Evaluation of the Cadets and Junior Canadian Rangers (Youth Program)

Alternate Formats

PDF Version
(2,099 KB, 50 pages)

Assistant Deputy Minister (Review Services)

ADM(IE): Assistant Deputy Minister (Infrastructure and Environment)
ADM(Mat): Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel)
ADM(PA): Assistant Deputy Minister (Public Affairs)
ADM(RS): Assistant Deputy Minister (Review Services)
ARA: Accountabilities, Responsibilities and Authorities
BP: Business Plan
CA: Canadian Army
Cadet: A person between 12 and 18 years of age who belongs to a cadet organization (Sea Cadets; Army Cadets; Air Cadets)
Cadet Leagues: The Navy League of Canada, the Army Cadet League of Canada and the Air Cadet League of Canada, either together or individually.
CAF: Canadian Armed Forces
CATO: Cadet Administrative and Training Orders
CCC: Community Coordinating Committee
CCO: Canadian Cadet Organization (Royal Canadian Sea Cadets; Royal Canadian Army Cadets; and Royal Canadian Air Cadets)
CDS: Chief of the Defence Staff
CF Mil Pers Instr: Canadian Forces Military Personnel Instruction
CI: Civilian instructors
CIC: Cadet Instructors Cadre
CO: Commanding Officer
COATS: Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service
CPMB: Cadet Program Management Board
CPMC: Cadet Program Management Committee
CR: Canadian Rangers
CRPG: Canadian Rangers Patrol Group
CTC: Cadet Training Centre

DND: Department of National Defence
DTEP: Defence Team Establishment Plan
ECS: Environmental Chief of Staff
ETS: Enhanced Training Session
FY: Fiscal Year
HHQ: Higher headquarters
JCR: Junior Canadian Rangers
LSA: Local Support Allocation
MILPERSCOM: Military Personnel Command
MOU: Memorandum of Understanding
Natl CJCR Sp Gp: National Cadet and Junior Canadian Ranger Support Group
NCC: National Cadet Council
O&E: Organization and establishment
OCI: Office of Collateral Interest
OIC: Officer in Command
OPI: Office of Primary Interest
P Res: Primary Reserve
QR (Cadets): Queens Regulations and Orders for Canadian Cadet Organizations
RCAF: Royal Canadian Air Force
RCAG: Regional Cadet Advisory Group
RCN: Royal Canadian Navy
RCSU: Regional Cadet Support Unit
Reg F: Regular Force
Res F: Reserve Force
SSE: Canada’s defence policy: Strong, Secure, Engaged
Supp Res: Supplementary Reserve
VCDS: Vice Chief of the Defence Staff
ZTO: Zone Training Officer

Overall Assessment

There is strong corporate direction and commitment for the program
The realignment of the command and control has mostly been implemented as planned but some gaps remain
The pan-national delivery of the Cadet and JCR Program is affected by inconsistent levels of support
The scope and funding profile of the Cadet and JCR Program are not aligned
A standardized and coordinated performance measurement approach is needed with a focus on impact and results

Table 1. Findings and Recommendations. This table outlines the key findings from the evaluation along with their associated recommendations.
Key Finding	Recommendation
1: There is a strong corporate direction and commitment to support the Cadet and JCR Program.	No recommendation
2: The pan-national delivery of the Cadet and JCR Program is affected by inconsistent support provided by key organizations and stakeholders.	1: Review the support provided at all levels to ensure that sufficient resources, capacity and expertise are in place to deliver objectives as well as the efficiency of the staffing process.
3: While partnerships between the CAF and the Cadet Leagues have improved over time, issues remain with regards to the agreement on and fulfillment of the Cadet Leagues’ roles and responsibilities in supporting Cadet program delivery.	2: Review and finalize policies, guidance and directives regarding oversight and management of the Cadet and JCR Program, including: 2.1 Finalize updates to memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the CAF and the Cadet Leagues 2.2 Review funding options and agreements with Cadet Leagues
4: There are challenges surrounding the attraction, enrollment and retention of CAF personnel in the Cadet program.	1: Review the support provided at all levels to ensure that sufficient resources, capacity and expertise is in place to deliver objectives as well as the efficiency of the staffing process.
5: The scope and funding profile of the Cadet and JCR Program are not aligned, and there is a lack of clarity on whether the program is achieving maximum impact on participants and communities.	3: Review the program scope to ensure alignment between resources, expected outcomes and business planning.
6: The Cadet program is not keeping pace with technological trends.	4: Improve internal and external communication strategies to promote and reinforce knowledge and awareness of DND’s Youth Program while ensuring compliance with the Policy on Service and Digital.
7: The realignment of the command and control has mostly been implemented as planned, leading to improved management of the Cadet and JCR Program. However, some regional inconsistencies remain.	2: Review and finalize policies, guidance and directives regarding oversight and management of the Cadet and JCR Program, including: 2.3 Finalize terms of references, and streamline procedures and polices related to the realignment
8: There is a sound governance structure within the Cadet program to provide oversight and guidance. However, some issues remain.	2: Review and finalize policies, guidance and directives regarding oversight and management of the Cadet and JCR Program, including: 2.4 Review governance committees to ensure issues are addressed
9: There are well-established metrics in place to measure Cadet and JCR activities. However, there is limited performance measurement of program outcomes to inform evidence-based decision making.	5: Implement a comprehensive performance measurement strategy to define and measure short, medium and long-term outcomes to inform decision making.

Table 1 Details – Key Findings and Recommendations

Back to Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Context for the Evaluation

This report presents the results of the evaluation of the Cadets and JCR Youth Program. The evaluation was carried-out by the Assistant Deputy Minister (Review Services) (ADM(RS)), as a component of the DND Five-Year Evaluation Plan (FYs 2017/18 to 2022/23), approved by the Performance Measurement and Evaluation Committee in March 2019.

The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Results (2016). It examined the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the Cadet and JCR Youth Program from FY 2015/16 to 2019/20.

1.2 Program Profile

1.2.1 Program Description

The Cadets and JCR (Youth) program provides youth aged between 12 and 18 years with positive youth development opportunities and unique CAF familiarization experiences that enable their successful transition to adulthood.

The mission of the Cadet program is to contribute to the development and preparation of youth for the transition to adulthood, enabling them to meet the challenges of modern society, through a dynamic, community-based program.
The JCR program reinforces the traditional cultures and lifestyles of remote and isolated communities. The three key pillars of instruction (ranger, traditional and life skills) are planned and taught through collaboration between DND/CAF and adult committees (adult Rangers and community elders/volunteers).

The Cadet and JCR Program helps strengthen local communities by providing youths the opportunity to engage constructively in their communities and to develop positive attributes that can help reduce involvement in high-risk and harmful behaviours. Youth are supported in being productive members of society and are provided with leadership skills to last a lifetime. Through these activities, youth also obtain an appreciation for military history and heritage while learning military values and ethics.

1.2.2 Program Objectives

As per Defence Policy, the objectives of the Cadets and JCR Program are to strengthen communities by investing in youth by:

Strengthening overall understanding of, and support for, the Department’s Youth Program (Cadets and JCR) across DND/CAF through updated direction and required resource allocations, and externally through enhanced public awareness and outreach; and
Expanding the reach of this program so more Canadian youth can experience these tremendous and positive youth development opportunities and continue to strengthen communities across Canada.

The Program is linked to Core Responsibility 3 (Defence Team), which involves strengthening Canadian Communities by Investing in youth. The program is also aligned with the following Departmental Result: Youth in Canada are provided with experience and opportunities that enable a successful transition to adulthood.

1.2.3 National and Regional Participation

Since 2010, the Cadet and JCR programs have shown modest growth. The combined total reached its highest level in 2019 at approximately 58,600 participants, up from 54,100 participants in 2010. During this period, the number of cadets has increased from approximately 50,600 to 54,300 and the number of JCRs has increased from approximately 3,500 to 4,300 (Figure 1). For cadets, the national participation rate has remained relatively stable, between 1.8 percent and 1.9 percent of the youth population. The combined participation rate of both programs is 2.05 percent in 2018/19 and 2.06 percent in 2019/20.^{Footnote 1}

**Figure 1. Total number of cadet and JCR participants.** This bar graph shows the number of cadets and JCR from 2010 to 2019.

Figure 1 Details – Total number of Cadet and JCR participants

The Cadet and JCR Program is represented in all regions (Table 2). While Ontario and Quebec have the largest number of participants, the North and Atlantic regions have the highest participation rates, due to a combination of factors. The northern territories and Atlantic Provinces have significantly smaller populations than central Canada, and in general, there are fewer youth programs available in these areas. (Figure 2).

Table 2.^{Footnote 2} Number of corps, squadrons, patrols and program personnel by region for FY 2018/2019.
Cadet program	Pacific	Northwest	Central	Eastern	Atlantic	National Total
Number of corps and squadrons	138	217	285	241	226	1,107
Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service (COATS) and Program Staff	1,165	1,567	2,473	2,340	1,678	9,223
JCR program	Western Provinces	The North	Ontario	Quebec	Atlantic Provinces	National Total
Number of patrols	31	44	22	35	15	147
Rangers and Program Staff	227	81	166	147	135	756

Table 2 Details – Number of corps, squadrons, patrols, and program personnel by region for FY 2018/2019

Table 2 Summary: Table 2 presents the number of corps, squadrons, patrols and program personnel by region for fiscal year 2018/2019. The table is split into two sections: the top section applies to the Cadet program, and the bottom section applies to the Junior Canadian Rangers (JCR) program.

