Change for change sake... CAP grades apart from what we have now

[FW]

OUCH!

Has it really been working fine these past years?  Then why are there so many proposals and suggestions to add to it, or change things about it?

Because of the "writers strike", we have nothing else to do.  
OK, now that I got that out of my system, my opinion is to do what ever keeps the members involved, retained and proud of their association.  If NCO grades will help this agenda, I'm all for it.  

[Eclipse]

What keeps members involved is meaningful activities and a feeling that their time is well-spent and appreciated.

The grade is a small part of that, but anyone staying (or leaving) because of it doesn't understand CAP.

My poor analogy:

Grade is like nice rims on a car.

An Escalade is an Escalade whether it it has high-chrome spinners or stock steel wheels.  A few people may question why such a nice car has such dull wheels, but most won't think twice about it because the vehicle itself has obvious value and power.

On the other hand, a '92 Corrolla is a '92 Corrolla, whether its got 26" spinners or not.  And most people >will< ask why anyone would bother putting such effort into the rims when the rest of vehicle lacks any value.

[Eeyore]

OUCH!

Has it really been working fine these past years?  Then why are there so many proposals and suggestions to add to it, or change things about it?

There are things that don't work; but is the NCO program dysfunctional enough to change the entire CAP system over? A proper military copied system is going to change CAP considerably; should we be spending our time and our money on that, or on mission costs.

Up at NHQ this may not be taking a a lot of time, but it is taking someones time. That time could be better spent finding ways for us to perform more ES type missions for more agencies, updating CP, extending our AE program, or bettering our PD curriculum. With an all volunteer program we have to prioritize what staff time is spent on, and I don't believe restructuring CAP to accommodate a larger NCO program is one of those things.

Perhaps when we are nearly perfect in all other aspects, we can take a look at items like this.

[DNall]

OUCH!

Has it really been working fine these past years?  Then why are there so many proposals and suggestions to add to it, or change things about it?

There are things that don't work; but is the NCO program dysfunctional enough to change the entire CAP system over? A proper military copied system is going to change CAP considerably; should we be spending our time and our money on that, or on mission costs.

Up at NHQ this may not be taking a a lot of time, but it is taking someones time. That time could be better spent finding ways for us to perform more ES type missions for more agencies, updating CP, extending our AE program, or bettering our PD curriculum. With an all volunteer program we have to prioritize what staff time is spent on, and I don't believe restructuring CAP to accommodate a larger NCO program is one of those things.

Perhaps when we are nearly perfect in all other aspects, we can take a look at items like this.

Actually, CAP is quite broke, and it certainly has not always been that way.

We're doing a VERY poor job of accomplishing our several missions. A biggest reason for that is how we're organized, trained, & managed. Which again has not always been this way.

I don't say for a minute that we should alter the program to find a place for NCOs. I'm saying we should alter the program to make it effective, and in doing so you'll find there is an enormous place for NCOs.

[Dragoon]

Again, it's all about "what is rank actually for?"

If the answer is "rank is primarily a recruiting tool", then letting NCOs keep their stripes is just fine.

But, if you follow that logic, then we should expand the handing out of grade to other folks we want in CAP

Fire Captains should keep their bars, to make them happy and recruit more of 'em.

Police Sergeants should keep their stripes, to make them happy and recruit more of 'em.

Warrant Officers should keep their bars, to make them happy and recruit more of 'em.

Navy Officers should be able to be addressed as "Lieutenant Commander" and Ensign" instead of "Major" and "Lieutenant" to make them happy and recruit more of 'em.

etc. etc.


It's not like military NCOs are the only group of talented folks we need in CAP.


Now, if we not only decide that NCOs can keep their stripes, but that NO ONE ELSE CAN EVER WEAR THEM....


Then  perhaps a whole bunch of us ought to take your bars and oak leaves off.  Because we should restrict those to former/present military officers as well.



