HQAC.
I was bitterly disappointed that DYER wasn’t followed through as it would have dismantled some high level management structures in the ATC and introduced a more combined management structure across the CF which could have only benefited the cadets. Barbara Cooper effectively stopped it dead in its tracks for IMO reasons personal to HQAC and overlooked completely the benefits the cadets could have got from it, through an integrated, combined working of the CF.
TBH I’m at an age where if the changes affected me on a personal level I couldn’t care less.
Ah I see. Yes there are some interesting messages for hqac but good they shared the report and recommendations rather than fob us off with excuses/kept us in the dark.
I wasn’t around then but that is sad if that was the real reason. I think the combined management system would be great.
Protectionism, insularism and tribal loyalties effectively stopped it dead in its tracks
Fixed that for you.
1 Like
I wasn’t very aware of DYER either and found the published version to read https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/28390/20120705_yer_final.pdf
If you’ve got some spare time, it’s another 77 pages 
well i think that is a very valid, well rounded, open and honest (more so than we might expect) report and set of results. I feel this is a well put together document and is well timed for our new CAC to take note of what the CFAV at the coal face feel.
my points to note of things to look out for or simply find of interest
this is interesting, although i don’t understand the CCF recruitment process i was under the impression CCF CFAV did so as part of their employment contract
What makes a CFAV feel valued?
Special events to thank volunteers at a national level had the lowest percentage of
respondents agreeing it does/would make them feel valued with 61.9% of
respondents placing importance on this
such examples could be, oh i dunno, National Volunteers Week as a platform to shout a good message?
Satisfaction
Overall, 22.4% of respondents felt they have too much responsibility, this differed by
role with SNCOs and Commissioned Officers having a higher percentage of
agreement than CIs and Service Instructors
• 40.4% of respondents wanted more responsibility, again this varied per role
Seems like there is a supply and demand issue. there is enough responsibility out there, but are held by a minority when others are requesting more
I appreciate there isn’t a quick fix here, I suspect those 22.4% are OCs or other top level managers, however some of those perhaps need to “let go” and delegate more - which i appreciate is easy said than done, but it would appear from these results at least, there is a thirst for more responsibility by those who don’t have it
Satisfaction
60.0% of Service Instructors stated they want more responsibility, this role also had a
lower level of satisfaction with opportunities to display skills and knowledge
for me i would be interested to know the expectations of SIs - a lower level of satisfaction i can understand but in our Wing we see our SI disappearing off to hot sandy climates and so difficult to engage with SIs who aren’t regular in their attendance for periods measured in months
Intention to leave
It is positive to note that 67.2% of respondents were not planning on leaving the
organisation
but on the flip side, 1 in 3 CFAVs are considering leaving. that is easily one if not two people at every unit (on average) are not thinking long term. to me, potentially losing a third of the Staff is a concern
Intention to leave
Commissioned Officers had the highest percentage of respondents stated they are
either completely planning on leaving, plan on going into the non-effective pool (NEP)
or are maybe planning on leaving
telling that those who hold units together are the most likely to leave their post, or leave altogether.
combined with the quote above, it could be said a third of OCs are unhappy and want “out” - in our winf at least we’re struggling for OC candidates, have a selction of units run by SNCOs, inexperienced Officers (<3 years in uniform) and even have two run by the same OC
- Conduct further research to identify the reasons for high average monthly hours volunteered.
I’m interested to know what the author/HQAC consider “high hours”.
obviously 100 hours should be seen as excessive, and 12 is seen as low but what is the threshold for “expected” and again for “high”
- Review the need for a CI role.
29 Consider if CIs can be awarded volunteer allowance, or equivalent
these two i have combined as it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in this discussion.
Q: Do we need CIs?
A: yes
Q: ok, do we offer them VA?
A: that will add to the costs?
Q: so is that a no?
A:…let me do the maths and come back to you
16 Where a CFAV is being asked to change role/location careful analysis should be
done to identify the necessity of doing so, including benefits and limitations.
i always thought the “analysis” was more asking the most likely person to say “yes”
having been asked a handful of times to travel to my not local unit (which on occasions i have agreed to) i can’t say it occured to be there was a lot of thought behind the process, simply he’s the most flexible/easier to lift from Sqn A and best choice to drop into Sqn B
25 A.CFMs (and clasps) should be automatically awarded unless there is otherwise cause for
concern.
i really hope this happens. it is demoralising to be applying for your own “thanks” and appreciation
32 Permanent staff, where possible, should be encouraged to learn more about the CFAV
role
I think this has been said for years. A difficult one to manageas HQAC could have a bias view based on their experiences in Trent Wing
55 Administration is cited as a key reason for why individuals are considering leaving.
A.The DYER15 recommended that across the Cadet Forces unnecessary administration must
be removed
reassuring this is identified as a reason for leaving - at times volunteering can feel more like a job and people don’t like hobbies to feel like that.
length of service
Table 5 provides the length of service of respondents. Those with between 1 and 5 years’
service provided the highest number of respondents (33.4%)
can the cynic in me say that those with more than 5 years service were not rose tinted in the outcome and therefore didnt engage in something that was for the benefit of HQAC rather than Cadets, the Cadet experience, CFAVs or units?