For the Cadet program section, the first column has two rows beneath the title row: one for the number of corps and squadrons, and the other for the number of COATS and Program Staff. Columns two through six present the number of corps and squadrons or COATS and Program Staff by region, with one region per column. The final column (column seven), presents the national total for these figures.

For the JCR program section, the first column has two rows beneath the title row: one for the number of patrols, and the other for the number of Rangers and Program Staff. Columns two through six present the number of patrols or Rangers and Program Staff by region, with one region per column. The final column (column seven), presents the national total for these figures.

Navigate the table from top to bottom, reading across each row.

Figure 2 Details – Highest youth Cadet and JCR participation rate in the North and the Atlantic region

**Figure 3. Gender diversity in the Cadets and JCR Program.** This figure shows the percentage of women adult personnel is higher in the Cadet and JCR Program than in the Regular and Reserve Force.

Figure 3 Details – Gender diversity in the Cadets and JCR Program

1.2.5 Stakeholders

The Minister of National Defence has final authoritative control over the Cadet and JCR Program, including the direction of the necessary materiel, and human and financial resources as deemed appropriate.

The Functional Authority of the Cadet and JCR Program is the VCDS, which provides for the overall control and administration of the CCO. The National Cadet and Junior Canadian Ranger Support Group (Natl CJCR Sp Gp) operates under the VCDS and is responsible for operational design and governance of the program. While the Natl CJCR Sp Gp has command and control (C2) of the Cadet program, the Commander of the CA is responsible for overseeing the delivery of the JCR program and is responsible for its command, control and administration, and accountable to the VCDS for allocated resources and performance results.

The Regional Cadet Support Units (RCSU) report to the Natl CJCR Sp Gp and oversee, coordinate and provide support to the corps and squadrons who deliver the Cadet program within their respective region.

All cadet corps and squadrons must have a local committee that is acceptable to a civilian cadet league and the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS). The roles and responsibilities of the cadet leagues are established in policy,^{Footnote 5} and include providing financial, accommodation and transportation support, with service standards maintained through its network of volunteers.

The Canadian Rangers Patrol Groups (CRPG) report to their respective CA Division and oversee, coordinate, and provide support to the JCR patrol groups who deliver the JCR program within their respective region. All JCR patrol groups operate in collaboration with its adult committee in the development, delivery and support of the program, which are established in policy.

1.2.6 Resources

The 2019/20 budgetary allocation for the Natl CJCR Sp Gp to deliver the Youth Program was $221.4 million, with $207.7 million allocated to support delivery of the Cadet program, and $13.8 million earmarked for the JCR program.^{Footnote 6} Annual actual expenditures closely align with planned spending (Table 3).

This includes funding provided through the Cadet Leagues of Canada Grant Program, in place since 1971. In FY 2019/20, the Grant Program provided $500,000 to each of the three National Offices of the Cadet Leagues in order to support corporate and administrative costs, such as insurance coverage and volunteer screening activities,^{Footnote 7} with the objective of concentrating their efforts on attracting and developing a volunteer network in support of the Cadet Organizations.^{Footnote 8}

Table 3.^{Footnote 9} Annual Cadet and JCR Budget Allocation and Actual Expenditure. This table outlines budgetary vs actual expenditures for FYs 2011/12 to 2019/20.
-	2011/12	2012/13	2013/14	2014/15	2015/16	2016/17	2017/18	2018/19	2019/20
Budgetary allocation	$217.1M	$218.2M	$213.5M	$207.7M	$208.0M	$209.3M	$208.0M	$221.5M	$221.4M
Actual expenditure	$216.1M	$217.3M	$209.0M	$202.2M	$204.0M	$204.6M	$220.3M	$219.8M	$230.2M
Differential	$1.0M	$0.9M	$4.5M	$5.5M	$3.4M	$4.7M	$-12.3M	$1.7M	-$8.8M$

Table 3 Details – Annual Cadet and JCR Budget Allocation and Actual Expenditure

Back to Table of Contents

1.3 Evaluation Scope

1.3.1 Coverage

The scope was developed in consultation with the Evaluation Advisory Committee and accounted for the guidance received from the VCDS and the Commander of the Natl CJCR Sp Gp. The evaluation provides an assessment of the relevance, effectiveness (achievement of outcomes) and efficiency (design and delivery) of the Cadet and JCR Program, with a focus on examining the extent to which the level of support provided is effectively enabling program delivery (see Annex C – Logic Model).

An evaluation matrix listing each of the evaluation questions, with associated indicators and data sources, is provided in Annex D.

ADM(RS) previously assessed the Canadian Cadet Organizations in 2013, which provides a baseline for this evaluation. The Cadet and JCR Program has addressed the recommendations from the 2013 report, with the realignment of command and control being a key milestone.

1.3.2 Methodology

Evaluation methods included a detailed document review, financial and human resources data analysis, key informant interviews, and a survey of corps and squadron Commanding Officers (CO) and provincial/regional cadet leagues. Scoping and planning for the evaluation commenced in January 2019, and conduct was undertaken between July and December 2019.

Details on the methodology used to gather evidence in support of the evaluation questions can be found in Annex B.

Back to Table of Contents

2.0 Findings and Recommendations

2.1 Relevance

This section examines the extent to which the Cadet and JCR Program is aligned with DND/CAF priorities and is provided with an enterprise-level commitment.

Key Finding 1: There is a strong corporate direction and commitment to support the Cadet and JCR Program.

Building from the 2012/13 evaluation of the CCO, departmental policies and corporate support for the Cadet and JCR Program have strengthened. The Cadet and JCR Program is a key element of Canada’s defence policy: Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE), which commits to strengthen overall understanding of, and support for, the program as well as expand participation. In addition, the National Defence Act (Sect. 46) clearly establishes the Minister as the authoritative control over the Cadet program, including the direction of the necessary materiel and human and financial resources as deemed appropriate.

A centralized command structure is in place under the auspices of the VCDS. The VCDS, through the Natl CJCR Sp Gp, provides for overall management and administration of the program across regions. For FY 2019/20, the VCDS committed overall funding of $221.4 million for the Cadet and JCR Program supporting program personnel, corps and squadrons, and cadet participants across the regions (Figure 4). This includes funding of $1.5 million provided by the Grant Program to the National Offices of the Cadet Leagues of Canada to support the Cadet program through its network of volunteers.

Figure 4 Details – Funding Profile

Back to Table of Contents

2.2 Performance (Effectiveness)

This section of the report assesses the extent to which DND/CAF and its civilian cadet leagues and adult committees provide an appropriate level of support to enable the achievement of outcomes for the Cadet and JCR Program.

Key Finding 2: The pan-national delivery of the Cadet and JCR Program is affected by inconsistent support provided by key organizations and stakeholders.

The Cadet and JCR Program relies on a number of key organizations and stakeholders to provide additional support to the corps and squadrons and JCR. However, while some corps and squadrons and JCR patrols are receiving adequate support from all key organizations and stakeholders, others are experiencing gaps in the support they receive, which negatively impacts the delivery of the program in their communities.

Local level support varies and is affected by multiple factors

Corps and squadrons receive local level support from the RCSUs and local CAF units. For the Cadet program, logistical and administrative support provided to corps and squadrons is not consistent due to differences in resources and challenges across the regions. For example, while RCSU (Central) is located in Canadian Forces Base Borden and can leverage additional resources for its Cadet Training Centre (CTC), RCSU (Atlantic) has geographic challenges due to the large distances to support some its more remote corps and squadrons. Therefore, the proximity of a corps or squadron to its RCSU also affects the level of support it receives, as well as its ease of access to regionally-directed activities. However, the creation of the Zone Training Officers (ZTO) has alleviated some of the pressures of the RCSUs and has provided a high level of support to corps and squadrons. It was widely agreed that the ZTOs are consistently providing a high level of support that is much needed to corps and squadrons.

The level of support from local CAF units is also partially dependent on proximity to the corps and squadrons and JCR patrols, with those in close proximity providing a higher level of support. This support includes facilities and accommodations, equipment and materiel, transportation to training activities, additional operational and personnel support, and training opportunities with the CAF including CAF familiarization. The level of support from local CAF units was often cited as being people dependent, with higher support associated with base or wing staff having previous cadet or JCR experience or having a personal or professional connection with staff. Indeed, while 56 percent of corps or squadrons are located near a base/wing or reserve unit, only 44 percent of respondents reported receiving support (Figure 5). Corps and squadrons reported a higher prevalence for receiving infrastructure support from local CAF units than equipment and materiel, and personnel (Figure 5).^{Footnote 11}

**Figure 5. Corps and Squadrons support from local CAF units.** This bar graph displays the percentage of support that corps and squadrons receive from local CAF units.

Figure 5 Details – Level and types of support provided by local Canadian Armed Forces units to corps and squadrons

**Figure 6. Base support received by Cadet corps or squadron environments.**

Figure 6 Details – Base support received by Cadet corps or squadron environment

While the commanders of each environment are supportive of the Cadet program, with formal direction and guidance in place, evidence suggests army support is generally higher at the local level and is a result of robust communication from its Commander down to its subordinate organizations. Overall, corps and squadron COs and staff were satisfied with the support from the army, including ad hoc instances of providing supplementary funding for training and activities. Interviewees reported that COs of local navy bases or air wings are not as likely to prioritize providing support to the corps and squadrons.