I'm not actually advocating any of this - just pointing out how the current philosopy behind NCO grade in CAP doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 

I like the old phrase about "condusive to good order and discipline."  Shouldn't we come up with a grade structure that is designed to bring better "order and discipline" to CAP?  Isn't that why most organizations come up with grade structures in the first place?

As for the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it argument" - I'm not sure what "broke" looks like.  I don't think we'll every be "broke."  But isn't it fair to say that CAP is less than 100% effective, and there's room for improvement?

[DNall]

Again, it's all about "what is rank actually for?"

I like the old phrase about "condusive to good order and discipline."  Shouldn't we come up with a grade structure that is designed to bring better "order and discipline" to CAP?  Isn't that why most organizations come up with grade structures in the first place?

good points.

We used to have a CAP enlisted system that most all adults came in under. I won't go into why we changed, but it was about how others perceived our low quality. The only people that kept stripes coming out of that were the ones that'd actually earned them.

[Dragoon]

From talking with folks who were in back then, the thing I heard that killed the CAP NCO program was the mobility of members between roles couple with a permanent grade system.

Sooner or later, most folks ended up in an "officer" position, and ended up being officers.  And then kept that grade forever, even if they moved back to "NCO" duties.

So after a while, the only NCOs were those frankly not talented enough to take on incredibily demanding jobs like "squadron logistics officer" (sarcasm intended).  That set the NCO bar pretty durned low.

Basically, most squadron jobs, based on the size of squadrons, ARE really NCO duties.  But folks keep changing jobs!   We have to grapple grade mobility -  today's Wing Vice Commander is tomorrow's Squadron ES Officer.  It happens.

Again, I think the only way to use military grade effectively is to make it temporary and position based. This doesn't mean anyone can get it - you could still have minimum requirements for, say a Wing Staff job that limits it to folks who have some experience and training (or at least, limit the GRADE to those folks filling the roles who have the prerequisitions - in CAP you have to accept untrained folks in key roles now and again.)

But any kind of permanent grade structure quickly results in rank becoming meaningless, as people keep moving around. 

Since grade is a symbol of authority, if we want "good order" we need to tie grade to authority.  And in CAP, that means to position.

[DNall]

Or to change the organizational system so virtually no officer positions exist on the local level, but rather at a higher echelon (sq = mini Gp) & upward. And then remove that mobility. As in company grade officers work primarily at that Sq/mini-gp lvl, field grade must be assigne dto Gp or above, etc.

This is what I was trying to say in the other thread. We do stupid crap with our people. If that person wants to step back temporarily then there's no reason they can't do that as an asst on Gp or wg staff rather than taking some position at a local unit. If they want to stay at a local unit or area, then why do they ever need to be an officer? And by the way, that involves boards for promotions & you hav to be going to a slot, not just grade for bling sake.

I like that a lot more than temporary grade. The prob w/ temp grade is it indicates the reality you're looking at this second, but it doesn't say anything about a person's competency/experience or the background hierarcy that's really running the show regardless of who's in what position.

And by the way, I came up in CAP under a couple highspeed members that'd stated out in the CAP enlisted system. From what I understand, the AF Sgts Assoc raised all kinds of hell about the quality of CAP members walking around claiming to be NCOs. Historically, you have to understand the military went from a seat of the pants kind of thing to highly educated & professionalized. CAP didn't follow. As that solidified in the AF culture thru the second generation, then they became less interested in respecting CAP members, and to an extent offended by our use of grade/resources/etc. That's led to all the modern seperation btwn the two, and I'm personally of the opinion that CAP should step up rather than hold down standards so civilians won't see it as a challenge. I feel insulted by that. That anyone would treat me as if I can't or won't rise to the challenge & seek parity. Anyway, it was a multi-part thing, and that was part of it.

[davedove]

Or to change the organizational system so virtually no officer positions exist on the local level, but rather at a higher echelon (sq = mini Gp) & upward. And then remove that mobility. As in company grade officers work primarily at that Sq/mini-gp lvl, field grade must be assigne dto Gp or above, etc.

