Forecast of Iowa Wing.

[capchiro]

Or you could assign local folks who live near Corrigan to Corrigan as their home units and have them travel to Barnes and von Richtofen 2-3 times a year for mandatory training to maintain their currency..Oh yeah, that is the way the program is set-up now.  And we call the training places group or wing.  And their local unit at Corrigan maintains their paperwork and allows them to participate in unit activities instead of just being super specialist in one area and losing perspective of the entire program and their role in it and their own personal development in CAP.  The program actually works as designed and tried and true for 50 years.  Not all units in the world want to play with the Army or the Army NG.  And not all of CAP is about ES.  I think the Iowa idea is interesting and am glad it appears to be working for them.  I don't think it will last over time and I surely hope that some powers that be don't decide to make changes to the program based on a limited perhaps temporary success.  JMHO, as usual

[ColonelJack]

Just about any problem can be solved.  Well, except for the Arab-Israeli conflct, the pacification of Baghdad, and the "Tastes great-less filling" controversy.

Well, I don't know much about solving the first two, but I'm always willing to volunteer to help solve the third one.  Who's buying?

Jack

[Nick Critelli]

"You do not have to change...Survival is not mandatory."
                                                                    W.E. Demming

[Dragoon]

One of the common threads here is the temporary nature of what has been demonstrated by IOWA.  And that is pretty true.  Most of it is based around a current group of leaders and how they choose to work.

The key to instituting any success they are having is in changing things like regs, laws, etc.  Those take a lot longer to undo, and are less subject to changing at the whim of the new guy.  For example, the state law protecting CAP members when doing missions.

But since CAP can't affect state law very well from a National Level, the question for big CAP is "what parts of this success CAN be instituted Nationally?"

The two that come to mind for me are

Changing the promotions regs to field grade officers to do field grade work (i.e. move up the organization as you promote)

Work a closer relationship between CAP and the National Guard Bureau at the Federal Level.  Perhaps even consider moving CAP from AETC to NGB....

[capchiro]

Well, number one you are considering changing CAP's total mission to one of ES when you align more with the Guard and attempt to get the State to utilize you more.  That is not what CAP is really all about.  Number two, so you think 60 year old 1st Lt's at squadron level are th way to go, or do you want to get rid of your wizened experienced guys by moving them away from the squadron and into Group (which is notorious for not doing anything) or into Wing (which is driven by a handful of LtC's already and they don't need more) or just throw them away??  Who do you contemplate starts new squadrons?  Some young Lt. that has a dream and no experience in CAP?  Not a good idea.  At the least, give the young guy the experience and protection of a few of the old guys to guide him on a daily basis.  Part of the problem is that we get too many young guys that are one directional.  (Not a condemnation, just the facts).  For example an ES young guy thinks all squadrons should be ES, an EMT young guy thinks all ES people should be mountain and wilderness trained front line medics, and of course, all pilots think that CAP should be about flying and nothing else.  Therefore, I propose that all squadrons have at least one old fart with darts and farts on his hat to maintain some semblance of what CAP is about and to rein in the horse's a-ses once in a while.  Just a thought of course..

[ColonelJack]

Changing the promotions regs to field grade officers to do field grade work (i.e. move up the organization as you promote)

With that, you dramatically limit the number of people who move up in the organization -- and, by definition, leave it after a while due to frustration at the lack of possible advancement.  By your reasoning, since the highest position I've ever held is squadron command (company level work), I should still be a captain, rather than having had the privilege of rising to (and retiring at) lieutenant colonel.  We don't tie grade to position for just that reason.

Let's be frank -- there are many members of CAP who join for the military structure.  That means grade, and that means promotion.  If you tell a member that he/she can only go as high as captain at the local level, then he/she will do one of two things -- work toward the narrow number of group/wing/region jobs that may or may not come open, or stay where they are as long as they need to.  For the first group, frustration will set in as it becomes apparent that the number of field grade officers needed at group/wing/region is relatively small, and many aren't in a position to work at that level anyway due to geographic locations, work responsibilities, etc.  Why limit them?  Why take away one of the two things CAP has to pay its people (the other being uniform bling)?

For the second group, these are the dedicated, hard-core, unit-level people who may not even give a hoot about grade.  This idea is fine for them.  But it also helps create an "us-them" mentality, those who work their careers at the local level vs. those who (for their own reasons) want to advance through the organization.

Some folks don't join CAP just to work the local level units.  There are those who seek higher opportunities.  (Ask anyone on the National Board.)  You're limiting people rather than empowering them to do their best.

My opinion, of course.  YMMV.  

Jack

[Major Carrales]

The concept is good, however, I believe all CAP should be local.  'Tis the squadron level where the the rubber meets the road.

Pulling the best and brightest from developing the local resources in favor of Wing centered operation will be problematic.

As I have maintained for many years; the Squadron needs to be the main focus.  I could see having two "sister units," ONE CADET and one CAP OFFICER that fill each other's gaps.  Groups need to provide support for their units by organizing the trainings and activities that utilize multi-unit resources, as well as attract the FIELD GRADE officers to serve as mentors.  Wing's job is to support the Groups and units as the corporate level.

