A CadetStuff Editorial.

Late last year, Civil Air Patrol National Headquarters released for comments from the field a proposed draft of Civil Air Patrol Regulation 52-16, Cadet Programs. 52-16 is the regulation that governs pretty much everything in the CAP Cadet Program, from encampments to awards, CACs to CPFTs, and everything in between. It is the CAP cadet program.

Judging by the contents of the revised draft regulation presented to the National Board for ratification in March, the received comments from the field nearly universally excoriated the proposed changes. Probably about 3/4 of the originally proposed changes were missing. But then the National Board voted to table the proposed 52-16 for additional review before the August National Boards. Recently, yet another draft version of 52-16 was posted at the National webpage for comment from the membership in advance of the National Board meeting in August.

Two of the proposed changes, reverting the originally proposed change of Moral Leadership to Character Development back to Moral Leadership, and the alternations to the Free Cadet Uniform program, stick out like a sore thumb to me for a couple reasons. One, they were not in the originally proposed changes to 52-16, and two, as a former squadron commander, they just seem, well, silly..

First, the suggested move back to "Moral Leadership" from the originally proposed "Character Development." Let's call a spade a spade here: the program we conduct under the name "Moral Leadership" is more accurately a "Character Development" program, so why not call it that in the first place?

When I do recruiting presentations, I am careful when describing the elements of the cadet program to be clear that our Moral Leadership component is a discussion and exploration of ethics and values. This comes from many years and scores of presentations to prospective members and parents. I don't know the reason for sure, but I would get a lot of pointed questions when I used the words "Moral Leadership" and "Chaplain" in the same sentence. Some parents uncomfortable with the possibility that some kind of organized religion might be foisted on their kids without their knowledge? It is a fine line to walk, to be sure. Character Development is actually a more accurate description for Moral Leadership anyway. Its not being disingenuous to describe this part of the program in as accurate and concrete terms as possible.

So why the need to step away from Character Development?

The second change is to the Free Cadet Uniform program. This change I find to be somewhat more troubling in that it reflects a serious lack of understanding of the realities of executing the cadet program at the local level.

The proposed change to the FCU involves sending a cadet a Free Cadet Uniform only after they have completed Achievement One instead of upon joining CAP. The idea being, I assume, that a cadet who has completed Achievement One is more likely to stick around than a cadet who just sent in his or her paperwork. Unfortunately, this change will only place a greater burden upon the cadets at the local level and not save the organization or the Air Force much money.

Consider this: Completion of Achievement One is essentially 30 days from join date, a written test, a PT test, a Character Development session, memorization of the Cadet Oath, proper wear of the uniform and showing up. Oh, wait. Did I say "proper wear of the uniform?" Herein lies the rub: The "minimum basic service uniform" for a cadet is the short-sleeve blues combo. The same short-sleeve blue shirt combo a cadet gets as part of the FCU. And a cadet is required to have a complete uniform and be able to wear it properly, to complete Achievement One, right? So are we requiring cadets to obtain and wear a complete uniform so they can qualify for a free uniform?? Where is the logic in that?

I don’t know about your squadron, but about 99% of our new cadets make it to their first stripe by the end of Cadet Basic Training (about 10 weeks after joining). And our unit has a slightly higher retention rate than the national average (between 50 and 55% versus the 40% number put out by NHQ). Every one of the 15 or 16 new cadets in our Fall 2005 Cadet Basic Training cycle would have qualified for that FCU under this change, yet at the end of their membership year we’re still going to lose between 7 and 9 of those cadets (7 under our retention rate, 9 under the national average). Is there any real evidence that cadets who reach their first stripe are any less of a first-term retention loss than cadets who don't? I'd suggest that if a cadet is not wearing at least three stripes at the end of their first year in the program, or has not completed Phase I (Wright Bros), they are at a serious risk of being a first-term retention loss.

The FCU program is in need of a serious overhaul. That's a given. Handing out free uniforms to cadets who do not finish a full year in the program is just asking to waste money. Lots of money. On the order of $240,000 per annum at the current retention rate. But forcing cadets to wait until the completion of Achievement One to give them a complete uniform is not going to save that much money, either.

Perhaps a better overhaul to the cadet program would be to address the root cause of the 60% national loss rate instead of requiring a mom on a fixed income to shell out more $$$ for her son or daughter to join CAP just so they can get a free uniform, and then still be at risk to not remain in the program for the first year.