This is what I was trying to say in the other thread. We do stupid crap with our people. If that person wants to step back temporarily then there's no reason they can't do that as an asst on Gp or wg staff rather than taking some position at a local unit. If they want to stay at a local unit or area, then why do they ever need to be an officer? And by the way, that involves boards for promotions & you hav to be going to a slot, not just grade for bling sake.

I understand what you're saying, but this still doesn't take into account one situation.  What about the member who is able and willing to work at higher echelons, then later - for whatever reason - can no longer do so, but he can still contribute at the local level.  If this person can no longer work at the higher levels (because of distance, time, etc.), but under this system can't go back to the local level, we will lose the member.

It's not an either or decision (stay local or move up).  Sometimes people's life circumstances change and they can no longer serve in the same way.

[tribalelder]

We don't need more grades. 

We have a lot of talented members who aren't and will never be executive material (CC's, IC's, major project officers like encampment commander) who are field grade officers.  They did a good job at their thankless assignments and went to the seminars and waited.  Our grade system, at least in part, is merit badges for grownups, and exists to feed egos. That's not bad, but ...

It doesn't tell who is in charge, but looks to the public like it does.

Reduction of grade on downward assignment is a great idea, but my request for reduction in grade was denied.

[FW]

Actually, CAP is quite broke, and it certainly has not always been that way.

We're doing a VERY poor job of accomplishing our several missions. A biggest reason for that is how we're organized, trained, & managed. Which again has not always been this way.

I don't say for a minute that we should alter the program to find a place for NCOs. I'm saying we should alter the program to make it effective, and in doing so you'll find there is an enormous place for NCOs.

It's interesting you say that CAP is broken and is doing a "VERY poor job".  I would like to know how and why?  Other than the usual petty squabbles all organizations have, I don't see failure,  I see great successes.  We have thousands of cadets enjoying the program, improving themselves and going on to lead better lives.  We administer 10's of thousands of dollars in scholarships, a safe flying program, saved hundreds of lives and our CN program  has been amazingly successful.   We have a modern aircraft fleet which is maintained to the highest standards possible.  We're a major sponsor of NCASE have a decent model rocketry program and have a promising school program which may bring CAP into more thousands of young students.  And, we've been privileged to partner with EAA and AOPA, the BSA, AFA and, maybe soon, AFJROTC.
Now I do see a lot of room for improvement.  But Failure, nope.

[afgeo4]

I still don't see a good answer to the question - Why does CAP need NCOs?

I spent all but one year of my time in the Navy as an NCO, so I think I have a little credibility in that area.

NCOs get the job done. They are the prime movers in the day-to-day functioning of the military. They provide most of the hands-on work in all but the least technical occupational areas. Much of the tasking assigned to CAP officers in CAPR 20-1 would be done by NCOs in the military, with officer oversight.

In order for the CAP structure to more closely mirror that of the military, there would have to be such a huge overhaul of the system that, IMHO, many current members would be alienated, and possibly leave.

But then again, why do we need to do such a restructuring? What end would it serve? What great improvement(s) would result?

I think improvements in current problem areas would do far more for CAP than reinventing the organization from the ground up. Let's put together a real training program, with trained instructors, instead of the current hodge-podge that exists today. Let's define some realistic standards, and then train to them, and enforce them.

But let's keep this inside a volunteer model, and not that of a paid, contracted military model that I don't see us ever fitting into. Using the structure and guiding principles, as related to the jobs we do, is great, but trying to be military,without all the bits and pieces, isn't going to work for us.

YMMV.

How about this: Division of labor.