I think CCF staff are ‘encouraged’ and not all are employed by the school as some volunteers come from the outside world like ATC.
I’d dispute your last bit around the work only having an impact on HQAC,. hopefully it will have an impact on CFAVs and in turn cadets but we’ll see, action needs to be taken. Unless you mean that was how the survey was originally promoted.
For hours that’s an interesting point. I guess 12hrs is the minimum, which equates to half a day a month. For me it’s more about the discrepancy about what is expected. If everyone just did 12hrs nothing would get done so its a bit of a strange expectation from HQAC. Personally on an average month I try to attend parade night twice a week and the odd shooting activity or course but my day job sends me to far flung UK destinations so sometimes it’s less but that doesn’t include things like replying to emails, preparing uniform and lessons. Or like the report says 24hrs is the equivalent to 3 X 8hr working days so those doing 60 hours are doing,if my maths is right, the equivalent of 9 X 8 working days which for for me is far too high when taking into account work and family commitments. I think I’d be in for a divorce if I was doing that 
although to some extent depends on the individual, the activity and the involvement. A parade night sitting in the office drinking tea is not the same as a parade night doing skill at arms (although on paper the hrs are the same).
You get a range depending on the school.
The SSI (Think Adj for all the sections) is nearly always employed. As a minimum they can claim 54 (I think) days VA, and admin days count. Many better off schools top this up.
Contingent Commanders are sometimes directly employed, either as part of a teaching role or as a stand along role with no QTS requirement.
The rest of the staff are a mix. Some have CCF in their contract, some are contractually required to do an extra-curricular activity and choose (or are “persuaded”) down the CCF route. Whilst others are pure volunteers drawn from teaching/admin/ maintenance staff or from external volunteers.
Then there are also the “ghost” staff who are not registered CFAVs but help out on campus based activities. For instance my old unit was solely RAF section. We were limited to three CIs on the books but we had a teacher from the DT department who came every year to build a windtunnel with the Advanced cadets and run some lessons with it, but as we were full on our quota he never had a formal status and was unable (and probably unwilling) to come and do anything off campus
1 Like
I’ve been saying this for years, let the CI’s who already exist continue as they are and don’t appoint anymore, once you’ve done your probation you go into a “PI” type post call it whatever you want. (I would like to see SAC but if you don’t use an existing rank you could still put them in the Sergeants Mess). After another 18 months they either go for a Commission or for SNCO if they want the added responsibility, if not they become a Corporal. Staff Cadets who have taken on enough responsibility (have a matrix) can go straight to Cpl but still have to wait 18 months before they can commission or apply for SNCO.
Within 2 years no one will remember it being any different.
4 Likes
This 100% would he my choice also and great example of how it could be rafac’d
2 Likes
as i say this is a cynical attitude
those who have been around the block for a dozen or more years they could easily have seen this as something not for them, but for HQAC and couldn’t see the benefit at there end.
and in truth, unless the recommendations are actioned upon and change occurs that is true.
1 Like
It would be interesting to see if we removed the 12 hours rule how many CIs would then want to go into uniform. I don’t know another organisation that mandates a minimum time number of hours, especially nowadays.
1 Like
Mandated hours, it’s almost like a job. 
6 Likes
It’s stupid anyway. I think an officer/SNCO who shows up 10 hours a month (~1 night a week) and actually does stuff is better than one who shows up 100% of parade nights but sits and drinks coffee and eats biscuits.
4 Likes
@Batfink I wanted to go in stronger but didn’t in case it didn’t go down well with some on here.
I think the whole of the CF were done a massive disservice by Barbara Cooper and I imagine many within HQAC’s house of cards, by ignoring DYER. I don’t know about the ACF and SCC, but I feel within the ATC any move to a more ‘purple’ organisation with streamlined management structure and cross working would wreck many trainsets in Lincolnshire.
When looking at the some of the highlighted points:
I can imagine that people on high will look at 67% saying they don’t intend to leave but as said if 33% did, we’d be stuffed.
I’m not sure how you can mount a CFAV recruitment without resolving some of the things raised. How many people want to come into a voluntary setting and be faced with what the ATC chucks at them initially and then all the other training. My experience of volunteering outside the ATC is people are glad to someone just come in and share the load, doing as much as they want or feel able. I’m not convinced the ATC is like this anymore, it has been morphed into something that exceeds a lot of workplaces in terms of demanding that you do this and that, for no personal gain, other than a feel good tingle, which you can get many volunteer settings without those demands as I know from experience.
Hours spent on ATC things, I’m surprised it’s as low as it is. When I did this I did a proper bit of maths based on a year and came up with a figure that frankly scared me, it came out at 46.4/month and I have trimmed back over the last few years.
Does anyone know where the mandated minimum hours for uniformed staff comes from, or is it a “we’ve always done it like that”? Read it and weep Mike Ashley all these people doing loads of hours for no pay.