For the JCR program, the CRPG perceive the CA as committed and supportive, and indicated receiving ad hoc supplementary funding from the CA to ensure the success of the JCR program. While the CRPGs are generally satisfied with the level of support provided by their Division, evidence suggests there is a lack of knowledge and expertise within the CA higher headquarters (HHQ) and Army Divisions to adequately support the CRPGs in program delivery. In addition, most CRPGs and JCR patrols operate in remote areas which presents unique challenges (e.g., lack of basic infrastructure) and experience difficulty in obtaining support from local CAF units, especially those operating in the North.

Other Level 1 organizations have limited guidance on supporting the Cadet program

In general, evidence from the document review and interviews with the Cadet and JCR Program management indicated that there is limited support and guidance from Military Personnel Command (MILPERSCOM), Assistant Deputy Minister (Infrastructure and Environment (ADM(IE)), which has created staffing and equipment-related challenges for the delivery of the Cadet program.

Limited support from MILPERSCOM has led to deficiencies in the attraction and enrollment process of COATS members for the Cadet program, where the average enrolment time is 13 months and has led to the loss of potential candidates. Evidence from interviewees indicated that some candidates “give up” and withdraw from the enrolment process due to the extensive wait.

Interviewees reported that limited infrastructure support from ADM(IE) has led to little to no maintenance of cadet facilities. As an example, the tents used for cadet training at Blackdown CTC have debilitated to a state where they now require $250,000 per year in maintenance.

Local committee and adult committee support of the Cadet and JCR Program is inconsistent

There is consensus among program management that the effectiveness of local committees to support the corps and squadrons is not consistent and largely people dependent. Since local committee members mostly consist of parents of current and former cadets, there is a large variation in the knowledge and capacity of the local committees to adequately fulfill their roles and responsibilities as currently mandated by the Queens Regulations and Orders for Canadian Cadet Organizations (QR (Cadets))^{Footnote 13} and the 2005 MOU^{Footnote 14} with Cadet Leagues.

While the expectation from the program is that local committees provide the needed support that are outlined in the QR (Cadets) and 2005 MOU, local committees are only mainly providing support in fundraising, management of funds, and volunteer attraction and screening. In order for local committees to function effectively, it is also expected that Provincial or Divisional Cadet Leagues support their respective local committees. However, evidence suggests Provincial and Divisional support is inconsistent leading to local committees facing personnel and financial challenges. Indeed, survey results from local committees indicate that they are receiving limited assistance in certain key areas from their Provincial or Divisional Cadet League, with impacts including gaps in support for the acquisition of equipment and materiel as well as attraction and participation in media coverage of cadet activities.

For the JCR program, adult committees are vital to the success of the program as they work collaboratively with DND/CAF to develop the lesson plans through the three key pillars of the program curriculum (ranger, traditional and life skills) as well as contribute directly through the teaching of traditional skills. Elders and volunteers within adult committees share their skill and knowledge in areas such as hunting, fishing, local language, traditional music and dance, traditional cooking and spiritual ceremonies. However, evidence suggests that there is a lack of formal adult committees in some regions and communities which has led to pressures on the JCR program and the need for CRPGs to fill this gap, such as through increased involvement from JCR instructors and Canadian Rangers.

Interviewees suggest that while the JCR program is functioning in the absence of formal adult committees, participants in these areas may be lacking the knowledge and skills shared by elders and other community members and may not be getting the full range of activities and information, resulting in the program not being fully delivered as intended.

Program funding for corps and squadrons and JCR patrols does not take geographical and other support challenges into consideration

Funding for corps and squadrons is through the program’s local support allocation (LSA) which is based on the number of cadets in a unit. Interviews with program personnel, as well as data from the CO survey indicate that the LSA does not take into consideration geographical realities and other inconsistent support challenges. For example, corps and squadrons located in remote areas tend to have fewer cadets and lower LSA funding but higher transportation costs to pay for due to larger distances to travel. Interviewees indicated that this has led to inconsistency in program delivery where some corps and squadrons have an abundance of resources to deliver its curriculum while others are limited to providing the minimal required.

ADM(RS) Recommendation

Key Finding 3: While partnerships between the CAF and the Cadet Leagues have improved over time, issues remain with regards to the agreement on and fulfillment of the Cadet Leagues’ roles and responsibilities in supporting the Cadet program delivery.

There have been longstanding challenges in the relationship between DND/CAF and the Cadet Leagues, which were highlighted in two previous ADM(RS) evaluations (1993/94 and 2012/13). Interviews with key stakeholders suggest that relationships have improved but are impacted by (1) issues around the Cadet Leagues’ roles and responsibilities; (2) engagement and communication between program management and Cadet Leagues; and (3) assessment fees.

Agreement on and update of Cadet Leagues’ roles and responsibilities are incomplete

Partnerships between DND/CAF and the Cadet Leagues have long been upheld, to a certain extent, through the QR (Cadets)^{Footnote 16} and the 2005 MOU.^{Footnote 17} However, evidence through document reviews, interviews and surveys highlighted issues with the current state of each of these policy instruments. Interviewees indicated that greater clarity is needed in roles and responsibilities, and that local committees are unable to fulfill their responsibilities as outlined in the QR (Cadets) and 2005 MOU. DND/CAF and the Cadet Leagues recognize that updates to these policy instruments are needed, but discussions have taken several years, and the lack of progress has impacted the local level such as gaps in local committee support to corps and squadrons. Therefore, timely completion of the QR (Cadets) and MOU is essential to ensure an effective and efficient working relationship between DND/CAF and the Cadet Leagues.

More engagement and communication has led to better relationships

In the past, relationships between the National Cadet Leagues and DND/CAF have been negatively impacted by limited engagement and communication. The Cadet Leagues perceived that program management failed to fully engage and consult when new policies and processes were implemented. However, the stand-up of the Natl CJCR Sp Gp and a new governance structure have enabled more regular interaction between program management and the Cadet Leagues, which has led to better relationships and partnerships at the national level.

The new governance structure is also enabling more interactions at the regional and local levels between DND/CAF and the Provincial and Divisional Cadet Leagues, including the local committees. However, the Regional Cadet Advisory Groups (RCAG) and the Community Coordinating Committees (CCC) could be more effective with more participation. Evidence from surveys indicates that only half of local committee members reported attending the CCCs and of those who had not attended, about half of them were not aware of the CCCs. At the regional level, two thirds of provincial and divisional cadet league members indicated they had attended the RCAGs and of those who did not attend, more than half indicated they were not aware of the RCAGs.

Rationale for assessment fees are not consistent, and impact local committee support

The Cadet Leagues indicated that the $1.5 million funding through the Grant Program is not sufficient for them to provide mandated support. Traditional fundraising methods used by local committees are not feasible at the national and provincial/divisional level due to minimal personnel. Therefore, the National Cadet Leagues charge assessment fees onto their respective Provincial or Divisional Cadet Leagues. This assessment fee may be paid by the Provincial or Divisional Cadet League or pushed to the local level to cover through fundraising. Most Provincial or Divisional Cadet Leagues have also added another layer of assessment fees onto their local committees to supplement their provincial or divisional budget.

Interviews with COs and staff at corps and squadrons indicate a perception that assessment fees take much needed funds away from local committees, limiting their ability to directly support corps and squadrons. More than half of local committees indicate that a significant amount of their available funds are used to pay assessment fees. However, the National Cadet Leagues maintain that assessment fees help support delivery of the program. Some examples cited by Cadet Leagues for how assessment fees are used include paying insurance premiums (higher for air cadet program), optional activities and support for members (e.g. mentorship, resources). Nevertheless, interviewees acknowledged that assessment fees are also used towards the Cadet Leagues’ administrative needs and other special projects, which have little impact on the cadet experience. There is also a concern that cadets and parents are being charged to pay for assessment fees when local committees are unable to fundraise sufficiently. Clarity and consistency regarding fundraising and the purpose of assessment fees is needed.

ADM(RS) Recommendation

Back to Table of Contents

2.3 Efficiency

The following section assesses the extent to which the design and delivery of the program is efficient, including program management and governance.

Key Finding 4: There are challenges surrounding the attraction, enrollment and retention of CAF personnel in the Cadet program.

Staffing issues are impacting program management^{Footnote 18}

Staffing pressures are an ongoing issue for corps and squadrons, with 42 percent of COs indicating recruitment and retention of CIC officers pose a significant challenge. While 4,700 CIC officers represent a modest gain in 2019/20, staffing levels are still below the 5,000 threshold from several years ago (Figure 7). This trend is notable given the expectation to expand the Cadet program. Business planning documents indicate that corps and squadrons planned manning levels have considerably fallen short for several years. As a result, the shortfall between planned and actual officers has risen from approximately 1,600 to 2,100 between 2011/12 and 2019/20 (Figure 8).

**Figure 7. Number of Cadet Instructors Cadre (CIC) officers.** This line graph shows the number of CIC officers from 2011 to 2019.

Figure 7 Details – Number of CIC officers per year from 2011 to 2019

Figure 8 Details – Staff shortfall (planned vs actual) per year from 2011 to 2019

**Figure 9. Number of civilian instructors.** This line graph shows the number of civilian instructors from 2011 to 2019.