Officers will be more effective if allowed to concentrate on strategic and on junior level, tactical administration of our 3 main missions. If we leave the hands on training to the Airmen/NCOs, it frees up our officers to do what they were hired for. To plan training, create policy, revise current programs, provide effective administraion, and to move forward. The Airmen/NCOs would in turn focus on the every day carrying out of the mission by working with cadets, putting together AE classes and tools, and taking teams out for ES training. I think it would be a more effective and efficient way of leading and administering our mission. I think it would result in fewer cases of burn-out, raise morale of members by allowing members to focus on specific tasks rather than generally "everything" which would lead to more success and in turn, confidence.

I think a year in "OTS" while doing OJT in unit coupled with Level 1 and AFIADL-13 are perfect for 2nd Lt. Maybe education prerequisite should be an Assoc. level degree instead of Bachelor's, but I'm open to either. Too often we recruit people without leadership experience and throw them to the wolves. Eventually, if they stick it out, they become effective leaders, but by then they are Captains or above and often end up as staff officers at Group HQ or higher which again leaves the squadrons with little capability. I think this type of program would alleviate (although not eliminate) this problem and that is my main reason for restructuring CAP to include Airman/NCO grades.

[DNall]

Or to change the organizational system so virtually no officer positions exist on the local level, but rather at a higher echelon (sq = mini Gp) & upward. And then remove that mobility. As in company grade officers work primarily at that Sq/mini-gp lvl, field grade must be assigne dto Gp or above, etc.

This is what I was trying to say in the other thread. We do stupid crap with our people. If that person wants to step back temporarily then there's no reason they can't do that as an asst on Gp or wg staff rather than taking some position at a local unit. If they want to stay at a local unit or area, then why do they ever need to be an officer? And by the way, that involves boards for promotions & you hav to be going to a slot, not just grade for bling sake.

I understand what you're saying, but this still doesn't take into account one situation.  What about the member who is able and willing to work at higher echelons, then later - for whatever reason - can no longer do so, but he can still contribute at the local level.  If this person can no longer work at the higher levels (because of distance, time, etc.), but under this system can't go back to the local level, we will lose the member.

It's not an either or decision (stay local or move up).  Sometimes people's life circumstances change and they can no longer serve in the same way.

As in no longer competent to do so? Or just doesn't want to anymore (for whatever reasons). One's a case for retirement & the other is reserve status at that higher echelon. They are then perfectly able to attend & help at any subordinate unit they want, but couldn't be assigned a job there. That's inappropriate anyway. We need to keep the path open for newer members to take those local jobs & work their way up so there will be qualified people in the future to take those higher echelon jobs.

[DNall]

Actually, CAP is quite broke, and it certainly has not always been that way.

We're doing a VERY poor job of accomplishing our several missions. A biggest reason for that is how we're organized, trained, & managed. Which again has not always been this way.

I don't say for a minute that we should alter the program to find a place for NCOs. I'm saying we should alter the program to make it effective, and in doing so you'll find there is an enormous place for NCOs.

It's interesting you say that CAP is broken and is doing a "VERY poor job".  I would like to know how and why?  Other than the usual petty squabbles all organizations have, I don't see failure,  I see great successes.  We have thousands of cadets enjoying the program, improving themselves and going on to lead better lives.  We administer 10's of thousands of dollars in scholarships, a safe flying program, saved hundreds of lives and our CN program  has been amazingly successful.   We have a modern aircraft fleet which is maintained to the highest standards possible.  We're a major sponsor of NCASE have a decent model rocketry program and have a promising school program which may bring CAP into more thousands of young students.  And, we've been privileged to partner with EAA and AOPA, the BSA, AFA and, maybe soon, AFJROTC.
Now I do see a lot of room for improvement.  But Failure, nope.

You really want to have a bash CAP session? Is that what we need to spend our time on a public forum doing?

Our mission set is... Above all, CAP exists to aid the AF in accomplishing the total force mission. Traditionally, we contribute to that thru 3 sub-missions....

1) Bring to bare combined arms (air/grd/C4RSI) emergency response assets specialized in the areas of inland SaR, DA/R, and HLS, that states cannot otherwise afford to acquire or maintain, including trained professional personnel. And to be able to respond with those assets for sustained operations anywhere in the US on a moments notice.

