Cultural Shift in CAP

[AirDX]

Ignorance (you used the I-word, not me) is failing to actually look at the financials and see just how much of our operating revenue is made up of dues and contributions.  Between the two they total about $4.7M of out $59M operating budget.  Roughly 8%,  AGAIN, nothing to sneeze at, but not the difference between life and death.  If we lost a third of that in one stroke, it's not great, but again, not the apocalypse you think.

Sorry to divert the main conversation, but I wonder if you understand that the corporate budget funds activities and programs that by law the appropriated budget cannot.

Operating budgets for the regions. Travel funds for wing and region and higher commanders. National Cadet activities. Cadet scholarships. Chaplains. Legislative services. Volunteer magazine. Aerospace programs. Professional development. The list goes on.

People will certainly disagree about which of those areas ought to be the priority, but you're mistaken if you think foregoing roughly one-third of the measely 8% of our revenue represented by dues income would have only a modest impact on CAP's effectiveness. It would be a devastating blow.

Seems the "empty shirts" are more valuable after all.

Dues income is only 5% of total revenue, not 8%.  8% includes donations.  I don't think the slackers among us are donating a lot of cash to CAP.

[jimmydeanno]

I don't think the slackers among us are donating a lot of cash to CAP.

Actually, the local squadrons typically get a number of donations throughout the year.  I know that my "contributions" so far this year have been around $750, in places like encampment scholarship funds, starter money for cyberpatriot, starter money for a squadron snack bar, NCOA & ALS fees for needy cadets, etc.  I've even "donated" money for O-Flights in the past when money ran out, or the wing didn't allocate much.

Do I write a check to NHQ?  Nope, but the local unit certainly gets more than my membership dues each year.

I figure if, I, as a member, am not willing to support our missions, why should anyone else? 

[SamFranklin]

I don't think the slackers among us are donating a lot of cash to CAP.

Sure they do. I haven't been able to volunteer for a few years, but I pay dues and write a check at tax time, too. I'm no saint. I know other long-time, inactive members who do likewise. In my old unit one guy wrote checks for 10 years, no exaggeration.  He was such a lapsed slacker i dont think anyone knew him enough to say hello on the street.  Perhaps these examples show why NHQ went to the trouble of making the Patron category.

Professional fundraisers would tell you that inactive guys like me aren't "slackers" but easy targets for donations. It's called "guilt money," as in, "Still haven't been able to get back active again, so the least I can do is write a check to assuage my guilt."

I respect your motives, but your cavalier willingness to trim 15,000 or more contributors is exactly wrong and at odds with the basic concept of volunteerism.

[RADIOMAN015]

We ARE VOLUNTEERS.  In ES when the alert page goes out, each individual member can decided whether they want to participate in that mission or not, what's the big deal.

Basing your response plan on "I sure hope you can make it." and "You're lucky I showed up at all." is how we got where we are.
We have leaders at all echelons reluctant to commit resources they cannot count on, while at the same time those "twice-a-year" members are whining we don't have enough actual missions.  You cannot have it both ways and be taken seriously.
COMMENT:  Well, I do in fact have my availability listed in the ES data base, BUT I don't think it really is used by ANYONE in any wing.  Most wings I think are using either a wing wide page (just as your wing does) or are calling specific individuals based upon what the Alert Officer already knows.   I've been conservative on when I am available, However, if the page goes out during the work day, I'll evaluate IF I can help and even IF later, if the mission isn't completed I may call the IC.     


Which is the ultimate goal here.  Our members don't want to be considered "the best volunteers" for the job(s), they want to be considered the best resource, with their pay status being irrelevant to the discussion.  A volunteer force will always have people with legit reasons why they can't respond, that's part of the game, but there's is a Grand Canyon's difference between "my whole family is sick..." and "I won't commit until I know what you want me to do, and I probably can't stay the whole day."
COMMENT:  Well volunteers can limit the time they can do something, at least they are being right up front as to their limitations, IF you get someone who doesn't have those limitations use them first.  No one wants to get "trapped" either by the IC that doesn't want to call out additional resources OR no one else answer the call, and you are at the 12 hour mark (including the entire overnight period).  When you hit 10 hours of ground team time (or even at mission base), it's time to start looking for replacements.  How far away you are from your home squadron on the response may also affect availability.  No ones out there wants to get themselves killed/injuried because they are tired

For the most part I don't think updating that availability data base does much for planning, because things come up in adult members lives that they can't control, whether it be at the work place on the day of need OR personally, and most aren't going into the data base to update those changes.   

