NB Minutes "CAP has had more visable suicides lately"

[Major Lord]

If you would, please amplify on that a bit. Is the "rigorous training" you mentioned the 14 hour Group Course, or is there some mandated training in addition to this? What training is required of a CAP member to be "qualified" by CAP standards?

Major Lord

[flyerthom]

As I indicated, there is no practical way to determine the actual number of CAP member suicides per annum, for a whole lot of different reasons.

Again, I don't know whether we can field an effective program given our limited expertise and resources. 

But are you arguing that we shouldn't even do the research to see what is available and practical?

If we had a 22 member a year suicide rate we'd know it. The HSO's had discussed a suicide prevention program years ago. Unfortunately those documents no longer appear on the HSO Yahoo group pages. A google news search for cadet suicide shows one in 1955 and the tragic events in FL in Feb 2005.

As you say if CAP needs to do research to prepare a program it should be done by people with experience in this sort of event. It should be done by Emergency Nurses, EMT-P's and Mental Health Professionals. This isn't something for people without specialized research and clinical training.

I also say it belongs with the specific HSO people I listed rather than CISM. CISM people are not focused on prevention but reaction. CISM is for right now. CISM people are not all medical people. They are peer people.  If they are medical people they are not necessarily specialty people. Most medical surgical nurses would run screaming into the night if they were pulled off the floor to work the ER. Injury and suicide prevention are a function of ER nursing and are tested for nurses aspiring to specialty certification. The same can be said for physicians who are not Emergency Boarded. CISM is based on the Mitchell Model. Emergency nursing and paramedicine is now evidence based practice.

I would argue that any study be done through the HSO program and then they present a needs analysis. However, I think such a study would be extremely difficult to accomplish.  CAP has no effective way to gather that type of in depth information to flesh out that data.  Without that information a program becomes another solution in search of a problem.

TC
RN CEN EMS RN CFRN

[Gunner C]

As I indicated, there is no practical way to determine the actual number of CAP member suicides per annum, for a whole lot of different reasons.

Again, I don't know whether we can field an effective program given our limited expertise and resources. 

But are you arguing that we shouldn't even do the research to see what is available and practical?

If we had a 22 member a year suicide rate we'd know it.

The stats given, as I stated above, would only be a rate of 2.2 members.  That's needle in a haystack stuff for a national program.

[spaatzmom]

Seriously......who here knows of a Cadet (and I mean personally met the individual) that committed suicide?  Anyone here in a Squadron that had a Cadet commit suicide?  Anyone at an activity where a Cadet committed Suicide?? 

I know of ONE.  In my long time in CAP, I have met one Cadet who for all intents and purposes seemed absolutely normal, and showed no signs or symptoms. 

The best we can do here is steal the Army/ Air Force suicide "help card" that shows what symptoms and signs to look for.  However, it has been proved that usually there are no signs because the individual keeps his or her emotions bottled up.  Unless the kid starts giving all of his or her things away and saying stuff like "man life would be better if I were dead", or "I am going to kill myself with Dad's gun tonight", we can not pick up on the signs and symptoms in the short amount of time we spend with them at unit meetings. 


If it comes down to me having to stand in front of my Cadets and asking "does anyone here feel like committing suicide".....it may be time for me to leave CAP.  WE (most of us) are not trained to discuss these personal issues or counsel children on this kind of level.  Last I looked, you need a license in my State to do that.  Heck, we should even call in outside professionals should a Cadet decide to kill himself or herself.  Which was not the case in the situation I personally know about.     

In all seriousness, in the last 3 to 4 years, I know of 4 that have committed suicide, 5 that have attempted, and 3 cadets that have threatened( 1 at a NCSA) and 1 SM.

Given the ripple effect of their actions, many more people are affected by this than most would like to believe.  Isn't 1 member even thinking about it more than enough?

[notaNCO forever]

 Their was a cadet in my squadron who attempted suicide multiple times. The thinking that only people living in poverty are the ones committing suicide, in my experience, is not really the truth. It seems the majority of depressed/ potentially suicidal people I meet are middle class or rich. That might just be my personal experience and not true for the majority of people.

[Major Lord]

I don't know of anyone who thinks only people living in poverty are likely candidates for suicide per se, but many of the known contributory factors are often coincidental with lower socioeconomic groups. (Broken homes, drugs, and alcohol, sexual abuse, etc) clearly these factors are not exclusive to the poor, but the risk factors are often concurrent.

