IN CONFIDENCE ‘The CRS analysis has clearly looked at and observed upon many aspects of the program; the findings of which warrant review and discussion by DND and the Leagues and the more detailed comments that a follow are a NL first step in that direction. Results in Brief Further to the above, several general comments on the “Results in Brief (pages iii to vii). The first comment is on Overall Assessment and Findings #1-3 (Relevance). In the Findings section related to Relevance we sense the authors have used a very subjective assessment of the need for Cadet programs by comparison to the stark need for youth development programs in largely First Nations’ communities. The only hard metric used is a backward compliment that maybe over 50,000 participants demonstrates “some need”. It is therefore recommended that the wording about need for Cadet programs be carefully reviewed throughout the document. It is also strongly suggested that the comment at the end of Relevance on Page iv that states “administration of youth programmes is inconsistent with DND/CF’s strategic outcomes and priorities” is not accurate. It is true that delivering youth development programs may not be adequately clear in DND/CF outcomes/priorities but that certainly does not mean they are “inconsistent”. It is recommended that this wording be made more precise and less “suggestive” that delivering youth programs is contrary to DND/CF objectives. In the recommendation on Findings #1-3 why does the report query whether DND should ue to run the Cadet and JCR programs. A decision about whether DND/CF will ue to run the Cadet/JCR programs is a management decision not the perview of ‘The NL has no comment on Findings #4 ~ 14 except to fully concur wrt Finding #7 as VCDS. being the logical home for Cadet programs in the CF Organizational structure. On page vii Finding #15 General Recommendations the NL observes that at the fourth bullet DND is in fact not the only program funder, by far the largest yes but Corps/Squadrons would not exist at local levels without the fund raising efforts of the Leagues. The NL finds the last bullet (Bullet 6) interesting but somewhat unrealistic as DND would now potentially fund a fourth not-for-profit to control the program and work with all Leagues which are in fact already not-for profit organizations. If this option was to be seriously considered the NL position would be that DND/CF should provide policy/directed program content and then fund the existing not- for-profits to execute the program. Asa general comment it is clear that the CRS analysts have found the levels of program: administration/paid staffing and effectively zero risk tolerance as both cost and inefficiency drivers which is consistent, in a general sense, with the NL view. The challenge is how, within, the directed GOC risk management policy is it possible to walk a more middle road and maximize content with “enough” oversight. Main Document Article 2.4 Limitations. The second paragraph beginning with “The evaluation” speaks to the difficulty in assessing the efficacy of youth programs. As an observation there is no mention in 4.2013.00989--0050IN CONFIDENCE this report of any effort being made to assess what portion of Canadian leaders in all walks of life were at one point Cadets. This is seen as a lost opportunity. While such data may be anecdotal it is pretty telling as is the later metric about the percentage of Cadets that join the CF and even ‘more so the proportion of senior CF leaders who were cadets. Article 3.1.1 Continued Need for the Cadet and JCR Programs. The statement “In terms of the Cadet Program, recently released survey results did not suggest a continued need for the program.” is a very strong and definitive statement and needs to be verified against the content of the Ipos Reid report referenced as footnote 13. It is also interesting that this precise wording is not used elsewhere in the pre-publication report. Even if this statement is accurate against the Ipos Reid it must be remembered that the Ipos Reid work is a survey of subjective opinion and of individuals who may not very little factual information on youth programs. At the very end of this paragraph on Page 14 the last two words “albeit small.” Are subjective and should be removed as there are no metrics to support it. Article 3.1.2 Alignment with Federal Roles and Responsibilities. Finding #2 on Page 14 is overstated because Governments regularly decide to take actions and commence programs | when they deem them needed. Similarly in the paragraph beginning ‘the DND” while the statement is true that can be changed by a decision of the Minister on DND/CF advice to seek parliamentary approval of an amendment to the NDA. It is suggested it is not there largely because it was not deemed necessary. Article 3.1.3 Alignment with Goverment Priorities etc. Finding #3 on Page 15 is inaccurate as while the Program may not be mandated it is not “inconsistent”. In the Recommendation beginning on the same Page it is observed that care needs to be taken wrt the issue of whether DND or its partners want the Cadet Program to be seen as a de facto recruiting scheme for the Forces. It is the NL view that the existing rationale of youth development is far more compelling and defensible. Article 3.2.1.1. The second to last paragraph on Page 18 noting Sea Cadet dissatisfaction with some of the updated cadet