I’m not sure it’s the hours that acts as a barrier to CIs going into uniform, from the survey it would seem the ever present threat of being asked, cajoled, told in a threatening way to go elsewhere if you’re in uniform is more of a barrier. I don’t get why a lot on here seem so anti CI and like the staff in uniform. The uniform when all said and done is a tool to control people and for a number of uniformed staff to do the “do you know who I am”, it does not benefit the people directly in any way. I think many are wary of CIs as they can be told to poke it and there is no come back.
I think like DYER the results and output of this was not controlled by HQAC, if it was I reckon a lot of it would not have seen the light of day.
The overarching concern is that HQAC ignore the negative points and recommendations for further investigation. Like the survey they should open any further investigation Corps wide, if not it would be a waste of time.
As a pretty long serving CI, this wouldn’t change things me for. I have had various officers try and coerce me into (commissioned) uniform, and one of the reasons given is because I do more hours than the average uniformed CFAV in the Sector.
FWIW, my reasons for not wanting to go uniformed:
- loss of annual leave prepping for, and attending, OASC
- potential stress of OASC. Having seen the patronisingly-written reports of some very good candidates who had some pratt of an interviewer / assessor doesn’t fill me with confidence that the system is massively fair. I have enough stress in my day job, why would I want to put myself through it for a hobby?
- loss of annual leave for needing to attend OIC, plus other courses at appropriate times
- my time is already precious to me. I don’t want to spend time prepping uniform etc, when I already normally go straight from work to Sqn. The nights I’m not at Sqn I often spend at work - because that’s the kind of job I have. The time I get home whether I go to Sqn first or spend longer at work is often the same. Weekends are no better (albeit out of choice). Before lockdown, I had been away all but 1 weekend this year. i.e. doing the stuff required of you if you’re uniformed would mean I would actually do less for RAFAC
- Under current rules, I don’t want to do anything that requires uniform (some shooting stuff / some fieldcraft stuff / being an OC)
2 Likes
it is quoted in a ACP or AP somewhere but how they came to that number i can’t say.
as @Cadet04 indicates it is more about being effective in the time at unit than turning up to drink tea.
that said, 12 hours is not a difficult target to reach - assuming 2.5hrs a parade night it only requires 5 evenings attended, or once a week give or take (throw in some weekend events and the quarterly average will sort itself out)
this, and much of what else you put is valid for a CFAV on a previous unit.
they were keen to go for officer (they were making all the right noises to be CO, but one step at a time) but couldn’t understand the need to jump through such restrictive hoops just to wear a blue suit.
had they arrived 2 year previously it would be have a board and given the individual would have walked it.
the is a argument that they had the right mindset and OASC would be a breeze - but it is clear that OASC is not a breeze even for the most competent candidate without any prep.
Although i think they would have done well, the idea of attending preparation evenings (ie Wing provided training) for OASC indicated that the effort was in the lead up to it - once there it was a case of applying the training. but those evenings took them away from the unit, and his training of Cadets.
he struggled to justify all that effort to prove what everyone knew, particularly for a hobby. like you they were against using the holiday to attend OASC and then again for OIC. they were already regular attendee at an annual camp and due to family pressures couldn’t do both. it would have been a case of dropping their interest and passion for a year to complete a task they had no interest in.
i recall overhearing a discussion with our Sector officer who visited the unit who argued it would be a little over a week of annual leave out of 20 or 30 years of time as an officer - which i get as a valid argument but the individual struggled to justify it in their own mind.
in the end they left, stick of the admin - turns out due to a house move in the middle of his application it spread over 12 months and his original application paperwork could no longer be accepted as the signature was “too old” and the whole set of forms would need redoing!
1 Like
I know it’s an ACP / AP, I remember reading it when doing my Staff P2 but it’s when, how and why it came about originally to actually provide the context, because this then provides a challenge to its validity today.
The idea of doing a specific time would indicate some form of remuneration.
Many moons ago we got a T&A grant which was based on cadet numbers and their training and I wonder if it was linked to that in some way.
I have a feeling that it’s just there to control uniformed staff.
It also includes your travelling time… Which is a point that I know some people like to “forget” - I have known of people being told that they have to do “12 hours on a squadron”, which is not the case.
If you lived an hour away from your Squadron… … You could drive there and come straight home again twice a week 
Also, since it doesn’t specifically say that only “parade night hours” when the cadets are present can be counted I could argue that I knock that out in a week. - Leave home at 1500, get to Squadron, do ‘RAFAC work of one form or other’, run a parade night, do some more ‘finishing up work’ travel home, arrive between 2200-2300 - x 2.
If one then adds in the other bits here and there during the week and throws in at least one weekend course a month (or two days out a month, &C) the idea of “60+ hours per month” (which was the maximum option in the survey) is a joke… Some staff do FAR beyond 60 hours. Double it even.
1 Like
which is remarkable - and although explains how some might be able to achieve it, doesn’t answer my question about what is considered “high”
for you that is “routine” and hearing others do 50-70hours you would not consider high in the same sense others would.
as such curious as to what HQAC/the author feels is a “high number” of hours to complete in a week/month on this hobby