Figure 9 Details – Number of civilian instructors per year from 2011 to 2019

Staffing issues within the Natl CJCR Sp Gp (L2) and RCSUs (L3) are affecting the provision of support. Interviews with program management suggested that the Natl CJCR Sp Gp lacks sufficient staff with the knowledge, skills and experience to adequately support the RCSUs, resulting in delays in receiving guidance in policy interpretation and issues management. This, in turn, is impacting the RCSU’s ability to meet the needs of their corps and squadrons.

Some RCSUs are facing staffing pressures due to vacancies, loss of positions from the realignment, and lack of knowledge and expertise in some areas. Some program stakeholders remarked that the support being provided by the RCSUs is not sustainable particularly given the perception that many staff are already overworked and contributing to retention issues.

Enrollment process for CIC officers is inefficient and inadequately supported

Nearly half of COs surveyed reported being dissatisfied with the enrollment process for CIC officers. Challenges noted included the complexity of forms and inadequate support from recruitment centres, as well as the length of time to complete enrollment (currently averaging 13 months).^{Footnote 20} Program management indicated a major issue contributing to the delay is that the Canadian Forces Recruitment Group is not familiar with COATS enrolment requirements and is applying the universality of service which is more restrictive. Improvements could be made in recognition that COATS officers can work until age 65, do not need to pass a fitness test, nor do they need to have the same medical profile as Reg F officers.

Given the challenges with staffing CIC officers, there is an overreliance on staffing civilian instructors to fill the gap, with the overall ratio of civilian instructors to CIC officers currently at 1:3. Civilian instructors receive less training than CIC officers and are less equipped to impart certain aspects of the curriculum, such as CAF familiarization. Moreover, staffing of non-commissioned members are underutilized as these members account for less than 4 percent of total adult personnel.^{Footnote 21}

Workload issues may be affecting the retention of COATS members

Evidence from the CO survey indicates that CIC officers work more than their 25 allotted paid days per year. While the recent introduction of ZTOs has provided additional support to corps and squadrons, interviews suggest that the ZTOs are themselves overburdened and do not alone have sufficient capacity to further relieve pressures at the corps and squadrons. Other areas that may be affecting retention of COATS staff include a lack of perceived opportunities for professional development and career progression.^{Footnote 22}

ADM(RS) Recommendation

Key Finding 5: The scope and funding profile of the Cadet and JCR Program are not aligned, and there is a lack of clarity on whether the program is achieving maximum impact on participants and communities.

The scope of the Cadet program is vast and unsustainable with the current funding profile

The Cadet and JCR Program has a $221.4 million funding profile under the purview of the VCDS.^{Footnote 23} However, the Natl CJCR Sp Gp and program management perceive that ongoing funding pressures are a challenge, mainly due to the wide range of training programs and activities to a continually expanding cadet population.

In addition to the regular training program throughout the year, cadets may participate in regional and national directed activities, cadet league optional activities and the summer program at the CTCs. Within the curriculum, there are more than a dozen activities common to the three elemental programs as well as several environment-specific activities.^{Footnote 24}

The Cadet Administrative and Training Orders (CATO) policy recognizes that this wide array of activities provides a dynamic experience for cadets but cautions that “[n]otwithstanding, this positive aspect of the program must be balanced with limitations of the program in order to effectively and efficiently manage it and ensure sustainability within its resource base.”^{Footnote 25} Evidence suggests that this balance has not been consistently achieved across the program.

As expressed in multiple VCDS annual business plans, financial and operating pressures are recurring annually, and are being risk-managed within existing resources. Following a period of funding reductions, the funding allocation for the Cadet program has increased since 2018/19 (Table 2), which partially compensated for pay increase adjustments and for procurement of meal kits as individual meal packs were no longer provided by ADM(Mat). Additionally, inflationary pressures and increasing costs of program delivery continue apace, which has resulted in difficulty in sustaining the operations required to deliver the large range of activities.

Program staff have recognized the need to find efficiencies and are exploring options. COs and RCSUs are coordinating that multiple corps and squadrons within prescribed zones train together. Similarly, CRPGs have combined some training sessions of multiple JCR patrols. Other efficiency options include an ongoing review of the CTC design and programming to reduce costs and increase reach and benefit. Indeed, top-down direction and guidance is needed to holistically achieve efficiencies at a program-wide level, particularly as it relates to realigning training and activities to the level of funding available.

There is a need to determine how and where to expand reach of the Cadet and JCR Program to achieve maximum impact

SSE provides direction to expand the reach of the Cadet and JCR Program. However, interviews with key program stakeholders, as well as a review of financial data and business planning, suggest that continual expansion may not be aligned with resources. A more targeted approach could be considered. For example, the program could be altered to focus on youth in remote or lower income areas that have fewer youth development opportunities. Expanding in well developed, populated areas ensures greater economy of scale, yet may not achieve maximum impact given that other youth opportunities are readily available. Greater clarity on SSE direction, and what constitutes participant expansion, would help to better align plans with a focussed mandate for the Cadet and JCR Program.

There is a reliance on cadet fundraising to support program activities

The current scope of the program delivery also relies on local committee fundraising that often involves cadets. Nine out of ten COs of corps and squadrons reported at least some fundraising involvement by cadets, and two thirds indicated that fundraising is essential for supporting the operations and administration.^{Footnote 26} While the CO survey suggests that most cadets see value from their fundraising activities, some in program management cautioned that over-reliance on fundraising may impact cadets’ overall experiences in the program and affect retention rates.

There are opportunities for efficiencies within the JCR Program

The current funding allocation of $13.8 million from the VCDS is generally not considered sufficient by program stakeholders and the Natl CJCR Sp Gp to deliver the JCR program as intended. Recurring annual pressures, currently at $1.9 million, are due to program expansion.^{Footnote 27} This pressure is considered non-discretionary but unfunded, leaving it to be risk-managed with internal resources reallocated as appropriate. Moreover, interviews revealed that the majority of CRPGs supplement their funding through other means, whether by requesting additional funds from their Army Division or through reallocating funds from the Canadian Rangers’ budget. The Army also informally provides resources and equipment to support the JCR program.

The JCR program currently consists of two categories of participant training: community programming and annual summer enhanced training sessions (ETS). Almost half of total JCR funds go to core community programming that engages all participants. By comparison, ETS accounts for a large percentage (36 percent)^{Footnote 28} of the total program allocation while benefitting fewer JCRs. Interviews with program staff indicated that the administrative burden concerning the annual summer ETS is particularly challenging. Specifically, the transportation and movement planning of staff and participants is expensive, time-consuming and requires extensive resources to support and coordinate (particularly in very remote areas). While there are significant benefits to JCRs who participate in ETS it is not clear whether this is the most efficient use of resources to achieve maximum impact on participants and communities.

At the same time, program management acknowledges that there is a lack of clarity in how expenditures are reported within the JCR program. Interviews with CRPGs indicated that this is mainly due to the program being delivered in conjunction with the Canadian Rangers in order to leverage their resources and training opportunities and with Rangers and JCR funds managed within a single budget. Additionally, the financial reporting expectations in the community and cultural context in which the JCRs operate are not as formal as in central Canada. CRPGs have indicated that due to the remoteness of many of the communities and the lack of infrastructure, flexibility in how funds are expended is key to delivering the program as intended.

ADM(RS) Recommendation

Key Finding 6: The Cadet program is not keeping pace with technological trends.

The Cadet program could benefit from increasing its social media profile. The sheer magnitude of the programs’ geographic footprint and the many groups and individuals involved make the coordinated implementation of communications strategy a challenge. Today, youth generally do not consult traditional media (e.g., television, radio) as compared to previous generations, and, as such, distribution of promotional content must be considered to reach this audience. Furthermore, Corps, Squadrons and Patrols should be supported with tools to prepare content and engage local media contacts at the community level, such as community influencers and parents, while leveraging digital media and the effectiveness of compelling imagery.

Communication plans and strategies have already recognized that greater leverage of social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter and Instagram) is a key objective in the Cadets program growth objectives.^{Footnote 29} In particular, in commemoration of the fifth anniversary of the National Cadet and JCR Support Group in 2020, a robust and modern communication initiative will be launched. The focus of the Public Affairs communication campaign will be Identity. The goal will be to increase and broaden awareness of the Cadet program across multiple channels.^{Footnote 30}

Internally, improvements have been made in the regional deployment and use of information management tools (e.g., Fortress, CSAR, SharePoint, Outlook, etc.) to support corps and squadron staff. However, corps and squadrons report that there is difficulty accessing these tools through DND devices, and some lack access to DWAN on personal computers and mobile devices when training. This has created inefficiencies for corps and squadron COs and staff. Furthermore, there is currently limited use of self-serve digital platforms for the cadet participants, which has the potential to increase efficiency and reduce administrative burden on corps and squadrons.

ADM(RS) Recommendation

Key Finding 7: The realignment of the command and control has mostly been implemented as planned, leading to improved management of the Cadet and JCR Program. However, some regional inconsistencies remain.

In terms of corporate-level stewardship, a new centralized command structure was successfully implemented as of April 1, 2015. Interviews with key stakeholders found consensus that this structure is the optimal organizational design. Centralized command and control has streamlined and standardized (unified) the overall management and administration of the program across regions. Program design and delivery are more harmonized and connected. National oversight and vision enable greater economy of scale.