2) Conduct AE programs directed at youth (internally & externally) that lead to a larger portion of the best/brightest pool seeking military aviation or supporting career opportunities versus more lucrative alternatives. Conduct a program directed at adults (in/out) that impacts public support of strong budgets for AF, FAA, NASA... strong air & space force.

3) Conduct a cadet program that acquires the best & brightest, and a massive number of people overall, in order to educate and indoctrinate them to a life of selfless service to their country.

So lets talk about that...
1) We don't meet FEMA credentialing requirements, and CAP was specifically considered in the development process. The NIMS standards NB is going to vote on shortly are the equiv of GES. They still don't qualify anyone to do anything in a mission AO, much less get called to do so. We shouldn't be stretching to reach outside standards so we can beg state/fed customers to invite us to contribute. We should be leading the way with a critical resource/skill set they can't otherwise provide. That's why Congress funds CAP, that's not what we return to them for the money.

2) What AE? We do a little bit with cadets, maybe there are a couple of people in your wing doing something small. We certainly are not having a major national impact on budgets or the quality & quantity of labor supply to military aviation or aerospace R&D fields.

3) We have cadets, a couple of them. We aren't making an impact on military recruiting. We aren't impacting a large number of people. The impact we do have is not great. We have horrid retention. The curriculum we provide is sub-standard to JROTC, much less the higher mission objective we're charged with.


Is CAP doing some good things in some places within a few areas of the program? Sure it is, and it has enormous potential. However, it is failing to meet the mandated mission objectives. What's bad about that is not the failure to reach those high standards, it's that we accept where we are as good enough, even if that level drifts down over time, which it has.

[Ned]

Our mission set is...

3) Conduct a cadet program that acquires the best & brightest, and a massive number of people overall, in order to educate and indoctrinate them to a life of selfless service to their country.

Sir,

This is a classic "strawman" argument.  Your personal version of the CP mission is interesting, but not reflected in any official document.

Thus it become easy to "refute" the poster by showing how "unsuccessful" CP is when compared to the non-existent standards.

It's actually not easy to find the official descriptions of our cadet program.  Let's take a look.

The orignial 1946 legislation creating CAP did not describe the cadet program in any detail or set any specific goals or objectives.  See 36 USC 40301 et seq.)


Perhaps it might make sense to refer to the governing Air Force Instruction for guidance.

1.1.3. Cadet Program. The CAP cadet program originated in World War II when CAP was estab-lished as a preparatory program for the Army-Air Force Aviation Cadet Program. The CAP cadet pro-gram motivates American youth to become responsible citizens through aviation-centered activitiesthat emphasize aerospace education, leadership skills, physical fitness, and values education whilesimultaneously providing services to the Air Force and the local community, state, and nation. TheCAP cadet program provides support to the Air Force by introducing American youth to opportunitiesand careers in the Air Force and providing a drug demand reduction program to Air Force Installations near CAP cadet squadrons.

And of course that AFI is effectuated by the Statement of Work.

In the Statement of Work for Civil Air Patrol (the 2001 agreement), under section 2.3 Missions, it says:

2.3.3. CAP Cadet Program. CAP shall conduct a comprehensive cadet
program. CAP shall incorporate into or maintain as an element of their cadet
program specific elements contained in this section. The cadet program shall
provide study and involvement in five areas: aerospace education, leadership
laboratory, moral leadership, activities, and physical fitness. This program shall
accommodate US dependent youth interested in participating in CAP at US Air
Force installation host squadrons on installations outside the United States, its
territories, and possessions. Where practical, this program should make
accommodations for physically and mentally challenged individuals. Per the
provisions of 10 U.S.C. Sec 9444 (b) (11), Air Force support, including
appropriated funds, is authorized for the CAP cadet program consistent with
furthering the fulfillment of Air Force missions and objectives.

