Not doubting that this is the case but i definitely think whoever is setting that budget needs to have a think of how much value they actually give to their uniformed volunteers. 5 days VA doesn’t even cover 1 annual camp. Although being in it for the money should be rightfully argued you are in it for the wrong reasons on the flip side to that when people give the “scout leaders do it for free etc”. Do scout leaders also have to privately purchase numerous items of kit that they barely use plus keep it to a standard of the RAF “but we aren’t the RAF” its an AP we follow regarding uniform and standards and also pay RAF officers messing rates or at least camp messing out of their allowance?
Reducing down to 10 days, I can see that being the baseline lowest as you could do a weeks camp and have 3 days still in your allowance but any lower and i don’t see why uniform ranks has any appeal.
I thought from the previous IBN that the number of days was to stay the same, but they we’re reducing the rate to a flat up to Fg Off? And then they were also reducing the activities that are claimable.
Some Wings/Regions are proactively managing the budget with a review later in the year to redistribute any days not claimed.
There has always been a deficit of money if everyone claimed their 28 days the budget wouldn’t cover it, it’s just a little better known now how tight things are.
But that doesn’t mean the wing can limit CFAVs to 5 days - if some staff do 28 they should still be paid for 28. The RAFAC has never had a budget for all staff to do 28, but we have always managed in the past.
Does anyone remember seeing a straight answer on whether things like annual camps are separately ringfenced?
I see various amounts of days quoted from different areas, but not necessarily what those are for.
5 Days for Squadron/Sector activities - perhaps not so bad if camps, or Wing/Region activities are awarded independently.
If an HQAC or SATT course doesn’t come from that 5 because it’s not against the Wing Budget: perhaps not so bad.
If an FTI or LLA course doesn’t come out of that: perhaps not so bad.
…But I’ve also seen different ideas on each of those so far; it’s not even only the lowly squadron CFAV that are missing details, there are plenty of unanswered questions from those in more senior spots too.
I will admit that that lack of control has presented issues even outside of the budget restrictions. I think (hope?) that these really low figures are an over-correction or over-cautious approach, or are perhaps missing the details of my questions above.
each region has an allocation of VA days. the region then splits that down into wings. wings are left to decide how to “spend” their allocated VA days - merseyside decided 5 per CFAV. that’s my interpretation.
No mention of limit to number of days claimable. Guidance has also been issued within the region on what roles will attract pay at paid rank. Sign in to your account
He’s being squirrelly, because he can’t override the JSP on the “up to” figure. So the max permissible is still 28 days, but inside of that we have made an initial allocation averaged out to a specific budget.
I think the allocation is (or should be):
HQAC given the max, retains some based on known and anticipated requirements, gives to RHQ. RHQ retains some, gives to Wings. Wings retain some, and the final figure is the average of what is left. The logistics of bidirectional reallocation of surplus is going to be messy (if it exists and if they bother).
There was initially talk of some events and activities having their own budget. There were lines stating that “VA up to ratio only” with caveats implied for things like shooting and Fieldcraft where the minimum by standard ratio isn’t always representative of “minimum for viability”.
But all of that seems to have been lost somewhere in how these budgets are now being handed out.
