Membership as Percentage of Population

[jimmydeanno]

Some of these other conversations spurred this from me, because we keep talking about recruiting and membership numbers, etc.

I was just perusing over some of the stats for CAP from the Annual Report and was rather dismayed.

It appears as though the larger wings aren't really pulling their weight in regards to recruiting numbers.

If you look at the membership numbers based on percentage of population, the 'heavily populated areas' aren't pulling their own weight.  For a city the size of NYC why aren't there 5000K members?

NYC for instance has more people  (~8,213,849) than the entire state of NH (~1,309,940) and ME (~1,321,574) and RI (~1,048,319) and CT (3,409,549) and WV (1,808,344) COMBINED!

So if we take the entire population of New York State (all population figures from US Census Bureau, CAP figures from '06 ARTC)

(NEW YORK WING as a whole because I don't have the information for just NYC) 2,406 / 19,306,183 (NY pop) = .0001246 % of population.

(NEW HAMPSHIRE WING) 538 / 1,309,940 (NH pop) = .0004107 % of population.

(MAINE WING) 487 / 1,321,574 (ME pop) = .0003684 % of population.

(CONNETICUT WING) 518 / 3,409,549 (CT Pop) = .0001519 % of population.

(WEST VIRGINIA WING) 680 / 1,808,344 (WV pop) = .0003760 % of population.

So looking at these numbers, NYWG is performing at 25% of what NHWG is doing based on population.

Thoughts?

[RiverAux]

If you look at the stats a bit closer you will find that there is a strong relationship between the population size of each state and the membership in that CAP Wing.  In other words, the larger the state, the more CAP members it has.  This relationship is statisitically significant at the Wing level (I've done the stats before). 

However, this relationship doesn't really hold as well at the unit level.  If you get a real go-getter squadron cc in a small town they can often end up with more members than units in larger towns. 

[Eclipse]

It appears as though the larger wings aren't really pulling their weight in regards to recruiting numbers.

As a whole, the entire organization is failing in regards to retention.

I would also agree that the bigger states aren't pulling their weight, however you'd also have to
look to see if the populous area NEED us.

Chicago, for example - anyone could benefit from the cadet program, but in terms of ES, you have to
really get out to the boonies of ILWG before there is a NEED - other than ELTs, professional ES people
are more than capable of the necessary jobs.

When yo do get into the boonies, the people are few and far between, which make recruiting a challenge.

[jimmydeanno]

As a whole, the entire organization is failing in regards to retention.

I agree - whole heartedly.

I would also agree that the bigger states aren't pulling their weight, however you'd also have to look to see if the populous area NEED us.

I would have to say that just means changing your (not specifically your) recruiting strategy.  In larger populated areas that don't really have a need for ELT search or SAR, stop trying to recruit only pilots and ES types.  Focus on the CP and recruit cadets like nobody's business.

Even if you want to recruite ES types, nothing says their only area of operation would be in say Chicago, they are 'deployable' to other areas.

When yo do get into the boonies, the people are few and far between, which make recruiting a challenge.

But if you only recruit a few of those 'few and far betweeners' you've already surpassed the percentage that the larger wings have, thus making your recruiting efforts 'more effective.' 

If your town has a population of say, 10,000 and you recruit 50 people out of that, you have a .005% recruiting percentage, which surpases most if not all wings as a whole.

I think we should be looking at our numbers as a percentage of population vs. whole numbers for goals.  Instead of saying - lets get 65,000 members by the end of the year, why not say, get a .0005% recruiting rate?  This would also bring up your numbers and help identify those areas that should have more members vs. those who don't.

River,

I agree with your conclusions above about the smaller towns recruiting more members than the larger ones - I see it all the time.

My last squadron had 95 members on the books (95% were active), there were 5 other squadrons within 20 minutes of us each with over 50 members.  The population of the area was about 200,000 so we were still a little low at .000195% IMO.  Our City had a population of 100,000 so that gave us a .00009%, even lower.  But I don't think anyone would gaulk at a squadron with 95 active members.  That doesn't mean however, that the city couldn't support another squadron the same size.

I guess we could call it a saturation percentage...

[capchiro]

I don't think your recruiting is based on population size.  Many variables go into it.  If you have an area that has a lot of general aviation, I think recruiting pilots is easier.  If you have a more rural area or are at least close to rural you can recruit ES.  If you live in Chicago and go into ES, you could be an easy three hour drive to get to the outskirts to begin the search.  I also think our National Commander has some thoughts on the cadet program with the new grammer school program (which I don't have a clue about, however, I slept at a Holiday Inn..Sorry, however, I will be going to the national Conference in August and hope to find out there).  I think some interesting things ar ecoming down the pike, but overall, volunteer organizations are down.  Scouting is down, etc.  Part of the problem is the graying of the Boomer population and they have been staunch supporters since their Dads came home from WWII and Korea.     