It will make a huge difference if not updating it includes ramifications.  On the duty roster and you don't respond?  Perhaps you're not called until round two next time, etc.  Can't make it this weekend?  Take your name off the lists.  (There's an app for that).

Just like volunteer fireman, auxiliary policemen, municipal emergency volunteer teams, whatever.  You're a volunteer in the respect that you don't have to be here and we can't make you answer the phone, but if you expect to be taken seriously, then you should put on your big-boy pants and accept the responsibilities you swore to when you signed your app and accepted than pretty badge or requested the final sig on the fancy qualification.

COMMENT:   Many volunteer and even paid call fire departments have issues with getting personnel to respond during certain times of the day (and evening late nights/very early mornings can be problematic).  Some volunteer ambulance services actually have paid employees during the daytime and volunteers only nights, due to most of the volunteers being "out of town" during the day.   I hear that constantly on my radio scanner/receiver, when the 4th page has gone out with no response and they are calling for mutual aid.    I think some volunteer fire departments/ambulance services actually have personnel that sleep over in the facility so an immediate response is available.   Maybe CAP someday will need that type of "alert" manning right at the hanger or very closed by for an immediate response.

Within Northeast Region, a nearby wing can also be alerted to assist IF if it comes necessary.  Most of our missions now are more liked scheduled "patrols", (basically like many of our missions during WW II, which were scheduled type patrols or assistance with training) at least on the air side, so there usually enough members available.


A lot of people like to tell their friends they are part of an emergency resource, far less actually want to do something when the phone rings.
COMMENT:  Well I don't think it's that many people doing this.

RM

[AirDX]

I respect your motives, but your cavalier willingness to trim 15,000 or more contributors is exactly wrong and at odds with the basic concept of volunteerism.

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I don't think all 15,000 are cash contributors - in fact I'd bet you that the huge majority are not.   I can also bend a bit and say those 15,000 are prefectly welcome, as long as they don't pretend to be ES responders.  There are venues, such as Patron membership, where you can park yourself for a few years if you so desire, and not be a drag on the rest of us.

[Eclipse]

RM - when you learn to properly use the quote tags, we can continue this.  I'm not wading through that mess.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Again, ES is not the be-all and end-all of CAP.

Professionalism is equally applicable to CP and AE.

I have done ES, both training and operationally.

However, health conditions I have now have severely restricted that.  Squadron and wing personnel both know that.

BUT...I also have not put my name out as a "go to" person on an ELT call.

The primary thing I do now in CAP is instructing, mentoring and generally behind-the-scenes operations.

No, it'll never earn me a Find ribbon, a BMV/SMV, or any of the "glamour" CAP decorations.

I just show up every week (or whenever asked), do what I can with the time that I have, hope it does some good, and then go home.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

There are venues, such as Patron membership, where you can park yourself for a few years if you so desire, and not be a drag on the rest of us.

There are also venues outside of being a Patron where you can contribute.

Again...with feeling...

NOT EVERYONE IN CAP IS INTERESTED IN ES!

If the rest of us who do behind the scenes stuff like make sure paperwork A gets to recipient B with signature C is a "drag" on the rest of you...well, thankfully I don't need the permission or endorsement of the ES-only zealots to do what I do in CAP.

[AirDX]

There are also venues outside of being a Patron where you can contribute.

Again...with feeling...

NOT EVERYONE IN CAP IS INTERESTED IN ES!
If the rest of us who do behind the scenes stuff like make sure paperwork A gets to recipient B with signature C is a "drag" on the rest of you...well, thankfully I don't need the permission or endorsement of the ES-only zealots to do what I do in CAP.

Absolutely correct and I do not intend for the Cadet or AE programs to be belittled or shuffled aside, they are 2/3s of the CAP.  I preach that all the time.

All I am saying is whatever the CAP venue, I am [darn]ed sick and tired of those who SAY they will do something and DON't do it.  ES is the part that stared this, with our friend RM's remarks up-thread.

I AM one of those charged with shuffling paper around.  I am tired of sending e-mails to empty shirts about training requirements they need to complete, or events we need bodies for or whatever, and I can't even get the courtesy of a reply.  I am tired of leaving voicemails that are ignored.  That is the time that is being wasted.

I am tired of the "I'm a volunteer, I don't need to show up even if I say I will" attitude and level of performance.  It is within our grasp to transform CAP into a professional organization, not the near-joke it seems to be sometimes.  Why is everyone hell-bent on accepting miserable performance?  Maybe the CAP's culture is mediocre performance, and it's too deeply entrenched to save.  I don't think so.

[Pump Scout]

I am tired of the "I'm a volunteer, I don't need to show up even if I say I will" attitude and level of performance. 