Ned mentioned that there is no reason to believe that there is no reason to believe that the rate of suicide in CAP is any higher or any lower than the general population, but I think he is in error on this. CAP Cadets tend to come from families that are supportive and have the financial resources to let their kids participate in a relatively expensive program, and further, one that (ostensibly) supports the values of the US Air Force, where drugs and homosexual conduct are not generally considered desirable.  Poor performance in school, another predicative factor for suicidal risk, is in my experience, a much rarer thing in CAP then in the general teenage population.

To the poster of the ad hominem attacks on Ned, to malign Ned as a FEMF is way off base. He is a gentleman of great character and achievement, an actual warrior (rare in CAP), and one of CAP's true scholars. To link him temperamentally with the chair-warming Pinedados of NHQ is unfair and untrue, and anyone doing so in my presence had best be armed.

Ned did the raise the question though, of why this question raises so much hostility. It's safe to say that this board like many others has a high percentage of people who have little confidence in NHQ to do the right thing at the right time. As an organization, they sat by and watched their own good people be destroyed by a despotic tyrant, causing the honor of the organization to be tarnished, spent money on NASCAR, and a host of other misdemeanors, but I don't think these alone explain why a Suicide Prevention program should be so inherently repulsive.

I think the underlying cause is the revulsion of the members to be subject to yet another ritualistic politically correct program. In the recent past, these  have just been things like the "Safety Pledge", and a raft of 10 question online quizzes designed to create a better world.  Now it appears that CAP wants to take on the mantle of mental health practitioners. Whether this is a well-founded fear or not, the specter of CAP using the pseudoscientific tools of Psychology and creating yet another echelon of enforced political correctness is in fact revolting. As the book says: "physician, heal thyself" and there are many more avenues of reform that the organization can constructively address without having to create humanitarian solutions to non-existent problems.

Major Lord

[RiverAux]

Somebody else posted figures that suggested that we may well be losing 20 or more cadets to suicide every year.  And that is consistent with the statistics I've seen for our cadet age group. 

I'm confused.  Earlier you said that there was no way to track it and now you're saying that you have statistics and that they would be consistent with 20+ a year.  Which is it.

I think what you're interpreting as hostility is a very healthy skeptisim. 

If you can prove to me that the suicide rate of CAP members is higher than expected based on national statistics, I'll conceed that it is something that we might need to address. 

To be fair to you, this wasn't a thread that you started so its not like you came on to present a case in favor of such a program, but when you start discussing things that NHQ is considering doing that you know about, you should be prepared to bring some facts to the table you will get people like me hounding you for data to back up the need for what you say NHQ is considering. 
 

[ZigZag911]

If you would, please amplify on that a bit. Is the "rigorous training" you mentioned the 14 hour Group Course, or is there some mandated training in addition to this? What training is required of a CAP member to be "qualified" by CAP standards?

Major Lord

I believe the requirement has been expanded to include what is being described as a "3 day course", which includes Group, Individual, Suicide Prevention....not sure what else.

My point was that CAP already trains to the standards of a recognized accrediting organization in this area.

[Ned]

If you can prove to me that the suicide rate of CAP members is higher than expected based on national statistics, I'll conceed that it is something that we might need to address. 

To be fair to you, this wasn't a thread that you started so its not like you came on to present a case in favor of such a program, but when you start discussing things that NHQ is considering doing that you know about, you should be prepared to bring some facts to the table you will get people like me hounding you for data to back up the need for what you say NHQ is considering. 

Yup, you're correct I didn't start this thread, in part because there is no program on the table to propose, so there really isn't anything to discuss.

The whole notion that I (or anyone at NHQ) have to prove to you that a given topic is even worth considering or researching is the strangest aspect of this thread.

I've said several times that none of us can (yet) provide that kind of information.  That is sorta the whole point of having a staff research and consider things - to gather the information that may prove the point one way or another.

It is not yet time to debate the "true" number of cadet suicides, and then somehow weigh and balance that against a given prevention proposal.

But if you'd like to help out, start by taking a look at the CDC data and scoping out WISQARS and let us know what you find.

And clearly, one of the things that we are looking at is SM expertise.  It should not surprise you that the National HSO, CISM chief, and I have discussed this very issue - whether the necessary expertise is most likely to be found, if at all,  in medical, CISM, or CP.  We get that.