For the most part, the proposed changes to 52-16 just scratch the surface, and that's where I have the biggest heartburn with the ever-changing 52-16 game. These proposed change marks the third round of changes to the Cadet Program regulation since 1998, and yet more "death by a thousand paper-cuts" changes. The Cadet Program regulation undergoes a change just about every three years now. I think that's way, way too many changes in too short a time.

How can we (the organizational "we")have any idea that any changes made to the cadet program are having the desired effect if we're constantly and continually tweaking before the dust settles from the previous set of changes? It takes 6-12 months to really phase in new changes and at least another 12 months for the folks in the field to actually get comfortable working with "the new way." Just about the time everybody gets on the same page at the local level, it seems that the "next great idea" is in the pipeline before the full effect of the previous changes can be fully known, examined and realized.

Face it, the Cadet Program is probably the most complicated (as far as its multiple facets go) of all the programs we have in the organization. Its HARD to coordinate all this and make it work and keep up with the current guidance, etc.

Interestingly, some folks have suggested that some of the originally proposed Cadet Program changes, and some of the changes in the current promulgation of the regulation are coming to assist the first term retention issues among cadets. I'm here to say that if that's the case, the changes are going to fall well short of that mark. Very few of the overall changes affect cadets in Phase I, which is where our biggest retention loss is. I have other ideas about first-term retention, but that is a discussion for another editorial.

Three things we could do, RIGHT NOW, to help improve the cadet program, or, at the very least, improve our first term retention rate:

1) Encampment Better forms of Air Force support, better guidance on the program of instruction and the conduct of encampment, reduce the number of discrete encampments to as few as possible to ensure maximum participation, and reduce barriers to getting cadets to encampment. (I say this as a kid who went to his first encampment without an ID card and barely a uniform, and came away as a highly retainable member. I'm still here 25 years later. Funny how that works.)
2) Orientation Flights Fund, emphasize & manage the orientation flight program in such a way that ALL cadets get at least one, preferably 2 or 3, orientation flights in their first year of membership. Flying, or a lack of it, appears to be a consistent theme in retention interviews that I've seen. Units with a plane, some pilots and an organized orientation flying program seem to attract and retain the aviation-oriented cadets better, too. What about units without a nearby plane? What are they supposed to do? Go out in the parking lot, spread their arms and make zooming noises?
3) More structured introduction to the program. Structure & implement a comprehensive introduction to the cadet program, a cadet basic training program, in lieu of the original "motivation phase." Devise a introductory pamphlet and a set sequence of training, with outlines, lesson plans and visual aids, that guides a cadet right into the program the right way from day one.

In addition, I would recommend the formation of two additional committees pertaining to the overall direction of the cadet program at the National level.

The first committee, for now lets call it the "Cadet Programs Steering Committee" would be comprised of stakeholders & experts. Include individuals such as the chief academic officer of the Air University, the Director of Cadet Programs for Civil Air Patrol, representatives of the Air Force accessions command, other distinguished educators (particularly in primary & secondary education), perhaps an authority on adolescent physical fitness, and authorities in the fields of military leadership training, ethics & aerospace education. This committee’s job would be to look at the longer term strategic direction of the Cadet Program and whether or not we’re meeting that objective.

The second committee would be, say, the "Cadet Programs Operations Committee," a committee that would operationally study and devise answers to the direction posed by the Steering Committee that fit the field. Membership of this committee would be field-heavy, with a master ratings in Cadet Programs and RECENT experience in a cadet unit (composite or cadet) as the first qualifiers for duty on such a committee. Also, the CP Ops Committee would meet on a more regular basis (say, once a month) while the Steering Committee would only meet a couple times a year at the most.

The bottom line is: change in the cadet program must come when there is an overriding, national need to adjust, refine or improve the function of the cadet program at the unit level. Change for change's sake will lead to the units constantly chasing their tail, always playing catch up with "the latest and greatest out of NHQ." I've always been taught that the local unit is where the "rubber meets the road," and I adamantly believe this to be true. So let's stop squealing our tires and burning that rubber, shall we?

(Editors Note: Visit yourself upon the Regulations for Ratification page and, per CAPR 5-1, comment on the draft of CAPR 52-16 before July 5, 2006.)