But maybe the best place to go is the proverbial "horse's mouth" -- the 52-16:

1-1. The Cadet Program's Mission & Goals. The mission of the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program is to provide the youth of our nation with a quality program that enhances their leadership skills through an interest in aviation, and simultaneously provide service to the United States Air Force and the local community.

Nothing in any of the regulatory guidance remotely resembles your formulation of the CP mission.


Now let's discuss your conclusions:

So lets talk about that...
3) We have cadets, a couple of them. We aren't making an impact on military recruiting. We aren't impacting a large number of people. The impact we do have is not great. We have horrid retention. The curriculum we provide is sub-standard to JROTC, much less the higher mission objective we're charged with.

If by "a couple" you mean roughly 20,000, you'd be right.  Indeed, cadets and the dedicated seniors who primarily support them represent over half of CAP membership.

I'm not aware that anyone has done any research to determine whether we are "making an impact on military recruiting."  But perhaps since that is not one of our CP missions, it is not altogether surprising.  Anecdotal evidence would suggest that cadets are enlisting and/or accepting commissions at about the same rate they have for the last 60 years or so.

it is easy to point at our first-year retention (roughly 1/3) and decry it as "horrid," except for the fact that our retention levels are pretty much in line with our historical averages.  IOW, we have always had a retention rate close to the 1/3 level.

Just like every other major youth organization operating within our age cohort, like Scouting, the high school chess club, and many church youth organizations.  Heck, even if every single cadet who joined remained until they "aged out", our maximum possible retention rate is only 75-88%.  And we know that just isn't possible because teenagers are . . . well, teenagers.  Who pursue a number of different activities, sometimes have academic challenges, enlist in the military, move, or otherwise no longer participate.

Can we do better?  Certainly.  There are already a number of initiatives in the works to improve retention by improving the quality of the weekly meeting night.


Finally, do we suffer in comparison with AFJROTC?  Almost certainly in important areas like funding and resources.  They have roughly 5x as many cadets as we do, but have over 1,700 paid instructors, the advantage of daily contact hours, full-time curriculum writers, and a sizeable national headquarters commanded by an AD O6 with four separate directorates chock-full of paid civil servants.

We have exactly three (3) employees in the CP shop at NHQ.

I'd say that dollar for dollar, they suffer in comparison with us.

So, CP is highly successful when compared to our published goals and missions.

We can certainly do better, but it is certainly not time for doom and gloom.

Ned Lee
DCP, PCR

[Avery]

I think just about everybody is forgetting that: military or not, a lot of CAP is based on aircrew operations, and that means you have a lot of officers. A typical Air Force, Navy and Marine squadron has more officers than they need from a purely management point of view. So we really do have qualified officers, just not in the same way the Regulars do. I'm ex-Navy enlisted and officer and I can tell you, officer is better in many ways, except from the technical management side, which is very important and why I used to worship my Chief Photographer and Chief Journalists. CAP does not require the high degree of technical expertise that enlisted personnel bring to the active services. We "train up" our own, as it were.

[CAP_truth]

CAP NCO grades is not new to the organization. We have had NCO for over 30 years before they were removed by individuals who could not conduct themselves as NCO. There has always been members who do not wish to become and officer and would prefer to have an enlisted grade. I know of one wing commander who said that very same thing.

[DNall]

Ned,

I am a primarily a cadet programs officer & have had a very rewarding career in that field. I know the size/scope & impact of our program, on that small number of folks. I also know its a very small drop in the nationwide bucket.

I also worked in Congress for a couple years for a former CAP cadet. The perspective I'm offering is about why Congress funds CAP. They want to accomplish X, so they fund program Y with that intent.

I agree with the AFI, SOW, & CAPR 52-16. However, you need to step back to see the bigger picture, and then read those asking "to what end."

In other words, we conduct the program described in those sources. As far as CAP is concerned, that's the end of it. However, the govt's intent is that such a program exist in order to procure a higher number of better quality candidates drawn to military aviation or other service, or aerospace development in support of a strong air & space force.