Really, really.

[Cecil DP]

As I indicated, there is no practical way to determine the actual number of CAP member suicides per annum, for a whole lot of different reasons.

Again, I don't know whether we can field an effective program given our limited expertise and resources. 

But are you arguing that we shouldn't even do the research to see what is available and practical?

If we had a 22 member a year suicide rate we'd know it.

The stats given, as I stated above, would only be a rate of 2.2 members.  That's needle in a haystack stuff for a national program.

Given a membership of approximately 65,000 the overall rate is 3.39 per cent. Based on your figure of 22 per year

[Ned]

Given a membership of approximately 65,000 the overall rate is 3.39 per cent. Based on your figure of 22 per year

Remember, that wasn't my number.  I haven't posted a rate or number because my research is incomplete.

That was RiverAux's number from his reply at the top of page 2 of this thread.

And one thing that my research has disclosed is that it is probably not very helpful to talk just about deaths - attempts need to  be included as well.  And that number, whatever it is, is inevitably going to be much larger.

[heliodoc]

Ned

You don't need to prove anything

NHQ has to prove its leadership by attaching a !@#$r rudder to this boat called CAP

Maybe PROVE there is TRUE leadership at Maxwell;  More leadership and lESS glitzy reports to Congress

This suicide stuff ...... Leave this to the REAL professionals

NHQ needs a rudder and true captain maybe an Ensign to get this boat steered right

Steered right .......39-1, suicides studies and ALLLLLL

[jimmydeanno]

Pardon me if I sound like I'm being insensitive, it is not intended to be that way.

I am of the opinion that our organization is drifting further from it's core missions, more and more becoming focused on other things - essentially an organization that is "everything to everyone."

What we apparently seem to be trying to create is a civilian version of "The Air Force."  We may have the identifier of "Auxiliary of the USAF" but that doesn't mean that we have to follow their models for everything or institute every program, job, organizational structure, requirements, etc that they have.

I talked about the safety program requirements that we got the other day and how our focus should be on properly training the management.  In my opinion, this (suicide awareness training) is something that I don't think I'd mind having included as a subset of something like UCC and RST.  But I don't think that we need to develop "suicide intervention teams" and have a "suicide prevention program" instituted nation-wide. 

Perhaps we should look at revamping our management schools and courses to include things like this that every other organization in the world does.

For example, adding Suicide Awareness into the Chaplain Staff College, TLC and UCC would be beneficial.  It addresses the "managements" role in recognizing and preventing suicide.  At 30-45 minute block wouldn't hurt and meets the need at the level it should.

[Major Carrales]

What we apparently seem to be trying to create is a civilian version of "The Air Force."  We may have the identifier of "Auxiliary of the USAF" but that doesn't mean that we have to follow their models for everything or institute every program, job, organizational structure, requirements, etc that they have.

I have been sustaining a version of this point for 10 years.  CAP has some very different factors at work in its membership than does the USAF.  If we try to apply every aspect of the USAF on CAP, the results will be more of a problem than a solution.

Yes, some functions are helpful.  However, others do not apply. 

There is a group fo CAPTALKERs here that assert the notion that we must adhere to USAF style policy and practice, many times as solutions to uniquely CAP problems.

Once we understand that we must start with the framework of CAP, as it exists now, instead of reverse engineering the USAF's policies (which are opt to work in the USAF situation of existing funding, medical infrastructure and daily garrison lifestyle), then we might see some of the internal CAP leadership people desire.

As for this topic, yes, there are places where we can address suicides..  However, blanket systemwide policies, practices and courses that are going to "ground" people that don't have them in a system where member funding is the only type of finance, where there is no medical CAP infrastructure and where meetings held once a month are the norm are simply not the way to go.

[RiverAux]

The whole notion that I (or anyone at NHQ) have to prove to you that a given topic is even worth considering or researching is the strangest aspect of this thread.

I think you will find that I didn't say the overall topic wasn't worth considering, but that considering starting a program to address something that isn't yet a proven problem is not a wise way to go. 

And you're right that every NHQ action doesn't need RiverAux's seal of approval.  But, you should be incredibly concerned about what the membership is thinking and yes, you do need to prove to the membership in general that something is worth doing, especially in a time when CAP overall is losing membership.  One of the top things on every NHQ's staffer's mind should be whether a particular program is really worth the valuable time of CAP volunteers. 