Couldn't agree more - that's an attitude that can become a cancer in any organization it shows up in. I'd bet a bunch of us see it in our day jobs as well. People who think their performance and professionalism should be dictated by their paycheck are a pox on the folks who strive to be the best at whatever it is they do.

[Eclipse]

In the military, everyone from top to bottom knows their place and their role. Not so in CAP, and this is the key, I believe, to fixing things.

This requires high-speed Plans and Programs People at nearly every level.

1) Identify the mission (beyond the rhetoric of the "Big 3")
2) Identify our "customer".

       These are intertwined, may not be in this order, and includes both internal and external people and agencies as "customers".

3) Create a National Level Plan which fulfills the mission and customer needs.

4) Give each Region their plan with an explanation of their piece of the puzzle.
This plans needs to be specific based on the mandates of the mission, regardless of existing resources, etc.
(i.e. you will have "x" aircrews, "x" ground teams, "x" cadets, "x encampments", etc., they will be here, here, here, and here.
Plans are negotiable, but once adopted, they need to be reviewed annually, with actual real numbers and data, and ramifications for failure.
You won't need to be worrying about the nonsense of compliance inspections, because wings executing the plans
properly will have to be doing things right to get things done.

5) Each Region identifies where each Wing fits and publishes a plan for that Wing, identifying how they
fill the Region's plan, and Region fills the National Plan.

6) Each Wing publishes their mandates for the Group CC's.

7) The Group CC's publish their Group's plan mandates to the units.

8) The Units, which are the heart of CAP, fulfill their plans, which in turn fulfill everyone else's, and
everyone knows where they fit in the "Grande Scheme^®".  No one is allowed to sit on the
bench without realizing they are a burden to the plan, and those who wish to be empty shirts go into a
different category of membership.

There is no successful organization in this world that does not know what product or service it provides,
or that has a "vague idea" and "hopes we figure it out along the way".

There is no successful organization in this world that allows its employees, divisions, and echelons to drift
in a sea of self-motivation and self-actualization, while at the same time being demonstrably deficient in
baseline performance.  You can execute and be Hawkeye Pierce, but if you don't, you better look sharp, stand straight,
and tread lightly.  You can't have it both ways.

In other words, we have to stop people from doing as they please, treating the "mission" as a menu, and
deciding themselves when they are done.  The excuse of "we are only volunteers" carries no weight, since as a
volunteer we make a voluntary commitment to excellence, and our compensation is that excellence and personal knowledge
of a job done right which serves a greater good.  The greatest military this earth has ever seen is all volunteer, so
are many police and fire departments, most of the ARC, Salvation Army, Sea Cadets, ACA, and yes, even most employment
is essentially voluntary.

Monetary compensation is not the delineation of professionalism or excellence.  Those who believe it is, miss the point entirely.

Few if any of those other organizations, or any successful company, allow its members or employees to come and go as they please,
wear whatever they want, dictate their personal mission (to the detriment of the greater good), ignore regulatory and training mandates,
or simply wander around without purpose, bothering others who are actually getting things done (do not confuse flexible work environments
like Microsoft, Apple, and Google with "doing as you please" - those are environments which value execution above all else, and those
who do not perform do not stick around long).

Every successful company and organization is laser-focused and knows exactly what their product or service is,
stays in its lane, and you can usually chart their down years when they lost focus or tried to be "all things to all people".
Only huge, successful corporations, with capital to burn, can experiment and take tangential tracks from their core
competencies, and CAP is not, and will never be, on that scale (nor should it be).

We need to get back to a member-focused organization that realizes it has to commit on a national scale, but execute locally.

The only important resource in CAP is the membership, and the pyramid of support is supposed to be inverted to support the members executing the broader mission, not the upper echelons treating their administrivia and check boxes as if that was the mission, and in order to help our members execute the mission...

...we need to decide what it is, and let them know...

[gregma]

Very well said Eclipse.  Thank you.

Greg

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

In other words, we have to stop people from doing as they please, treating the "mission" as a menu, and
deciding themselves when they are done.  The excuse of "we are only volunteers" carries no weight, since as a
volunteer we make a voluntary commitment to excellence, and our compensation is that excellence and personal knowledge
of a job done right which serves a greater good.  The greatest military this earth has ever seen is all volunteer, so
are many police and fire departments, most of the ARC, Salvation Army, Sea Cadets, ACA, and yes, even most employment
is essentially voluntary.

Earlier someone mentioned the AE officer who joins with a commitment / agreement to teach once a month. For the sake of argument, he's the Asst. AEO (Internal). Do you see this as treating the mission as a menu?

I would not.