Since the new VCDS command structure was implemented, the National CJCR Sp Gp has been building management capacity. This includes a financial framework and related performance information within the Defence Resource Management Information system to help ensure that the program is being delivered and supported in a standardized manner across Canada based on common parameters. This activity-based bottom-up approach is crucial to inform and validate resource requirements, and to support the overall strategy to expand the reach of the Cadet and JCR Program.

Support and resources are now closer to the corps and squadrons through forward deployed Area Officer in Command (OIC), ZTOs, and Training Support Coordinators. However, program stakeholders recognize that gaps remain which are affecting the standardized provision of support, including the finalization of the regional organizations and establishment (terms of references), and streamlining of procedures and policies (shift from CATO to group orders and directives). There is also a lack of organizational standardization across the 22 CTCs which impacts the consistency and efficiency of program delivery.

Administrative burden has increased at regional and local levels

While the realignment of the C2 brought about increased program oversight and accountability, this has come with increased administrative burden on program delivery staff. The centralization of administrative functions may have enhanced reporting practices but it has not resulted in more efficient administration processes. Corps and squadron COs and staff perceive the administrative burden to be due to a large number of rules and redundant forms to complete (e.g., Fortress, SharePoint, spreadsheets, etc.). The need for information to make informed decisions at the Natl CJCR Sp Gp has increased the number of reporting requirements at the corps and squadrons.

Design of the JCR is optimal but lacks capacity and expertise to support program delivery

The realignment of the command and control has had minimal impact on the JCR program as it has continued to be funded by the VCDS and delivered by the CA, through the CRPGs and alongside the Canadian Rangers.

There was agreement amongst program stakeholders that the JCR program must continue to be delivered in conjunction with the Canadian Rangers, and that the program could not exist otherwise. The current structure of the JCR program being delivered by the CRPGs and situated within the CA is the optimal delivery structure. However, it was recognized that the CA lacks capacity and expertise at the Division and HHQ levels to provide adequate guidance to the CRPG when issues arise. While the COs of the CRPGs are generally satisfied with ad hoc issues management during bi-laterals with their Divisional Commander, there is concern that this lack of expertise and capacity at the Division and HHQ levels is impeding the CA’s ability to execute its command and control, and Accountabilities, Responsibilities and Authorities (ARA) as directed by the CDS.^{Footnote 31}

ADM(RS) Recommendation

Key Finding 8: There is a sound governance structure within the Cadet program to provide oversight and guidance. However, some issues remain.

To address recommendations from the 2012/13 ADM(RS) Evaluation of the Canadian Cadet Organizations, a robust and formal governance structure was established to support and oversee the delivery of the Cadet program. The new governance structure includes committees at all levels of program management and includes members of DND/CAF and the National, Provincial and Divisional Cadet Leagues, including the local committees (Figure 10).

Challenges remain with the lower level governance committees.

Program stakeholders indicated that the higher level committees, including the National Cadet Council (NCC) and the Cadet Program Management Committee (CPMC), were effectively enabling communication on strategic issues and direction. The Cadet Program Management Board (CPMB) was viewed as not effectively communicating issues up the chain of governance due to information and issues not being reported by its regional members (Figure 10).^{Footnote 32} Yet, evidence from interviews and surveys indicate that issues are identified at the CCCs which should percolate to the RCAGs and subsequently to the CPMB, indicating that the current governance structure is not allowing issues to move from the lower level committees up to the higher level committees.

**Figure 10. Cadet Governance Structure.**

Figure 10 Details – Cadet governance structure

Figure 10 Summary: This flow chart depicts the Cadet governance structure. It details the membership of committees that oversee cadet governance and issues that were identified within them.

Vice Chief of the Defence Staff (VCDS), Commander of the National Cadet and Junior Canadian Ranger Support Group (Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp) and League Presidents comprise the National Cadet Council (NCC). Commander of the National Cadet and Junior Canadian Ranger Support Group (Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp) and League Presidents comprise the Cadet Program Management Committee. The NCC and the Cadet Program Management Committee are effectively enabling communication on strategic issues and directions.

Deputy Commander of the National Cadet and Junior Canadian Ranger Support Group (Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp) and League Executive Directors comprise the Cadet Program Management Board. An issue identified with this management board was that regional issues are not being identified and communicated up the chain as intended.

Commanding Officer of the Regional Cadet Support Unit (RCSU CO) and Provincial Committees comprise the Regional Cadet Advisory Group (RCAG). The Area Officer in Charge (OIC), Corps and Squadrons Commanding Officer and the Sponsoring Committees comprise the Community Coordinating Committee (CCC). An issue identified with both the RCAG and CCC was that the effectiveness of some local and regional committees was at risk due to inconsistent levels of execution, communication and participation.

Program management is aware of the challenges with the current governance structure and work is underway to address the issues, such as standardizing scope, agendas and reporting requirements for committees to streamline processes. Program stakeholders report seeing modest improvements with regards to the CCC and RCAG over time but note that stronger and more consistent League participation would enhance these efforts.

Gaps remain regarding coordination and communication for JCR program

Cognizant of the cultural context, there is currently no formal oversight body to enable engagement between JCR program management, local communities and volunteer-based adult committees. Some oversight is provided by the Canadian Rangers National Authority. However, the JCR program is not involved with the Cadet’s governance committees nor is there a formal governance committee structure established for the JCR program. JCR program stakeholders have noted that a similar governance structure would not be a good fit for the program given its unique cultural setting and delivery model.

In addition, some of the CRPG commanders have indicated that the current structure does not allow for direct interaction between the CRPGs and the Commander of Natl CJCR Sp Gp. Instead, the chain of command dictates that issues go through the Army Divisions and percolate to Army HHQ and then across to the Natl CJCR Sp Gp. There is concern that the indirect flow of information and lack of capacity on JCR matters at the Division and Army HHQ level may impede issues from being adequately communicated to the Natl CJCR Sp Gp.

ADM(RS) Recommendation

Back to Table of Contents

2.4 Performance Measurement

The following section examines the data currently being collected to measure the success of the Cadet and JCR Program, as well as planned performance information.

Key Finding 9: There are well-established metrics in place to measure Cadet and JCR activities. However, there is limited performance measurement of program outcomes to inform evidence-based decision making.

The Cadet and JCR Program indicator for success is the percentage participation of Canadian youth aged between 12 and 18, with a target rate of two percent or greater.^{Footnote 33} Between 2011 and 2018, the participation rate has remained relatively stable, between 1.8 percent and 1.9 percent.^{Footnote 34}

Beyond this participation target, program management should continue to work towards enhancing their program information profile. Progress is being made to define success and develop key performance indicators and metrics for use in departmental Performance Information Profiles, which enable the collection of standardized information to determine the extent to which the program is achieving its outcomes. There is a need to ensure that success (expected outcomes) is defined and that a standardized and coordinated performance measurement approach is developed.

For the Cadet program, studies and surveys are being initiated by program management to gather evidence related to certain medium and longer term program outcomes, such as public opinion of DND’s Cadet and JCR Program, the status of former cadets, etc. Current performance metrics and indicators collect mostly quantitative information on the following: (a) the participation of cadets in different training programs and activities, including the number of training days and qualifications received by cadets; and (b) the staffing rates of military and civilian members of the corps and squadron levels. These metrics enable program management to inform decisions and focus efforts to sustain the current level of cadet enrolment and expand reach (e.g., penetration rates, retention rates, etc.), including the identification of underserviced areas.

The vast majority of corps and squadron staff are using Fortress (sometimes in conjunction with other tools such as CSAR) to collect and report information on youth and adults involved with the Cadet program, and to fulfill other administrative, logistical and financial requirements. The program should further capitalize on the use of Fortress as an enterprise solution to maximize the gathering and reporting of information that is directly used to enable and document the performance of the program (impact and results).

There are minimal reporting requirements in Cadet Leagues’ funding agreements.

Interviewees noted that the Cadet Leagues’ funding agreements need more reporting accountability. An examination of the current funding agreements found only basic expense reporting requirements for the Cadet Leagues. While the Leagues’ grants are below the $5 million threshold of accountability requirements under the TBS Policy on Transfer Payments, the Leagues lack the reporting rigour to demonstrate how expenditures are aligned with program outcomes. Improved reporting requirements would help validate program results.

A comprehensive and coordinated performance measurement approach is lacking for the JCR

Currently, performance information is not being consistently gathered, analyzed and reported to support decision making. Most CRPGs cite challenges with collecting data due in part to the remoteness of Northern patrol groups, and there has been some acknowledgement that enhanced efforts are needed. Moreover, there is no defined, common understanding of what success looks like across the program. Interviews with CRPG program staff revealed that the few established performance indicators for the JCR program are due to the need for flexible program delivery, meaning that its outcomes are difficult to measure. Consequently, there is a need for more rigorous data collection in conjunction with the development of a performance measurement strategy for the JCR program.

ADM(RS) Recommendation

ADM(RS) Recommendation 1

Management Action

DND/CAF Materiel and Infrastructure Support:

Action 1.1 (Program 3.10) Reinforce the CAF base/wing, materiel (national procurement) and infrastructure support expectations for the CCO that is to be provided and paid for from command and base budgets, not the Cadet Corporate Account.

