I’ve held back on here for a while… but i can do so no more. The definition of “fit for purpose” is quite personal; we need to know what our metrics for measuring are.
A few months back i described how I’d measure success at a Sqn level; and I’d suggest we need a similar approach to defining our success as an organisation.
Amazingly, for an organisation of our size and nature, not even HQAC have worked this out! In 2012 understanding this very thing was a sensible recommendation of DYER - yet has, like so many other things, been pushed aside!! A high level meeting earlier this year brought this to the fore - but i fear itll be overtaken again in favour of the Strategic Footprint Reduction exercise - when this should really be at the heart of that very exercise itself.
We can -only since the advent of SMS - monitor and measure volumes of activity. We can assess “busy-ness” - and some would believe that to be enough. We have, however, no comparible data to measure against! Just a year on year accumulation of ever more ludicrous paperwork and tickboxes despite an administration burden reduction team!!
Through Ultilearn we can measure progress against BTECS. Through some convoluted measurement of badge orders we can measure blue PTS performance.
But we miss so much more in terms of soft outcomes. We miss the quality of the experience. We miss the “feel” infavour of number crunching and thinking we understand whats going on.
Recent academic studies have attempted to address this. The social mobility study went someway to demonstrate the benefits of the RAFAC and broader cadet forces. But it didn’t address national disparity of the cadet experience. We know cadets and sqns in Wales have far less access to opportunity - specifically flying and gliding- than they do elsewhere. We also know there are pockets of excellence in some areas and activities that are missed elsewhere.
I fear that unless we start acknowledging and addressing these issues with a Wg, Rg and Corps strategy, then we will not be truely fit for purpose. To quote so many government faults of late, a cadets experience is a postcode lottery. Your experience can’t be measured by anything more than where you live and how much money/time/effort/energy you - and that sqn staff - are prepared to put in.
An element of this is, sadly, reliant on social mobility itself. Affluent areas appear to offer far more than their poorer neighbours. They seem to do more. Even prestigious Corps camps - JLs and QAIC - whilst hugely valuable, are awash with those that can afford it. I fear that few attendees will be on any local authorities Free School Meal 6 list.
Taking a simple look at our Corps aims - as many have done above - as a measure of “fit for purposeness” shows we aren’t meeting them. And with so little action or traction in addressing these - or ignorance towards the fact there is even a problem with some elements - i don’t think we could say we are. Which is sad - as we do have pockets of excellence where - at sqn levels - all aims are being met. This stems from a groundswell of local support, from volunteers on the frontline who’ve maintained RISE and has the cadet at the heart of all that they do. It happens inspite of mismanagement and ineptitude and bureaucracy from every level above them. And it happens where socio economic factors permit it to do so. But these sqns are limited in their number.
But as a national organisation? Far from it.