[Eclipse]

In other words, we have to stop people from doing as they please, treating the "mission" as a menu, and
deciding themselves when they are done.  The excuse of "we are only volunteers" carries no weight, since as a
volunteer we make a voluntary commitment to excellence, and our compensation is that excellence and personal knowledge
of a job done right which serves a greater good.  The greatest military this earth has ever seen is all volunteer, so
are many police and fire departments, most of the ARC, Salvation Army, Sea Cadets, ACA, and yes, even most employment
is essentially voluntary.

Earlier someone mentioned the AE officer who joins with a commitment / agreement to teach once a month. For the sake of argument, he's the Asst. AEO (Internal). Do you see this as treating the mission as a menu?

I would not.

For starters, someone who shows up once a month is not an AEO, they are an instructor, and would depend on whether he is fulfilling his part of the mission by staying current on required personal training, and is pursuing professional development.  In my view it is a package.

That's one of the problems we have right now - people with signature lines longer than their appointment books. They get the satisfaction of a nice business card to show off to their friends at bridge games, but don't actually do half what the job actually entails.

So yes, someone posted as Assistant AEO, who only shows up once a month, is treating the mission like a menu.  Few similar organizations that purport to be the professionalized resource we do would allow similar behavior.

[RiverAux]

So Eclipse, what is the consequence for failure to meet the targets given to you from above?  Just what are you going to do to the squadron that fails to have the required number of cadets, for example? 

The only real influence CAP has over such things is shifting corporate resources around.  And that tool is already being used -- if your unit is too small you may lose your van.  If you're not flying enough, the plane goes bye bye. 

We already know what squadrons, groups, and wings are not performing, so what will this massive planning process produce but statistical data to prove what we already know to be true. 

And you must not be very familiar with the massive waste of time already involved in producing plans in CAP.  Ask your PAOs about their mandated plans. 

[Eclipse]

So Eclipse, what is the consequence for failure to meet the targets given to you from above?  Just what are you going to do to the squadron that fails to have the required number of cadets, for example? 

Replace the commander, move people around, or retire the charter.  Harsh, unpopular, and necessary.  CAP is not a rec center, it is a structured program
with requirements. Many that people largely ignore.  Like all goals, there is always latitude.  A commander who misses a goal by 2 but did 5 recruiting drives and lost a couple because they moved is different then the one who says "meh, whatever, what can they do to me?" and then continues to march his 4 cadets in a circle and hopes they bring his friends.

In that case, the number itself has to be a product of actual data - demographics of the area, population density, etc.  And charters might have to move around.  Right now we put a charter basically wherever the commander lives.  That doesn't mean they belong there.   Again, on this specific point, were I HEADCAP, I'd start asking why the three major metro areas of this country - NY, ORD, and LA, have so little CAP presence as to be invisible.  That's unacceptable, and until you fix that, how is rural anywhere going to know who we are.

"By accident" hasn't been working to well.

This will not be an overnight process, nor will it be painless.

The PAO plans, like every other plan executed in the vacuum of a silo, fails because it is not part of a greater plan, and there are no ramifications for failure.  There's no standard, no barometer, no mid-cycle reevaluation, just some seed cast into the wind, and then surprise when nothing happens.

[RiverAux]

Mandates do not motivate volunteers.  If anything they demotivate folks since it becomes very clear that those upon whom the mandate is being placed are less important to the organization than those doing the mandating. 

Now, I don't have a particular problem with developing goals because in some areas it isn't really clear what CAP thinks is important.  But the idea that any of these goals are worth trashing the program for is insane. 

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

For starters, someone who shows up once a month is not an AEO, they are an instructor, and would depend on whether he is fulfilling his part of the mission by staying current on required personal training, and is pursuing professional development.  In my view it is a package.

That's one of the problems we have right now - people with signature lines longer than their appointment books. They get the satisfaction of a nice business card to show off to their friends at bridge games, but don't actually do half what the job actually entails.

So yes, someone posted as Assistant AEO, who only shows up once a month, is treating the mission like a menu.  Few similar organizations that purport to be the professionalized resource we do would allow similar behavior.

20-1 does not have an instructor position. So working within the CAP framework the Squadron CC and AEO agree that they can use some one to teach once a month. He's assigned Asst AEO. His classes are assisting the AEO in completing the squadron level AE program goals. So in 6 months we have 2nd Lt Once A. Month.
He can't teach if he fails to keep up on Safety, EO or any new training that comes down the pipe, so let's assume he does. Like it or not, PD past Level I is optional in CAP. The AEO is happy with his work and works on the requirements for the AE Tech Rating with him. The CC is happy and signs off on it and a year later we have 1st Lt Once A. Month. And for the next 5 years he continues to provide outstanding AE classes to the cadets.