We can ill afford to have a WING Centered CAP.  I mean really...you think you have fiedoms now?!

Also, CAP units might to be like USAF ones in mechanics and, maybe they shouldn't be.  We are talking apples and oranges here.  Military unit and CAP units differ in almost every way. 

This element of the IOWA model will not work for CAP in the larger Wings.

[RogueLeader]

Like I said in my original post, the IAWG concept can not work in Larger wings.  I stated that it might be feasible at the Group Level.  It would work even better at a sub-Group Level.  Take 3 or for Squadrons, and make them inter-dependent on each other.  Not so dependent that they would fall apart if one collapses; but to where they support each other to the point of where they all grow.  What I am trying to do, is to take what Iowa has done, and make it useable to the entire orginization.  this is not an easy task, but I do believe that it is workable-if people are willing to try.

The leadership in Iowa knows that the program could be shut down at any time- they would have to be fools in order not to realize that fact.  Still, they press on, making the Wing more and more useful to the State.  The State has realized that CAP has value that they can't always get from other places.  For example, we flew State reps around disaster areas so they could see for themselves what was going on.  That is hard to do from a C-130 or a F-15.  They realize that CAP can do a lot for them, and even though money is tight, they see that IAWG is SO valuable, the gave IAWG an EXTRA 20 thousand over the previous year.  The state funding did not come over night, it took tons of work by Col. Tomlinson, LTC. Critelli, Maj. Janson; as well as from all the members who volunteered the time to prove to the State that the decision to give us money- that it was the right one.

The leadership of IAWG didn't deny the fact that there were some issues with trying to get the problem to work.  The thing is that they didn't give up on it though.  They made some choices that did not go over well with many people, but that does not mean that what they decided was wrong or ineffectual.  It just means that some people realized that it wouldn't work for them, so they left.

[Major Carrales]

"You do not have to change...Survival is not mandatory."
                                                                    W.E. Demming

"change for change's sake usually sucks."
                                              -Swad  Jan 22 2006, 11:46 PM


Look, I believe in what y'all are doing in Iowa; but, inventing "cookie cutter" solutions for all of CAP should not be the approach.  I often refer to thsi as the "Iowa Model," something to be looked at by other Wings and take all or in part.  Trying to fit an elephant into a man's suit is precarious at best and a waste at worst; however, looking at how to clothe and elephant by looking at how one can clothe a man is doable.

Texas can ill afford to transfer Field Grade officers to Wing...there would be hundreds or thousands of such people at Wing.  Wings in a large States like California, Texas, Pennsylvania or the like are more like a driver than an engine.  This is where group level comes in. 

Rougue's idea about groups and/or subgroups is workable; but shifting the focus to Wing when the squadrons implement CAP missions locally...especially when the nearest unit is 200 miles away...is folley!!!

[Eclipse]

We have 3 missions.  AE, Cadet, and ES.  Why not have three distinct types of squadrons?

>snip<

What would be wrong with THIS plan? 

A: We don't have the membership numbers to support operations like this.

B: It depends on having members near the respective unit who want to do what that unit wants.

C: It doesn't allow for cross-platform members who wish to be involved in the CP and ES, and those members, for the most part, are the core of CAP.

My unit got 100% of my CAP time, which, because it was a composite unit, ment I got what I wanted, too.
Having to divide my time between units would only reduce my participation, slow my progress, and possibly lose me as a member.

[Dragoon]

With that, you dramatically limit the number of people who move up in the organization -- and, by definition, leave it after a while due to frustration at the lack of possible advancement.

Except they don't move up.  They stay right where they are, but get to wear more rank.

Meanwhile, Wing and Group suffer from a lack of good people, because no one sees any reason to leave the squadron.  After all, squadrons are more fun, and you can still get to be a Colonel while doing Lieutenant level work.  That's a great  deal - I wish I could get that in my real job.

Are we in CAP for the title, or for the job?

Do volunteer fire departments let every experienced member call themselves "Captain" or "Chief" without actually doing a job at that level?

This has been discussed on many other threads.

Sure, we need to reward longevity and experience at the local level - but is insignia of grade the correct tool?

[Eclipse]

Or you could assign local folks who live near Corrigan to Corrigan as their home units and have them travel to Barnes and von Richtofen 2-3 times a year for mandatory training to maintain their currency..Oh yeah, that is the way the program is set-up now.  And we call the training places group or wing.  And their local unit at Corrigan maintains their paperwork and allows them to participate in unit activities instead of just being super specialist in one area and losing perspective of the entire program and their role in it and their own personal development in CAP. 

Squadrons are the echelon where training is supposed to happen, not Groups and Wings.

Large-scale SARExs put on at the Group and Wing level should be execution environments, not "intro to GT3" days.

Will yo learn things, of course, should you show up to a large exercise with a damp ID card and start asking the IC "how can I help?", no.

That's the unit CC's responsibility, and if he can't provide the resources locally to get it done, its his job to find them and / or coordinate those opportunities at other units.

