Is it not limited to 5 days in ACP300? Other than the camp com who got to claim extra to take over the camp. I cannot remember ever getting the full 7 days?
I can accept that there are budget constraints and that there might have to be less VA. Less VA would probably mean fewer activities for cadets but that’s the consequence of the budget decision.
What I find outrageous is the expectation that CFAVs should keep delivering the same camps and events, dealing with the same (or likely even more) admin and bureaucracy but for a worse deal. 5 days out of 7 is completely disingenuous. Why are we expected to take the financial pain but still keep delivering? Yet again, appalling volunteer management.
5 Likes
Has the CRAFAC issued an OCO to the RCs and RCoS telling them to limit VA?
The RCs are there forever, but the CRAFAC is time-limited.
1 Like
It’s 8 days for camp staff, up to 11 for the CC.
1 Like
It’s a new RAFAC-wide policy called CACE (no idea what it stands for). Various criteria which if met require a business case and often results in VA being reduced in order for the event to still go ahead.
Or not go ahead, in particular if CFAVs are seriously out of pocket and that causes strife at home.
2 Likes
Out of curiosity was it an outright no to all?
Only because on some of the ones I’ve been on (and has been for years) they’ve limited the number who can claim. So 4 staff can claim VA - of additional want to go its their choice but as long as they are aware they won’t be able to claim.
I’ve received 14 days each time I’ve done the full two weeks at RIAT…and i doubt I’m the only one.
Those attending for 7 days I’m certain would have got the full amount too
3 Likes
All, which is not good
My work gives the normal paid time off, which I usually have entirely booked out for things I need to do in my personal life.
Attending a cadet camp of any description, except one that’s weekend-only, would require me to take unpaid time off.
Not receiving VA would then make it impossible for me to attend any camp. How do you pay your bills when no-one is paying you? Are CFAVs expected to use their savings to pay for their attendance at camp? If so, what’s the actual tangible benefit for the cost?
After quite a troublesome return to parades last night, I find myself more and more contemplating if this is the organisation for me or not.
4 Likes
You say RAFAC-wide, I’ve seen no such thing in my region
1 Like
Camp, Activity, Course and Event (CACE) Process.
From this point forward, all activities need to have a CACE Matrix completed unless the activity states in writing on SMS that they will not be spending any public money. So that means:
- No VA
- No T&S
- No Clarity/MT/rail ticket
- No eating in the mess at military rates
- No use of DTE
1 Like
Thought there was a minimum requirement; over 50 cdts and/or 3 days in length.
There are a string of different requirements from different regions. Coz, you know, One RAFAC and all that.
3 Likes
It sounds like theyre trying to reduce VA without following the proper process with the MOD - they cant just cut the days or rates. So instead are not allowing us to use our entitlement by bringing in this business case requirement for events over a cetain size or length.
3 Likes
What process? JSP 814, which is the MODs policy that dictates VA (amongst all the other CF policy), states it is up to the single Service to decide how to go about it. With a cap at 28 days.
CF are voluntary youth organisations and most CFAV attendance at cadet training is unremunerated. However, the CF may remunerate CFAV for some training days, courses and camps. The number of days for which remuneration, in the form of Volunteer Allowance (VA), may be claimed is at the discretion of sS. Attendance at parade nights is not remunerated. Rates of remuneration are set out in JSP 754 and issued by the single Services.
So it’s up to HQ basically… Currently ACP 300 is actually pretty strict in terms of VA, it’s just that up until now it’s been a bit of a free for all, with people claiming for pretty much anything a lot of the time. If HQ want to tighten up on that, they absolutely can within policy.
As to whether that is a good idea is a while other argument, but what they are doing certainly has the backing of current policy as far as I can tell. There’s no where in policy that gives an ultimate entitlement to VA. Only an availability at the discretion of the CoC.
I’m certainly not arguing the removal of VA is a good thing, just that HQ absolutely can reduce the availability within current policy/process.
2 Likes
It would still be useful for them to justify or provide clarity on what they will or won’t accept. It’s not sneaky, it’s really obvious they’re making it more effort than it’s worth to claim it.
8 Likes
Yeah, 100%.
No matter what the policy says currently or previously, they are adding in steps that didn’t exist a year ago. And the steps that are being added seem to be varying between areas.
If the problem is a HQ budget one, then what ever changes happen should be organisation wide, and not vary between regions.
1 Like
Nothing seen on the CCF front yet, but I’ve not put anything in for authorisation since December.
Curbs on VA are not unprecedented, although I do think we (CFAVs) should take a firm line on this - if we just muddle on and do the activities anyway then we shoot ourselves in the foot. RAFAC has managed to avoid budget curbs like this in the past but the Army have had to cut VA on occasion due to budget overruns.
Curbs on travel, use of DTE, use of messes at military rates etc. would be unprecedented (I think) and hence a Big Deal. If CFAVs work for free, the least they can do is ensure we are not out of pocket.
2 Likes