That is sorta the whole point of having a staff research and consider things - to gather the information that may prove the point one way or another.

That is not what you said NHQ is doing.  You said that they were trying to find a program to address the issue of cadet suicide, not attempting to determine if it is enough of an issue to warrant a program in the first place.  I would support the latter and if the evidence shows theres a problem, would be open to various ways to address it. 

[Major Lord]

The document, written by Sam Bernhard PhD, does not suggest we or anyone else conduct studies or surveys, or evaluate the efficiacy of Suicide Prevention programs. He skips over the entire issue of severity and causation, and goes right to "proactive" solutions! Heck, lets not worry about the facts, lets start fixing them! Here are his specifics:

Civil Air Patrol would be well served to address suicide in a proactive manner by:

1. Developing protocols/education with the goal of preventing deaths by suicide in cadets and seniors,

2. Develop protocols/education with the goal of providing appropriate intervention when suicide warning signs are noticed,

3. Develop protocols/education with the goal of providing appropriate intervention after a death by suicide

4. Develop protocols/education with the goal of adequately and appropriately addressing  the potential for "copy cat" suicides

Now that they have solved all the really pressing issues of CAP, they can now delve into the general well-being of the members. The nanny-state mentality is bleeding into CAP I am afraid.

Major Lord

[Ned]

One of the top things on every NHQ's staffer's mind should be whether a particular program is really worth the valuable time of CAP volunteers. 

On this, we could not agree more. 

On a purely personal note, it is something I have considered on almost every CAP project I have been assigned or undertaken, from cleaning out the squadron hanger in 1969 to looking at potential SPP programs today.

Let's try to leave it at this:  when and if CP proposes a specific SPP, I promise to defend against all criticisms both in front of the NB (if they wish) and here.

And at that time, I will do my best to convince you that 1) there is a significant problem warranting a response at the National level, and 2) that the specific proposal on the table is appropriate for us given the skills and resources of our members, and specifically is worthwhile given the competing needs and requirments at the squadron level.

I won't shrink from a fair and vigorous debate.  If I can't defend my specfic proposal against any and all reasonable criticisms, I will modify or withdraw any such proposal.

Deal?

[Climbnsink]

SPP done wrong or implemented half a$$ed is dangerous and can create problems where there weren't any.  It is bleeping stupid to go down this road.   

[Major Lord]

One of the top things on every NHQ's staffer's mind should be whether a particular program is really worth the valuable time of CAP volunteers. 

On this, we could not agree more. 

On a purely personal note, it is something I have considered on almost every CAP project I have been assigned or undertaken, from cleaning out the squadron hanger in 1969 to looking at potential SPP programs today.

Let's try to leave it at this:  when and if CP proposes a specific SPP, I promise to defend against all criticisms both in front of the NB (if they wish) and here.

And at that time, I will do my best to convince you that 1) there is a significant problem warranting a response at the National level, and 2) that the specific proposal on the table is appropriate for us given the skills and resources of our members, and specifically is worthwhile given the competing needs and requirments at the squadron level.

I won't shrink from a fair and vigorous debate.  If I can't defend my specfic proposal against any and all reasonable criticisms, I will modify or withdraw any such proposal.

Deal?

Is this a Jedi-Lawyer trick? I would prefer that you defend the criticisms, rather than defend against them, as you mentioned above!

Major Lord

[Gunner C]

As I indicated, there is no practical way to determine the actual number of CAP member suicides per annum, for a whole lot of different reasons.

Again, I don't know whether we can field an effective program given our limited expertise and resources. 

But are you arguing that we shouldn't even do the research to see what is available and practical?

If we had a 22 member a year suicide rate we'd know it.

The stats given, as I stated above, would only be a rate of 2.2 members.  That's needle in a haystack stuff for a national program.

Given a membership of approximately 65,000 the overall rate is 3.39 per cent. Based on your figure of 22 per year

That's not what it said in the stats at the beginning:

Whereas:
1. In 2006, 33,300 Americans died by suicide with the following breakdown:

33,300 nationwide suicides divided by 300,000,000 Americans is .011%.  In a cadet population of 22,426 that's 2.48 (call it 2.5).  Still a needle in a haystack.