[Eclipse]

With that, you dramatically limit the number of people who move up in the organization -- and, by definition, leave it after a while due to frustration at the lack of possible advancement.

Except they don't move up.  They stay right where they are, but get to wear more rank.

Meanwhile, Wing and Group suffer from a lack of good people, because no one sees any reason to leave the squadron.  After all, squadrons are more fun, and you can still get to be a Colonel while doing Lieutenant level work.  That's a great  deal - I wish I could get that in my real job.

Are we in CAP for the title, or for the job?

Do volunteer fire departments let every experienced member call themselves "Captain" or "Chief" without actually doing a job at that level?

This has been discussed on many other threads.

Sure, we need to reward longevity and experience at the local level - but is insignia of grade the correct tool?

And I would further this to say that the  number of people in the organization who really care about advancement or command authority is very small.

What members want is to spend their time well, make legitimate and significant contributions to the missions, and enjoy what they are doing.

Bling, eh.  An occasional "THANK YOU!", or a little good press, much more important.

PD is important for members from a knowledge and operational ability standpoint, but until it means more pay, better retirement, or a nicer duty station, the CAP bling is all but meaningless.

[Dragoon]

Well, number one you are considering changing CAP's total mission to one of ES when you align more with the Guard and attempt to get the State to utilize you more.  That is not what CAP is really all about. 

Umm. No.  If CAP goes to NGB, then CAP's MISSION goes to NGB.  Meaning the Air Guard becomes the guys tasked to support the cadet program.  No change.

CAP is by nature a local organization, serving the local community.  By coincidence, so is the Guard.  Works out rather nicely.  Connection to the federal level USAF for funding, but with a state level focus allowing us to work our missions in the local community with more local community support.

Keep an eye on Iowa and see if their relationship with the guard results in the death of the cadet program, and a complete focus on ES.  I don't think that will happen.

Truth is, CAP is an even better recruiting tool for the local Air Guard than for the active air force.  Round these parts we put more cadets in the Guard than we do in the Active USAF.  

[Eclipse]

But since CAP can't affect state law very well from a National Level, the question for big CAP is "what parts of this success CAN be instituted Nationally?"

Ditch the bling - or at least all the attention its paid, can the GOBs, and melt the golden pens.

Work OUR program, and hold every member, from C/AB through Maj. Gen. responsible for performance.

Accept the attrition, and next year start selling a 30,000 member professional force of volunteers.

[Eclipse]

Truth is, CAP is an even better recruiting tool for the local Air Guard than for the active air force.  Round these parts we put more cadets in the Guard than we do in the Active USAF. 

I hear this all the time.  Please.

On the cadet side, we're a factor, but mostly in support of young people already so inclined. We help, sure, but we're not a gateway.

[Dragoon]

Bling, eh.  An occasional "THANK YOU!", or a little good press, much more important.

PD is important for members from a knowledge and operational ability standpoint, but until it means more pay, better retirement, or a nicer duty station, the CAP bling is all but meaningless.

Bling is very good - builds morale.  The question is - what kind of bling is best for what situation?

Ribbons, skill badges and various "I've been there" patches work well to document the qualifications and contributions of the member.  Hard working experienced folks should be showered in this stuff.

Rank normally works best as a symbol of leadership - authority and responsibility.  

I'm not aware of any other organization that mis-uses grade the way we do.  And even we realize that as a coporation - else we'd allow everyone to become Colonels and Generals without leaving the squadron!

[RogueLeader]

The plus side of having full composite squadrons that are linked into a super unit is to help maintain connections, availability of help, and learn to work with others than your unit.

For example: There are 3 squadrons- A, B, and C.  All three are composite. Squadron A is 1hr from B, and 1.5 hr From C.  B is 1.25 hr from C.  They are not joined, and all three are having problems with getting some training.  Unit A has a strong AE, but a weak CP.  Unit B has strong CP but a weak ES.  Unit C has a strong ES but weak AE.  The commanders are getting uneasy due to the fact that people are leaving due to fulfillment.  Now, the 3 commanders get together, along with their staffs, and form a joint venture. They are able to have a couple members travel to the other squadrons once every other month to give training.  Then they can start reaching out to other units to see what is going on with those squadrons.  If help is needed, the opportunity arises to help out other units.  Distance is a problem if the time is much longer than that, but it still should be considered.

[Dragoon]

Truth is, CAP is an even better recruiting tool for the local Air Guard than for the active air force.  Round these parts we put more cadets in the Guard than we do in the Active USAF. 

I hear this all the time.  Please.

On the cadet side, we're a factor, but mostly in support of young people already so inclined. We help, sure, but we're not a gateway.

I don't follow you here.  If you're intimating that CAP is useless as a USAF recruiting tool, I sure hope USAF doesn't figure that  out - Iall platitudes aside, I can't imagine they'd support our program if it didn't help their bottom line.

My point was that it seems whatever value our cadet program has as an active duty recruiting tool, it seems to work even better as an Air Guard recruiting tool.  Making the argument that "going Guard" wouldn't reduce CAP to ES only.

[RogueLeader]

Back to topic PLEASE.