OPI: VCDS
OCI: Comd RCN, Comd CA, Comd RCAF, ADM(Mat), ADM(IE)
Target Date: Updated VCDS Direction on DND/CAF Support to the CCO Issued April 2021

Action 1.2 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Identify the facilities, funding, materiel and transportation support requirements for corps and squadrons to be provided by the CAF and the current gaps in the provision of that support.

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
OCI: CO RCSUs, Area OICs, CO Corps and Squadrons
Target Date: Corps and Squadron CAF Support Requirements and Gap Report October 2021

Action 1.3 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Examine the status of Cadet Corps and Squadron alignment to CAF units (e.g., support base/wing allocation, affiliated unit, Cadet Liaison Officer appointments, CAF familiarization activities) to identify any gaps or inconsistencies in support to corps and squadrons. Develop an operating plan to mitigate any gaps in CAF units’ alignment and support to Cadet Corps and Squadrons.

OPI: VCDS
OCI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp, Comd RCN, Comd CA, Comd RCAF
Target Date: CCO/CAF Alignment and Support Operating Plan June 2022

Action 1.4 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Develop the National Cadet and JCR Real Property Action Plan (NRPAP).

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
OCI: ADM(IE), DCC
Target Date: NRPAP March 2021

Action 1.5 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Conduct an Inter-Capability Component Transfer (ICCT) from VCDS/Natl CJCR Sp Gp to ADM(IE) specifically related to CCO infrastructure.

OPI: VCDS
OCI: ADM(IE), Comd RCN, Comd CA, Comd RCAF
Target Date: CCO Infrastructure ICCT April 2022

Action 1.6 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Update the LSA policy and restructure the funding framework to provide greater support to Cadet Corps and Squadrons in struggling communities and those not housed in CAF provided facilities.

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
OCI: RCSU COs and Cadet Corps and Squadron COs
Target Date: LSA Policy April 2021

CAF Personnel Support:

Action 1.7 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Develop a Service Level Agreement (SLA) to address COATS personnel issues with MPGG organization and align efforts with the existing and applicable Op Generation lines of operation (LOO); LOO 1 Attraction, LOO 2 Intake, and LOO 3 Generation.

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
OCI: Comd MPGG
Target Date: SLA with Comd MPGG March 2021

Action 1.8 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Propose a streamlined process and supporting capability for enrolling former CCO participants into the COATS Res F sub-component of the CAF.

OPI: VCDS
OCI: Comd MILPERSCOM, Comd MPGG, Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
Target Date: Proposal to Comd MILPERSCOM August 2021

Action 1.9 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Submit required organization and establishment (O&E) changes and residual resource requirements that address identified COATS IT&E C2 issues as part of the O&E, Defence Team Establishment Plan (DTEP) and Business Plan (BP) cycles.

OPI: VCDS
OCI: Comd MILPERSCOM
Target Date: COATS IT&E C2 and O&E Requirements Included in DTEP and BP Submissions August 2022

Cadet League Support to Cadet Corps and Squadrons:

Action 1.10 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Work with Cadet Leagues to identify the capability requirements for each level of their organization (e.g., National, Provincial, Local) to support Cadets and Cadet Corps and Squadrons. Determine current gaps in this required capability and develop a plan to mitigate them.

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp (supporting Cadet League Presidents)
OCI: RCSU COs (supporting Provincial League Presidents) and Cadet Corps and Squadron COs (supporting Local Sponsoring Committee Chairs)
Target Date: Cadet League Organizational Capability Requirements, Gaps and Mitigation Plan February 2022

Action 1.11 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Work with Cadet Leagues to establish reasonable requirements for facilities, funding, materiel and transportation support for Cadets and Cadet Corps and Squadrons, not provided by the CAF. Determine the challenges in satisfying these requirements in an affordable and sustainable manner, and develop workable solutions to address them.

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp (supporting Cadet League Presidents)
OCI: RCSU COs (supporting Provincial League Presidents) and Cadet Corps and Squadron COs (supporting Local Sponsoring Committee Chairs)
Target Date: Cadet League Support to Cadet Corps and Squadrons Requirements, Gaps and Mitigation Plan February 2022

Adult Committee Support to JCR Patrols:

Action 1.12 (Program Segment 3.10.2) Identify gaps in support provided by the JCR Patrol Adult Committees, and a range of appropriate mitigation measures that are acceptable in the absence of, or reduced capacity of Adult Committees. Develop an operating plan to mitigate the support gaps and maintain governance of JCR Patrol Adult Committees.

OPI: Comd CA
OCI: Div Comds, CO CRPGs, JCR Patrol Leaders and Adult Committees
Target Date: JCR Patrol Adult Committee Support Operating Plan July 2021

ADM(RS) Recommendation 2

Management Action

CAF and Cadet League Partnership:

Action 2.1 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Promulgate an updated MOU concerning the Consultative Arrangement for Executing Shared Responsibilities in Support of Cadets and Cadet Corps and Squadrons.

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp (supported by Cadet League Presidents)
OCI: RCSU COs (supported by Provincial League Presidents) and Cadet Corps and Squadron COs (supported by Local Sponsoring Committee Chairs)
Target Date: Finalized MOU September 2020

Action 2.2 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Develop the Consultative Framework that will operationalize the cooperation required to achieve the shared responsibilities in the updated MOU and to address the issues with the lower level governance. The Consultative Framework will continue to have RCAGs and CCCs at one end and CPMC and NCC at the other. In the centre will be a number of CAF/League entities (e.g., working groups, committees) whose task will be to work together to identify issues and achieve consensus on the way ahead.

Action 2.3 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Update CAF policies and procedures and Cadet Leagues’ policies and directives to reflect the shared responsibilities in the updated MOU.

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp (Working with the Cadet League Presidents)
OCI: RCSU COs (Working with the Provincial League Presidents) and Cadet Corps and Squadron COs (Working with the Local Branch or Local Committee Chairs)
Target Date: Updated Policies, Procedures and Directives July 2022

Action 2.4 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Work with Cadet Leagues to review their financial management/funding models with the view to minimize the financial pressures at the local level by:

optimizing cadet fundraising to provide support for Cadet Corps and Squadrons and local community charitable efforts;
establishing parameters for acceptable levels of assessment fees, to ensure local committees focus support to Cadets and Cadet Corps and Squadrons; and
establishing indicators for tracking financial health at each level of the Cadet Leagues (Linked to Action 5.1).

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp (Working with Cadet League Presidents)
OCI: RCSU COs (Working with Provincial League Presidents) and Cadet Corps and Squadron COs (Working with Local Branch or Local Committee Chairs)
Target Date: Cadet League financial management/funding models and CAF policy vis-à-vis cadet fundraising July 2022

Action 2.5 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Prepare a new corporate submission to Treasury Board to update the Terms and Conditions of the Grant to the Cadet Leagues.

CAF Policies and Procedures:

Action 2.6 (Program Inventory 3.10) Update CAF policies (e.g., Natl CJCR Sp Gp Orders) and procedures (e.g., Natl CJCR Sp Gp SOPs) regarding both Cadet and JCR Program oversight and management.

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
OCI: RCSU COs, CA HQ COS Army Ops, Comd CA Divs, and CO CRPGs
Target Date: Updated CAF Policies and Procedures for the Cadet and JCR Program January 2021

JCR Program Oversight and Management:

Action 2.7 (Program Segment 3.10.2) Establish an annual battle rhythm for VCDS to be briefed on the JCR program by the Comd CA and CAF specific business regarding C2 and support of the Cadet and JCR Program with applicable L1s.

OPI: VCDS
OCI: Comd CA, Applicable L1s, Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
Target Date: Annual Battle Rhythm May 2021

Action 2.8 (Program Segment 3.10.2) Incorporate the required annual direction and guidance regarding the execution of the JCR program within the CA’s annual Operating Plan (Op Plan).

OPI: VCDS and Comd CA
OCI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp and COS Army Ops
Target Date: JCR Program Content for CA Op Plan May 2021

Action 2.9 (Program Segment 3.10.2) Formalize an annual command level battle rhythm or engagement plan between CA HQ and Natl CJCR Sp Gp HQ to enable JCR program management coordination.

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp and CA’s COS Army Ops
OCI: Comd CA Divs, and CO CRPGs
Target Date: Annual Battle Rhythm/Engagement Plan December 2020

Action 2.10 (Program Segment 3.10.2) Identify the specific C2 and support staff gaps that exist within the organizational structures within the CRPGs, Div HQs and CA HQ to provide the necessary C2 oversight and support for the delivery of the JCR program IAW the roles and ARA reinforced in the CDS C2 Directive issued February 2, 2018. Submit required O&E changes and residual resource requirements that strengthen C2 of JCR program delivery as part of the O&E, DTEP and BP cycles.

OPI: Comd CA
OCI: VCDS
Target Date: JCR Program Requirements included in DTEP and BP Submissions August 2021

Updated CDS C2 Directive:

Action 2.11 (Program 3.10) Submit required updates to CDS C2 Directive issued February 2, 2018.

OPI: VCDS
OCI: Comd CA, DOS SJS, Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
Target Date: Updates to CDS C2 Directive March 2022

ADM(RS) Recommendation 3

Management Action

Re-scoping the Cadet Program:

Action 3.1 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Issue planning guidance to re-scope the Cadet program.

OPI: VCDS
OCI: DVCDS, Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
Target Date: VCDS planning guidance to re-scope Cadet program May 2021

Action 3.2 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Submit a proposed re-scoped Cadet program to VCDS as part of the FY 2023/24 BP submission.

