Membership as Percentage of Population

[ZigZag911]

Of course doubling our membership in 6 months would overwhelm our infrastructure....I would like to see it as a 5-10 year goal, with the aim of including solid training, working at retention, and keeping members involved actively.

As for the 2 year commitment for Iowa OTS, it would largely be a matter of personal honor, keeping one's word.

I'd like to see 2 years total membership as a requirement for promotion to 1 Lt.

[capchiro]

A couple of observations.  I keep hearing about culling the dead weight and getting rid of the inactive members.  I personally don't think this is a good idea as i have been in long enough to see some of the dead weight inactive for a couple of years (although still supporting CAP by paying their dues) and then when their live allows, they become active again and are once again an asset to CAP.  To cull them would probably make them go away and never return.  Life sometimes interferes with extracurricular activities.  As far as cadet retention, it appears to me that we lose some cadets due to over zealous misdirected Rambo type cadets and some younger seniors.  This program is about developing cadets and it is supposed to be fun.  There are too many opportunities for our youth to have fun other than to come to meetings once a week and be treated like low life maggots.  They are here to learn, and are not expected to be perfect, and they are children, not 20 year old marines.  I think one would be surprised with how many cadets we lose because of this.  (I know, perhaps our cadets aren't as willing to be bullied, etc., as they used to be, but that is the way it is).  A lot of times, due to the way the program appears, cadets run the cadet program and they shouldn't, at least not without proper supervision and oversight.  Some cadet leaders think that new cadets are "fresh meat" and not as "golden opportunities".  So, it is my limited opinion that we keep any dead weight that are paying their dues and may possibly return someday and that we work harder to return the cadet program to some semblance of a youth program and not a place that some timid cadets are afraid of.  Cadet retention rate reflects that most cadets don't renew or drop out their first year, which also reflects the time when they are yelled at most by more senior cadets.  I have had cadets return from encampments almost in a state of shock at how they were treated (and some of them were treated at a level of harassment).  You can't drop a cadet for push-ups for punishment and you shouldn't correct a cadet by yelling at him/her in public.  (This is also harassment by the rules).  Etc, etc. You get my drift.

[BillB]

Colonel, I think you'll find several thing if you talk to the cadets. Often THEY want more military discipline. Yes, cadets coming back from an encampment are in shock concerning being yelled at. As far as doing puchups that has been a no-no for several years, and the cadets should have reported it to the TACO.
But the main problem with the cadet program is it's geared to the younger cadets. The texts are written for 8th grade age cadets. Thus you lose the interest of older cadets. While the majority of cadets that don't renew, drop out in the first year, often it's because there is nothing at the Squadron to keep their interest. Low level of activities at the Squadron level result in lower retention rates. If a Squadron is able to retain cadets, what can C/Capt to C/LCol's do in the unit? To a degree they resent being "babysitters" for the 11 and 12 year old cadets. There are only a few slots for advanced cadets, and after being C/CC, what is there to do? This is where CAP loses the most experienced cadets in a unit. Look at the figures from National, the number of cadets above the age of 16 drops off dramatically. One answer most Senior members balk at is assigning a cadet as an assistant in a staff position. But that is one answer on how to retain the older cadets. To often the Senior member considers as you do, that cadets are children, and can be more of a hinderance than a help. Here the Senior member doesn't want to be the "babysitter" of a cadet assigned as an assistant.
Years ago the Cadet Advisory Council was a major player in cadet programs. Now you'll find that since the CAC members are appointed rather than elected by the cadets, the CAC has lost it's voice in cadet programs. The old CAC used to make recommendations on regulations or policies that affected the cadet program. Now it seems the NHQ staff or National Board makes changes without any input from cadets. While serving as Region DCP, I had the Region CAC meet monthly via meetings or HF radio net or conference call. They were very effective in providing input to the Region Commander, who often took their recommendations to the NEC.
In general the entire cadet program needs a review to increase the good portion of the cadet program, and modify the points that hinder cadet growth. But I think you'll find the majority of problems lies not with the general concept of cadet programs, but rather at the Squadron level.

[mikeylikey]

Instead of getting rid of inactive members......have anyone tried to get them back in?  I mean I have seen alot of SQD's who loose members to inactive status but never called them, never visited them never wrote them an email to see why they don't show up or PERHAPS try to entice them back!

[Eclipse]

Instead of getting rid of inactive members......have anyone tried to get them back in?  I mean I have seen alot of SQD's who loose members to inactive status but never called them, never visited them never wrote them an email to see why they don't show up or PERHAPS try to entice them back!

Always the suggestion - and rarely effective.

[ZigZag911]

"Culling" the inactive members is no0t worth the effort (believe, me, I tried!)

Take their dues, and, in some cases, they do find their circumstances change over the years and begin contributing again.

Capchiro is quite correct that cadets do not like to be pushed around....military discipline, and the sharp esprit that accompanies that is one thing; browbeating & bullying for its own sake is something else quickly rejected today.

The question of what to do with the older cadets has been around for decades.

I was a cadet into my 2nd year in college -- to be honest, I was getting too old for the cadet program.

We need something in-between ("officer candidate program"??) for ALL 18-21s.

How to fit that in with the existing Eaker/Spaatz milestones --which often are not earned until post-high school -- is a subject that would have to be resolved as part of this.

I would note that (at least when I was a Scout) that Explorers who had been Scouts retained eligibility to earn Eagle rank....Explorers who had not been Scouts had no such possibility.

[BillB]

CAP used to have an OTC program for the older cadets. What is needed to to bring it back while allowing OTC members to complete their Earhart or Spaatz. One suggestion made in the 1990s was to allow a senior member who earned the Earhart to attempt to earn the Spaatz while a senior member. This would be limited to 21 to 23 year olds. Many cadets take the Spaatz test just before their 21st birthday, and fail. This would allow the cadet to turn senior and still attempt the Spaatz. Looking at the records, most of the attempts failed because of the PT requirements, not the written test.

[jimmydeanno]

^I always heard it was the essay that did most in - going into the Spaatz exam you should know if you are going to pass the PT exam, if you aren't you don't take it...