How is this squadron helped by saying "Come 4 times a month or leave"?

Does the opinion change if a local CPA says I can come once a month for the finance meeting and do all the finance paperwork? He might even end up as Maj Once A Month, Squadron Finance Officer.

A squadron commander and his staff need to get all the tasks done. The AEO listed above might hold an other staff position and be the GTL for the unit's GT. He might be very happy to have a night where AE is getting done and he's not doing it.

I don't see anything unprofessional in committing to a certain schedule and keeping to it.

[Eclipse]

20-1 does not have an instructor position.

You're making my point.  Anyone can be an instructor, and does need a fancy title to do it, nor should they get equal recognition of someone who is actually doing that job.  AEO, done properly, has a lot more to do than just launch rockets and teach the force of flight.  If you're a member who "just wants to help", great!  Thank you!  But don't expect a badge and a business card until you step up as a staffer and carry the same weight.

How is this squadron helped by saying "Come 4 times a month or leave"?

That's not what I am saying, but will be the knee-jerk of everyone with excuses.

Does the opinion change if a local CPA says I can come once a month for the finance meeting and do all the finance paperwork? He might even end up as Maj Once A Month, Squadron Finance Officer.

No.  Again, if you want to "help", great.  If you want the recognition of staff appointment, the professional development credit, and the personal accomplishment that comes with that, you need to do more.  This is exactly why we have an entire generation of clueless field-grade officers!  They did some job that auto-checked their boxes and no one cared enough to keep them in an appropriate grade.  We reap what we sow.

A squadron commander and his staff need to get all the tasks done. The AEO listed above might hold an other staff position and be the GTL for the unit's GT. He might be very happy to have a night where AE is getting done and he's not doing it.

You can't move your argument all over the board like that - one minute the guy shows up once a month, the next he's a GTL, you have to pick one angle.

But...

...that's the other issue we have - that everyone has to be "somebody".  What's wrong with letting members be members and just "do"? Instruct, be GTM's, run ES, help the cadets.  They don't need a staff posting to be valuable resources, but we post everyone because we are so shorthanded, and NHQ keeps upping the useless posting requirements while not giving us any need for filling those jobs.

I've said for years we should bar any staff or command post in the first two years and just let members be members in the same way we let cadets be cadets, and the USAF let's Airmen be Airmen.

"But I need to to progress..."  Again, huge problem.  If the only reason you're taking a staff job is for progression, you're missing the point, and
as we all are reminded so often and painfully, the grade doesn't show much except progression, so if you're not looking for a command slot, and you're
only taking a job to progress, jump out of the circle, and find something you enjoy, and leave the staff jobs to others who are doing it because they
want the job, have something to contribute, or on a track of upward mobility.

Some would say "once a month members are the core of CAP".  I would say that if that is true, we can see the problem bright as day.

Regardless, those people are, for the most part, the exception, and we can't fix CAP by starting with the exceptions.  That's why we are where we are.

We set the course, and ask people to follow.  Most will, some won't.

Now, I don't have a particular problem with developing goals because in some areas it isn't really clear what CAP thinks is important.  But the idea that any of these goals are worth trashing the program for is insane.

Without goals, structure, and expectations, there is no program to trash, it's just a mish-mash of mess with a few pockets of anecdotal and usually accidental success.  Success that doesn't scale, or live beyond the personalities that pushed the rock uphill.

[RiverAux]

I've said for years we should bar any staff or command post in the first two years and just let members be members in the same way we let cadets be cadets, and the USAF let's Airmen be Airmen.

CG Aux, which has many more active programs with accompanying staff officer positions than CAP, has a general guideline against appointing someone to a staff position in their first year.  I think that is probably a good idea, but I wouldn't make it a firm rule. 

For starters, someone who shows up once a month is not an AEO, they are an instructor, and would depend on whether he is fulfilling his part of the mission by staying current on required personal training, and is pursuing professional development.  In my view it is a package.

Is the Chaplain who shows up once a month for moral leadership not a Chaplain?  A staff officer positions takes the amount of time that it takes.  Some take hardly any time, while others need to be scurrying their rear off at every meeting to get the job done. 

Without goals, structure, and expectations, there is no program to trash, it's just a mish-mash of mess with a few pockets of anecdotal and usually accidental success.

You do realize that we basically have a similar structure already as part of the SUI process?  It doesn't give numerical targets for accomplishments, but it certainly lays out what is expected to be done.  I've never seen any proof that our SUI system really does much to make CAP a better organization, so I'm not sure why anyone would think adding numeric goals to it would significantly improve things.