when you could schedule it and dramatically increased your risk of having to cancel due to external factors. Eclipse has pretty much been saying this and the cheerleaders have been reviling him for doom and gloom. 

We could improve those odds two ways: 1) by increasing the probability that someone will participate or 2) by increasing the population of membership. In my squadron the female SM who supervise the CP are much more likely to participate, by the way - our challenge might be finding male SM to participate though certainly not for lack of desire.

All of this is the "cost". The "value" would be in implementing a practice that improves the safety of our cadets. Thus if there were some source that suggested coed adult supervision decreased the probability of abuse occurring, the policy's value would certainly be worth the cost of decreasing opportunities for overnight activities. However, no such source or evidence has been presented. Just some emotional assertions and anecdotes about parental concern. The Center for Disease Control information on best practices for child abuse prevention talks a lot about creating a safe environment, but mentions nothing about coed leadership during overnights. The BSA implemented that policy, but none of their materials actually cites a rationale - it just seems to be an assumed value.

Meanwhile, I've found nothing that suggests that coed adult supervision results in any lower probability of abuse than two-deep adult leadership. In fact, the safest possible combination of two-deep leadership from a statistical perspective would be 2 female adults, since the recorded data indicates male adults are the most common abusers by a significant margin. If NHQ really wanted to minimize the risk of abuse, they'd ban male adults from participating in the cadet program. But of course that's not workable, is it?

Meanwhile, we now have fathers who cannot supervise their daughters and mothers who cannot supervise their sons on overnight CAP activities and we are likely decreasing the opportunities for the positive activities cited by child abuse prevention experts as the best way to help our youth!

Large squadrons like the one I'm in are less impacted by this than smaller squadrons, but that doesn't make it any more palatable for me or executable for them.

All I'm really asking for is to be convinced by facts that this is a good idea, and that the simple mitigation steps we've always had (parental notification / approval) result in some measurable increase in hazard and thus needed to be deleted. That's just aligning this one rule with the rest of the document, which has this kind of empirical underpinning. To date all I've received is an admonishment that I need to try harder, and that's disappointing.

[Mitchell 1969]

There comes a time, and it may have happened in this case, where the points have been made and where anything that follows is simply a rehashing of those points. It seems pretty clear - there are those, with some justification, who are not happy with the changes and want it known that they are not happy, in an effort to possibly influence change.  There are others, perhaps also unhappy with the changes, who are not in a position to change anything, who have listened.

I encountered this in local government politics all the time. Some council member, mayor, governor or legislature would be insistent on creating policy that practitioners knew to be impractical, unrealistic, unreasonable and definitely challenging to the people who had to carry out the policy.

Career managers had an obligation in those circumstances to point out the errors, deficiencies, impracticalities. Sometimes they succeeded and the policy was modified. Other times, especially in cases where credit had already been publicly claimed, the policy stood as written. That would leave managers in the field with only one option - carry out the policy, as we were hired to do just that and had taken oaths of office promising to do so.

In some cases, we made it work. We adapted. In other cases, we did our honest and level best to apply the policy, but it didn't work. It's a heck of a way to run things, but sometimes theorists can't be convinced without seeing actual proof. And I believe that's where we are on the CPP changes.

It's been announced. People have had their say. I believe the say has been heard. (Being heard doesn't always result in desires being accommodated). That leaves only execution. If said execution, honestly done, results in failure of policy, that failure will be evident.

In other words - energy is being wasted on objections. Time to stop focusing on objections and start focusing on proof - whether that proof supports the change or not, it will be proof, rather than theory and frustrated discussion.

[SunDog]

A couple more minds like this, and we might have some leadership worth following. Effing A well tolt, Bubba.

Critical thinking on display, analysis trumping intuition, measured, yet firm focus on being convinced. . .

But that ain't what we got. . .as stands now, a rational person wouldn't follow this crew to Cuck E Cheese.

[Eclipse]

If said execution, honestly done, results in failure of policy, that failure will be evident.

Will it?  How?

This was something I was considering this evening - NHQ doesn't track overnight activities, and for that matter beyond
raw attrition, only recently started even asking "why" people quit.

There's going to be no way to track activities cancelled, or simply not planned because of this, so there will also be no
way, beyond the anecdote, to connect it to attrition, reduced initiative, or morale issues.

There will be two primary results of this:

CCs with manpower issues always having this in the back of their mind when an overnight activity comes up.

CCs who are apathetic, ignorant, or willfully disobedient getting themselves in trouble (or not, as is generally the case in CAP).

There will be no way to demonstrate it was "successful", especially in light of the fact that there is no evidence that it is "necessary".

This is the CPT equivalent of requiring Nomex in the airplanes - someone's "good idea" which creates an entry barrier that has
nothing but anecdotal evidence to support the requirement.  "Hmm...it sounds right, so..."

As Tim has demonstrated, it incurs a "cost" with no indication of a "benefit".

[SunDog]

Maybe not many will bolt over this particular issue; it's just that we have so many others like it that serve as accumulated drivers.

[Eclipse]

Maybe not many will bolt over this particular issue; it's just that we have so many others like it that serve as accumulated drivers.

An excellent point - few people quit or reduce their involvement over any single issue.  Those that I have known
build up a list until one day the bucket is full.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Let's also factor in comfort levels. A female member may not want to be 1 and 1 with a male, asking for a second female or possibly at least a second male. I've seen this, so now we need at least 3 SMs in some cases.

[Ned]

Ned,

Come on. You can do better.

No, Tim, I can't do better than telling you the truth about how the policy was developed.  BTW, it is not my policy, it's CAP's policy.  IOW, it's now your policy, too.