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
OCI: CO RCSUs
Target Date: Proposed re-scoped Cadet program BP submission August 2022

Clarifying Growth Expectations and Resources:

Action 3.3 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Clarify Cadet growth expectations and available resources to support it.

OPI: VCDS
OCI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
Target Date: VCDS direction and guidance on Cadet growth May 2021

Action 3.4 (Program Segment 3.10.2) Clarify JCR growth expectations and available resources to support it; inclusive of outstanding financial pressures related to recent growth.

OPI: VCDS
OCI: Comd CA
Target Date: VCDS direction and guidance on JCR patrol growth May 2021

Action 3.5 (Program Segment 3.10.2) Update JCR patrol growth plans based on the outcome of Action 3.4.

OPI: Comd CA
OCI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
Target Date: Updated JCR patrol growth plan August 2021

JCR Program Efficiencies and Resource Management:

Action 3.6 (Program Segment 3.10.2) Identify efficiencies to be realized within the JCR program (e.g., rationalization of ETSs) in order to optimize available resources for the maximum benefit of JCRs and the local community.

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
OCI: CA HQ COS Army Ops, Comd CA Divs, and CO CRPGs
Target Date: Updated program framework/funding model June 2021

Action 3.7 (Program Segment 3.10.2) Develop a bottom-up business planning process and financial management framework for the JCR program to increase accountability and improve evidence-based resource allocation and optimization.

OPI: DComd CA
OCI: DVCDS, Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
Target Date: JCR program financial management framework December 2020

ADM(RS) Recommendation 4

Management Action

Cadet and JCR Program Communications:

Action 4.1 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Establish a battle rhythm or engagement plan for applicable communication; stakeholders to discuss issues and emerging opportunities so as to coordinate internal and external efforts to reinforce knowledge and awareness of the Cadet Program.

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
OCI: ADM(PA) Director Outreach and Speechwriting, VCDS Gp PAO, Cadet League Communications Officers
Target Date: Cadet program communications battle rhythm/engagement plan October 2020

Action 4.2 (Program Segment 3.10.2) Establish a battle rhythm or engagement plan for applicable communication; stakeholders to discuss issues and emerging opportunities so as to coordinate internal and external efforts to reinforce knowledge and awareness of the JCR program.

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp and COS Army OPS
OCI: Natl CJCR Sp Gp Sr PAO and CA Directorate of Army Public Affairs
Target Date: JCR program communications battle rhythm/engagement plan March 2021

Action 4.3 (Program Inventory 3.10) Update the current Cadet and JCR Communications Strategy 2019-2022.

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp and COS Army OPS
OCI: Natl CJCR Sp Gp Sr PAO, CA Directorate of Army Public Affairs, ADM(PA) Director Outreach and Speechwriting, VCDS Gp PAO, Cadet League Communications Officers
Target Date: Cadet and JCR communications strategy for 2022-2025 October 2021

Cadet Program Technology Trends:

Action 4.4 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Develop an implementation plan to ensure online applications (e.g., Fortress, training, email, SharePoint) are accessible on personal devices and by senior cadets to help support the administration of the Cadet program.

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
OCI: ADM(IM) Director General Information Management Technology and Strategic Planning
Target Date: Online Applications accessibility implementation plan April 2021

Action 4.5 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Develop an implementation plan to provide self-service online tools to cadets, parents and staff to access and update their personal information.

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
OCI: ADM(IM) Director General Information Management Technology and Strategic Planning Target Date: Online self-service tools implementation plan September 2021

ADM(RS) Recommendation 5

Management Action

Cadet League Performance Measurement:

Action 5.1 (Program Segment 3.10.1) Work with Cadet Leagues to develop performance measures related to the updated shared responsibilities in the MOU (IAW Action 2.1 and supporting Action 2.2) to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of support provided to Cadets and Cadet Corps and Squadrons.

Cadet and JCR Program Performance Measurement:

Action 5.2 (Program Segment 3.10.2) Expand the current SharePoint tool to account for the JCR program-specific information capabilities to track training information.

OPI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
OCI: CA HQ COS Army Ops, Comd CA Divs, CO CRPGs
Target Date: JCR program database September 2021

Action 5.3 (Program 3.10) Establish a performance measurement framework and strategy for the Cadet and JCR Program within the Performance Information Profile (PIP) component of the Departmental Results Framework.

OPI: VCDS
OCI: Comd CA, Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp, ADM(RS)
Target Date: Updated PIP for Cadets and JCRs March 2021

Action 5.4 (Program 3.10) Identify the analytics capability required to support performance measurement for the Cadet and JCR programs.

OPI: VCDS
OCI: Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
Target Date: Analytics capability requirements report June 2021

Action 5.5 (Program 3.10) Identify required social science research to support outcome measurement for both the Cadet and JCR programs.

OPI: VCDS
OCI: Comd CA, Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp
Target Date: Social science research requirements report December 2021

Back to Table of Contents

Annex B—Evaluation Methodology and Limitations

Overview

The evaluation used a mixed-method research design, encompassing multiple lines of qualitative and quantitative research methods to ensure the reliability of information and data to support key findings and recommendations. The methodology established a consistent approach in collection and analysis, including the development of research instruments, enabling data triangulation and contextualization to ensure evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations were accurate, relevant and valid.

Document and literature review

A preliminary document review was conducted as part of the planning phase of the evaluation to gather a foundational understanding of the Youth Program. A formal document review was subsequently undertaken to obtain all relevant program data, and to understand the roles and responsibilities of the functional authority and their relationships with key stakeholders.

Key informant interviews (internal and external)

Interviews with program stakeholders served as an important source of qualitative information and assisted in the interpretation of data from other lines of enquiry. Interviewed stakeholders included: Senior program officials from the VCDS, National CJCR Sp Gp, CA Divisions and CA HHQ; representatives from the Cadet Leagues; and program management from CTCs, RCSUs (support and command staff) and CRPGs (support and command staff).

Surveys

Three web-based surveys were administered to: (1) the COs of the Corps and Squadrons; (2) the Provincial and Divisional Cadet Leagues; and (3) the local committees. A limitation of the survey is related to response rates and the potential for selection bias. The weighted response rate for the survey of the Provincial and Divisional Cadet Leagues was 88 percent, as responses (n=108) were weighted to the each cadet leagues’ provincial and divisional representation. The response rate for the survey of the COs of the corps and squadron was 65 percent (n=724), which is representative of the environments, regionally and by population centres. The response rate for survey of the Local Committees was 22 percent (n=246). Weights were not utilized for the Local Committees stemming from incomplete data about the population and location. Therefore, the significance of the results from the Local Committees survey will be considered lower than the others.

Case studies

A sample of CTCs and RCSUs across Canada were examined. Case studies included reviewing documents, and conducting five site visits and interviews with a range of stakeholders, such as COs and support staff of the CTCs and RCSUs, including civilian leagues.

Back to Table of Contents

Annex C—Logic Model

Figure C-1 Details – Logic Model

Figure C-1 Summary: This logic model depicts the relationship between the Cadet and JCR program’s inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes. The information from the logic model is summarized as follows.

Inputs

Resources: Defence Team Personnel, Canadian Youth and Volunteers; Public and Non-Public Funding; Infrastructure; Acquired Equipment; Materiel and Services; DND/CAF Activities and Support.
Documentation: Section 46 National Defence Act; Queen’s Regulations and Orders for Canadian Cadet Organizations, Defence policy: Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE), DND/CAF Policy and Directives, Training Doctrine and Curriculum
Influencers/Drivers: Leadership Direction and Intent, Cadet Leagues/Sponsors, Community Support, Parental Engagement

Activities

Institutional Governance and Leadership

Manage (command, control, govern), administer and support the design and delivery of the youth program.

Review and develop guidance and provide direction and advice
Provide governance (oversight) to support administration, coordination and supervision
Review and develop doctrine, policies, strategies and plans

Conduct and track performance measurement and evidence (data)

Community Engagement and Development

Engage and consult with communities that are impacted by the Cadets and Junior Canadian Rangers through the following activities:

Targeted partnerships and stakeholder engagement

Public relations and promotion

Youth Development and Leadership

Deliver training (programs, camps, courses, activities) to Cadets and Junior Canadian Rangers related to the following areas:

Leadership development
Health enhancement
Community service

CAF awareness

Adult Development and Leadership

Deliver training (e.g., individual training and education) and professional development to military and civilian leaders of the Cadets and Junior Canadian Rangers

Outputs

Direction and guidance, advice
Administration, coordination, oversight, supervision
Doctrine, policies, strategies, plans and resources
Materiel management (equip. support)
Performance measurement (evaluation, validation, quality assurance, etc.)
Grant Program (Cadets Leagues of Canada)

Engagement and promotional opportunities with local communities (e.g., meetings, presentations, visits, etc.)
Public awareness and outreach materials and communications
Sustainability supports

Cadets:

Corps and Squadron Training Program
Cadets Summer Training Centre (Camps)
Regionally Directed Activities (RDAs)
Nationally Directed Activities (NDAs)

Junior Canadian Rangers:

Community Training Program
Enhanced Summer Training Program (Camps)

Trained military officers, civilian instructors and volunteers through training courses and professional development (e.g., occupational, job-based, specialty, and miscellaneous).