training programs is very consistent with the NL view that core local programs must be dynamic, relevant and have some “fun”. Lesson plans based largely upon paper products is not relevant nor challenging to today’s youth. The view expressed by Cadets that the program and in particular advancement should be merit based is strongly supported by the NL as this is a point that has been consistently made by senior Sea Cadets to League members, Article 3.2.3.2 Cadet Program: Organizational structure. Finding #8 on Page 23 is considered to be an overly narrow statement given the overall organizational complexities of the DND and CF structures. In essence the main issue seems to be should the RCSU CO's continue to report to the FG/FE Commanders in the hinterland and functionally to the VCDS (through the CRES/DGRC/DCadets staff) or soley to the VCDS. There is no simple answer because of resource realities which then drive structures where many commanders in DND/CF have more than one role. An observation based on the author's experience as a FG/FE commander and as the VCDS is that despite the complexities, the existing arrangement allows the best synergy of both VCDS and FE/FG resources to be appropriately applied to the Program. If RCSUs were to be isolated from the local FG/FE Commanders the Cadet resource bill would increase even 4.2013.00989--0051IN CONFIDENCE further because anything FG/FE Commanders provided would be cost recovered from the Program. This comment is not to say that there should be more clarity between the role of DGRC/DCadets vis a vis the RCSU CO’s. CO’s do not like to take direction from staff officers thus it might be appropriate for the VCDS to create within the Cadet Command and Control arrangement a subordinate functional Commander to the VCDS such as DGRC/DCadets. Article 3.2.3.3 Cadet Program: Command and support of Cadet Corps/Squadrons. The NL considers the situation outlined in Finding #9 to be accurate and to be both a very important and a real problem which needs to be addressed. Article 3.2.3.4 Cadet Program: DND partnership with the Cadet Leagues. Finding #10 is rightly focused upon the different understandings held by DND and its partners and even more so by differing levels of DND/CF and the Leagues. Further, it reflects the reality of resource challenges that Leagues and their Branches face particularly in smaller communities. On balance, the NL does not argue with the overall accuracy of the comments that support inding #10. The issue before us is how to work through these very fundamental and important issues as partners going forward. To be clear the solution cannot be one partner simply imposing its view without understanding the realities that exist at the community and Corps/Sqn level. Article 3.3.2 Cadet and JCR Program Management and Administration costs/3.3.3 Staffing in the Cadet Program. The facts and concerns outlined in these two sections by the CRS analysts are very dramatic and reflect the DND situation but do not reflect the support provided by Leagues across the country to ensure that there are 1114 Corps and Sqns. As a direct comparison, the NL without DND runs the Navy League Cadet program across Canada with slightly more Cadets than the JCR and does so with about 1/50" or less of the dollars assigned to the JCR. All to say it is recommended that these areas also need to be a focus of a real discussion about how to make the Cadet program more program focused going forward. Article 3.3.6 Local Training Expenditures in the Cadet Program. Finding #21 on Page 38 about the paucity of program dollars focused upon either core or optional local training is something the NL has been articulating for some time and it is hoped that this is an area that significant headway ean be made, Article 3.3.7 Youth participation Trends and Patterns in the Cadet Program. While there is little in this section that the NL disagrees with the description seems to lay the problem generally on our youth not really addressing the need for relevant and fun content at both local and other levels. While the NL realizes that there are many reasons why Cadets leave it is our view that one key way to lower attrition is by relevant training at local level. The NL looks forward to this discussion. Article 4.1 Cadet Program Recommendations. Of the six recommendations made on Page 4 the NL concurs completely with recommendations 1 and 2, partially with 3 (will need significant discussion to avoid a cookie cutter approach would be disastrous) and looks to a mutually agreed VCDS action plan to clarify the outcomes of 4, 5 and 6. 4.2013.00989--0052IN CONFIDENCE Conclusion In conclusion the Navy League is very supportive of this CRS report and thanks DND for engaging in this dialogue and looks forward to a dialogue with DND and its sister Leagues to adjust this pre-publication report to reflect the actual facts most accurately where that is appropriate. Kb buck RD. Buck Vice Admiral (Rtd) National President The Navy League of Canada Distrib Action, Vice-Admiral A.B. Donaldson Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff National Defence Headquarters 101 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0K2 n List Info CRES Director General Reserves and Cadets DCadets Brigadier General (Rtd) Wayne Foster President Army Cadet League of Canada Mr. Ken Higgins President Air Force Cadet League of Canada 4.2013.00989--0053