Certainly it is okay if they choose another route in life & we never force or pressure them into anything, but they aren't giving us money because of the kids that choose those paths.

CAP is not making a significant impact in the number of high quality people in that pool, as a recruiting source, or on people entering aerospace development. To that extent, it is failing to reach the level the govt wants it to perform at. It has amazing potential to reach those objectives & in doing so to make a significant contribution to the country as a whole. But right now that's not the case, and CAP doesn't seem very motivated to do anything about it.

The hypothesis I'm offering in this thread is that CAP is not organized effectively to reach strategic goals of that scale. And, that in reorganizing to reach such goals, creating a well trained & structured force would have to be an essential element. That a well developed enlisted corps in combination with a corps of qualified & effectively trained/empowered officers would be the best way to accomplish that - by following the proven system offered by our parent organization & with tradition rooted in our own organizaiton.

[RiverAux]

CAP is not making a significant impact in the number of high quality people in that pool, as a recruiting source, or on people entering aerospace development.

Opinion, not backed up by any research I'm aware of.

However, the govt's intent is that such a program exist in order to procure a higher number of better quality candidates drawn to military aviation or other service, or aerospace development in support of a strong air & space force.

Actually, it is not.  If the government intended that to be a primary focus of the cadet program, Congress would have written that into the law authorizing CAP.  They knew the difference as providing aviation training for youths going into the AAF in WWII was a big part of the cadet program when it started.  If that was what they wanted out of CAP, they would have been specific about it and they would have pushed us towards designing our program more around that specific goal. 

Should it be a goal?  I wouldn't have a problem with it.  But, it certainly isnt something that is currently on our task list. 

[FW]

D.

I understand what you are trying to say and thank you for your rewarding career in CP.  However, AFJROTC is a more appropriate organization to fulfill the mission you are describing.  CAP fills a different niche and actually does a good job, IMHO, in its leadership program for youth. I think it's about 10% of each class at the AF Academy which are or was in CAP.  But that is not good enough a measurement.  You did say you worked for a congressman who was a cadet.  That says something.  How many thousands of cadets over the years have become successful in any field they have undertaken.  Let's look at Paul Graziani, our latest BoG member.  He is the founder and CEO of "Analytical Graphics"  maker of the "Satellite Tool Kit" and a leader in computer graphics software; oh, and yes a former cadet.

If congress wanted to fund us to act as you describe, we would need millions more to accomplish it.  I doubt that will happen, and I know a couple of things about how our funding is established.  

Our ES standards do need improvement.  However, CAP has a seat at FEMA.  Our agency liaison is a FEMA employee and, as I understand it, there are no major problems with FEMA on how we accomplish our DR missions.  Also, AFRCC, doesn't have any hiccups with our services.  We continue to get calls on a daily basis 24/7.
We did a pretty good job during Katrina, Rita, and Fossett, and we have a pretty good record going back as far as I can remember (about 40 years).   I think we even do a pretty good job in Texas.

I agree our Aerospace Education mission is our "weakest link".  Congress, for what ever reason, does not really fund us for this mission.  Funding basically comes from our corporate budget, which is stretched pretty thin, and donations.   However, I think we do pretty good with what we have.  One of the reasons the "CAP Foundation" has been established is to improve on this mission's performance by providing more scholarships and better programs for our members.  Now, having admitted to this, we still do a good job with the tools we have.  I'll use my experience as a cadet as an illustration of what happens:  After going through CAP's aerospace program, I became a pilot and entered college as an aerospace engineering student.  Let's count that as a success.  I wonder how many other such stories we can come up with.    I would venture to be wild and say tens of thousands over the past 60 years maybe hundreds of thousands.

Now, back on topic.  As I mentioned before, if establishing an NCO or any other grade structure can improve on our missions or member satisfaction,  I say go for it.