Adult leader PD experiences
CAF-community co-development experiences

Employment supports

Immediate Outcomes

Communities and participants have governance, capacity and resources necessary to support the delivery of structured youth development opportunities (Immediate Outcome 1)

Youth participants have enhanced knowledge about the CAF and demonstrate competencies and skills such as leadership and decision making (Immediate Outcome 2)

Adult participants (military and civilian) demonstrate competencies and skills related to decision making, leadership and mentorship (Immediate Outcome 3)

Intermediate Outcomes

Participants demonstrate enhanced leadership roles and are community-oriented (Intermediate Outcome 1)

Communities celebrate and value the leadership role of youth and adult participants (Intermediate Outcome 2)

Ultimate Outcomes

Canadian communities are strengthened (SSE Initiative C)

Youth in Canada are provided with experience and opportunities that enable a successful transition to adulthood (DR 3.10)

Back to Table of Contents

Annex D—Evaluation Matrix

Table D-1. Evaluation questions, indicators and research methods used in conducting the evaluation.
Evaluation Issues and Questions	Indicators	Research Methods
Evaluation Issues and Questions	Indicators	Doc. review	Survey	Interviews	Admin data	Field visits	Work group
Effectiveness – Achievement of Outcomes
1. To what extent are DND and the CAF providing an appropriate level of resources for the delivery of the youth program in order to achieve program outcomes?	1.1. Evidence of the type of resources provided by DND and CAF level one organizations to support the delivery of the youth program (e.g., identification of the type of resources or support received or provided: infrastructure and facilities, equipment, materiel, personnel and training, etc.)	X	X	X	-	X	-
	1.2. Evidence as to whether the level of resources and support are appropriate to enable program delivery, and identification of challenges or barriers for effective support	-	X	-	-	X	-
	1.3. Evidence as to whether the RCN, CA, RCAF are providing direction and guidance to subordinate organizations on their involvement and support (affiliation) towards the youth program	X	-	X	-	-	-
	1.4. Evidence on the clarity of the roles and ARA of DND and CAF level one organizations and subordinate organizations involved in supporting program delivery (e.g., organizational and strategic priorities and plans, policies, directives and guidance, etc.)	X	-	X	-	-	-
2. To what extent are the civilian cadet leagues (including local sponsoring committees) and the adult committees providing adequate support to enable the achievement of the youth program outcomes?	2.1. Evidence on the type of resources provided to the civilian cadet leagues (including local sponsoring committees) and adult committees to support the delivery of the youth program (i.e., identification of the type of resources or support: facilities, equipment, training aids, etc.)	X	X	X	-	X	-
	2.2. Evidence as to whether the level of resources and support are appropriate to enable program delivery, and identification of challenges or barriers for effective support	-	X	X	-	X	-
	2.3. Evidence as to whether the roles and ARA of the civilian cadet leagues (including local sponsoring committees) and the adult committees are effectively supporting the delivery of the program	X	X	X	-	X	-
3. To what extent are effective partnerships being developed between program management, DND and CAF organizations, and the civilian cadet leagues (including local sponsoring committees) or the adult committees?	3.1. Evidence on the level of engagement, communication and the state of the partnership (including issues and challenges) between program management and the civilian cadet leagues (including local sponsoring committees) or the adult committees	X	X	X	-	X	-
	3.2. Evidence on the level of engagement, communication and the state of the partnership (including issues and challenges) between all levels of program management and DND and CAF organizations	X	X	X	-	X	-
	3.3. Evidence that proper instruments exist within DND and the CAF and also with the civilian cadet leagues (including local sponsoring committees) or the adult committees to support the delivery of the youth program (e.g., policies, regulation, directives and orders, mutual service agreements, MOUs, etc.).	X	-	X	-	X	-
Efficiency – Design and delivery (Program management and governance)
4. To what extent are the governance and organizational structures appropriate, efficient and complementary to support and enable the youth program to achieve its outcomes?	4.1. Evidence as to whether the governance is effectively providing direction and oversight, including identification of challenges and barriers to more effective governance	X	-	X	-	X	-
	4.2. Evidence as to whether the realignment of the command and control of the youth program, including organizations and establishments, were implemented as planned	X	-	X	-	X	-
	4.3. Evidence that policies and strategic directives related to the youth program are applied consistently at all levels, and alignment of expectations with current practice	X	-	X	-	X	-
	4.4. Evidence of impacts (anticipated and unanticipated, if any) resulting from the realignment of the command and control of the youth program For example: program expenditure supporting corps and squadrons; capacity limitations related to program management, etc.	-	X	X	-	X	-
	4.5. Evidence on the appropriateness and efficiency of the current organizational design (i.e., delegation of supporting roles and ARA across DND and CAF organizations and civilian partners and communities) versus alternative program designs or arrangements	-	-	X	-	X	-
5. To what extent is the delivery of the youth program efficient?	5.1. Evidence as to whether the program is delivered efficiently, including improvement needs and alternate delivery models Identification of factors affecting the efficiency of the program (e.g., capacity of training establishment; management of the participants (youth and adults); personnel selection and screening; communication issues; technical issues; policy; training requirements of instructors; other identified issues.)	-	X	X	-	X	-
	5.2. Evidence as to whether there has been consistent efforts or measures to enhance the efficiency of program delivery at all levels For example: administrative requirements (e.g., policies, rules and regulations) related to delivering programs and activities; consistency of program delivery across the regions, etc.	X	X	X	-	X	-
	5.3. Comparison by region and environment on the use of personnel For example: Ratio of military or civilian CIC and JCR officers, instructors, volunteers, etc. to cadets	-	-	X	X	-	-
	5.4. Evidence on costs associated with the delivery of the Cadets and JCR related programs and activities	-	-	X	X	-	-
Efficiency – Design and delivery (Performance information)
6. To what extent does the youth program have appropriate performance measures, data collection and reporting processes to report on the achievement of results?	6.1. Evidence on current or planned performance information related to the program, across DND and the CAF and with civilian partners (includes, but not limited to, logic models, key performance indicators, performance measurement frameworks, data collection, analysis and reporting tools and processes, etc.)	X	-	X	-	X	X
	6.2. Evidence as to whether the performance information is appropriately (a) shared and disseminated among all program stakeholders; (b) used to assess the achievement of outcome;, and (c) used to support decision making and program improvements.	X	-	X	-	X	X

Table D-1 Details – Evaluation Matrix

Table D-1 Summary: This table presents the evaluation questions, indicators and research methods used in conducting the evaluation. The table has three major columns. The first column indicates the six Evaluation Questions (one per major row). The second column presents the indicators for each question, nested in separate rows within the major Evaluation Question row. The third major column contains six nested columns (one for each research method), creating a grid that corresponds to the nested indicators. Within each grid box there is an X if the given research method was used to support the indicator, or left blank if not. Several sub-heading rows that span all three columns are also contained in the table to organize the Evaluation Questions by Issue. Navigate the table from top to bottom, reading across each row.

Figure E-1 Details – Organization Chart of CAF Command and Control (C2) for the Canadian Cadet Organizations (CCO)

Figure E-1 Summary: This nested organizational chart depicts the hierarchical relationship in CAF Command and Control (C2) for the Canadian Cadet Organizations (CCO). As it progresses from L0 and below, it displays the organizations/persons who come under the command and responsibility of the aforementioned rank. The role of some commanding officers are mentioned beside their rank. Furthermore, it is important to note that there are horizontal relationships on matters concerning Junior Canadian Rangers Program Delivery between Vice Chief of the Defence Staff (VCDS), Commanders of the Canadian Army (Comd CA), Canadian Army Headquarters and Commander of the National Cadet and Junior Canadian Ranger Support Group (Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp). In addition, Commander of the National Cadet and Junior Canadian Ranger Support Group (Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp), Commanders of Maritime Forces Atlantic (MARLANT) and Maritime Forces Pacific (MARPAC), Commanders of the 1^st and 2^nd Canadian Air Division (1 CAD and 2 CAD) are responsive to the purposes of airworthiness, seaworthiness and safety.

L0) Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS)

L1)

1) Vice Chief of the Defence Staff (VCDS)

L2) Commander – National Cadet and Junior Canadian Ranger Support Group (Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp)

1) Commanding Officer- Regional Cadet Support Unit (CO RCSU) Atlantic

L4) Commanding Officer Corps/Squadrons/Cadet Training Centres (CTC)/CFTCs (Flying)

2) Commanding Officer- Regional Cadet Support Unit (CO RCSU) Eastern

L4) Commanding Officer Corps/Squadrons/Cadet Training Centres (CTC)/CFTCs (Flying)

3) Commanding Officer- Regional Cadet Support Unit (CO RCSU) Central

L4) Commanding Officer Corps/Squadrons/Cadet Training Centres (CTC)/CFTCs (Flying)

4) Commanding Officer- Regional Cadet Support Unit (CO RCSU) Northwest

L4) Commanding Officer Corps/Squadrons/Cadet Training Centres (CTC)/CFTCs (Flying)

5) Commanding Officer- Regional Cadet Support Unit (CO RCSU) Pacific

L4) Commanding Officer Corps/Squadrons/Cadet Training Centres (CTC)/CFTCs (Flying)

2) Commander of the Canadian Army (Comd CA)

1) Commander of 5^th Canadian Division (5 Cdn Div)

L3) Commanding Officer of 5^th Canadian Ranger Patrol Group (5 CRPG)

L4) Canadian Ranger Patrols