Lots of us agreed with coed adult supervision as a best practice for overnight activities.

And yet, somehow this thread does not feel like you agree that it is a best practice. 

Changing something without coordination is by definition uncoordinated. I read the white papers. I read and commented on both drafts. I participated faithfully, thank you, and then NHQ sprung an uncoordinated change on me. Don't pretend it was coordinated when it clearly was not.

Hmmm, by the same token, do not pretend that a broad regulation that was 95% coordinated, is somehow "not coordinated" because one aspect -- among dozens -- was not.

Ned, simple math illuminates the problem. If I need 2 out of 4 SM to provide overnight supervision, I'm about twice as likely to succeed as if I need 1 out of 2 males and 1 out of 2 females.

All I'm asking us that we apply some intelligent analysis to the problem before implementing a solution that BSA uses for a limited subset of their members.

Really?  "Simple math?"  If you have two out of four of your seniors available for your roughly four overnights a year at your squadron, you have 100% success with only 50% of your seniors.

Your activities do not occur randomly.  They are planned and coordinated ahead of time.  If one of your necessary seniors is not available on the first weekend on the month, you simply move the activity until you have what you need.  That is no different than planning that same activity today.  Math has little, if anything, to do with it.  It is planning, leadership, and resource allocation.  You know, leadership and management.

Did you really mean to imply that we have not shown good faith in our recruiting efforts in the past? Now I'm beginning to believe that NHQ really thinks we're stupid and lazy out here.

Come on now, colonel.  Nothing I have said implies that you are stupid or lazy.  I don't even know you.  Did you mean to imply that I am stupid or lazy?  I didn't think so, but it sounds like I should ask.

Meanwhile, we now have fathers who cannot supervise their daughters and mothers who cannot supervise their sons on overnight CAP activities!

It bears repeating that nothing has changed in that regard.  Last month "fathers of daughters" and "mothers of sons" could not supervise their children alone on a CAP activity.  We had two-deep leadership required then, and we have two-deep leadership required now.  The only thing that has changed is the gender of the other required supervisor.  The total number of seniors required has not changed.

[Eclipse]

It bears repeating that nothing has changed in that regard.  Last month "fathers of daughters" and "mothers of sons" could not supervise their children alone on a CAP activity.  We had two-deep leadership required then, and we have two-deep leadership required now.  The only thing that has changed is the gender of the other required supervisor.  The total number of seniors required has not changed.

Ned,

Repeating that assertion won't make it true.

The seniors required may not have changed, but the seniors available absolutely have.

[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.

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.

No sir......we have always been inclusive.....we have several women in my unit...we are going to do some focused recruiting....targeting specifically women.   Maybe increase the female to male ratio a little.

[PA Guy]

Let's also factor in comfort levels. A female member may not want to be 1 and 1 with a male, asking for a second female or possibly at least a second male. I've seen this, so now we need at least 3 SMs in some cases.

How often have you experienced this situation? Often? Once in awhile? Once in a Blue Moon?  You really reached for this one. I have more yrs in CAP than you have fingers and toes and I have never encountered this issue so I'm curious how often this happens in your AOR?

[PA Guy]

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

I have discussed the issues with my region CC and NHQ personnel. I won't discuss personal conversations other than to say there is dissatisfaction at all levels and most of you are complaining and striking out at the wrong people.

[Tim Day]

Colonel Lee,

I'm not striking out at you. I'm attempting to request some kind of rationale. I understand your need to defend the policy as signed.

I take from your response that there is no empirical underpinning for the no exception to coed supervision policy and that NHQ doesn't have a measure of the value of the policy for which they are willing to impose the cost of compliance on units.  If there was I believe you'd share it with us. Instead you're deflecting, which I get.

Thanks for trying. I don't expect to hear a response on why I had to tell my parents to fill out a new form the night before an activity either.

My interpretation of this discussion, then, is that this was a CAP/CC directed change and the CP shop at NHQ is too professional to confirm or deny that.

The squadron I'm in won't suffer, as we have the luxury of size and diversity. However, units near us will. We'll do our best to assist them and I personally will add volunteer hours to support Group overnight activities. The cost of the policy change will be borne by the membership despite the dubious value of that change.

MSgt Harris missed a step. It's not salute and execute. It's advise the commander of the issues, then salute and execute. And then revisit after the next change of command, armed with facts and change proposals.

[Luis R. Ramos]

If there is any value to the "2 supervisors of different gender" concept, the New York City Department of Education would have picked it up already. Their only stipulation on overnight activities of classes is the amount not the gender of adults.

For instance, an activity involving up to thirty high school students on an overnight are to be supervised by one staff member and one additional adult. The first required supervisor must be a teacher or supervisor. This second adult can be a parent volunteer, any member of the instructional staff, a paraprofessional, or school aide. For each additional fifteen students, another adult is required. (Regulation of the Chancellor A-670, dated 8/18/11)

No mention of gender anywhere. If there is any advantage to a co-ed supervision, it has not been adopted by a large city kid-serving organization. Not that this comparison may matter, as this regulation change is a "done deal."

[Garibaldi]

Something I have not seen addressed in this issue is the use of CPP qualified female cadets. Since we require cadets 18 and up to take CPP, why can we not use that to our advantage? Surely, if we make them take that course, what possible use is it if they can't put it in to practice? I realize there are a lot of legal ramifications, but it would open up a few more doors. For instance, a female joins as a SM. She takes level 1 and can go supervise cadets as a FO. Female is legally responsible as an adult. Female cadet is a 20 year old but can't perform the same duty? I realize this is probably a legal black hole, since cadets can't legally be held responsible, but if we can entrust an 18 year old FO over a 20 year old cadet, to me, legal goes out the window.