[KFreeman]

I did a weighted demographics study of ALWG based upon the last census and the wing is about where one would expect it to be.

By weighted I mean age, literacy, handicap, etc. Example: pull out the <13 & >70 yrs. and that's a big portion of the population. Pull out the >25 without HS grad. and you have another big portion of the population.

Number crunching the population figures for each state might surprise you with how well CAP is actually doing.

Regards,
Ken

[Lancer]

What would be great is to be able to break down the membership numbers into categories. Especially on the SM side. I'd like to know how many are CSM's and how many are regular members, how many members are legislative? etc.

For the regular members, how many are active, or are just a name on a roster?

This would really help gauge how many folks are really 'working the program', and show where your 'real' membership exists.

I'm not trying to discount the other types of memberships, I just want to know how many are the regular, active members that are out there on a weekly/monthly basis supporting the organization.

[dwb]

Although population density can give you a bigger pool of potential members, I don't think there is reliable correlation between population and CAP membership.

One of the more successful squadrons in our Wing right now is in a rural county.  The county I live in has about 10x the number of people in it, but our squadron is not 10x the size.

I know it's just anecdotal evidence, but it is one of many anecdotes I've seen, enough so that I'm convinced CAP membership as a percentage of population is not predictable.

So why is the little rural county's squadron so big?  Because of the quality of the senior member leadership; they put together a compelling program for teens to participate in.

All CAP is local.  Strong local leadership will put together strong programs which will attract more people.  When NYWG had 10,000 members, there were dozens of highly trained folks all over the Wing making that happen.

(that, and the culture was different; the spirit of volunteerism has diminished in our culture, and CAP isn't the only organization to deal with that.  Still, that's another topic for another day.)

[ZigZag911]

Our overall membership numbers are terrible.....58000 (give or take) in a population of 300 million works out too 1.933 x 10 (-4), or, if I remember how to do this from college math, .00000000019333 %

Anyway you look at it, that isn't much!

Put another way, a mere 1/10 of 1% of the US population would be 300,000 members. Extrapolated out (roughly multiplying current membership by 5), even our smallest wings would have 2000+ people.

Let's start small, resolve to work back up to 100,000....and, as another posted stated, that means locally re-committing to recruiting & retention.

On the other hand, if each present member recruited just one new member, we could surpass that goal by the end of 2007.

[Psicorp]

...hence the "best kept secret" moniker.

[dwb]

On the other hand, if each present member recruited just one new member, we could surpass that goal by the end of 2007.

Could you imagine what a disaster that would be?  I'm not sure how our squadron would handle doubling in size in five months, and we've got some pretty sharp folks in my squadron.

Unfortunately, before CAP can grow significantly, they need to train people at all levels on how to manage a larger membership.

[Eclipse]

Our overall membership numbers are terrible.....58000 (give or take) in a population of 300 million works out too 1.933 x 10 (-4), or, if I remember how to do this from college math, .00000000019333 %

To make things worse, consider how many members on the roster are empty slots - people maintaining their membership for "historical purposes", on "hiatus", or simply inactive.  I would hazard a guess, based only on my circumstantial experience in ILWG, that our real "strength"  is more like 34,800 or less.

To expand on KFreeman's post about looking at weighted demos versus just doing a basic percentage calculation, you'd also have to include information on people who actually have the resources to join >AND< participate.   100,000 patron members is useless.

To be a member worth his ID card, you have to have a far amount of free time, willingness to sacrifice it, and a fair amount of financial stability.  (despite some people's best intentions, we are not a rec center or social club, it costs to play).

300,000?  Well good luck with that.  I am also active in the AMA (the motorcycle one), and they have been reaching for 300,000 for a decade.  All you need to do for the AMA is throw us $40 and read the magazine.

What we need to do is take a hard look at our existing membership, cull the deadweight, and then roll out lean, mean and ready to offer new members the USAF/Aux in the brochures. 

We also need to change our culture, as there is no longer a culture of service in this country.
"other people" fight wars, fix problems, and man shelters, then we all complain when things don't get done.

When CAP was started, we still had a culture of service, the draft, and a national identity of "us against them", so of course we all did our part.

These days "my part" for most people, is a percentage donation to the United Way,  and
a small amount of effort to separate paper from plastic.

[sardak]

58,0000/300,000,000 = 0.0001933 = 0.0193%

Mike

[RiverAux]

Although population density can give you a bigger pool of potential members, I don't think there is reliable correlation between population and CAP membership.

At the wing level there is an incredibly strong relationship between total state population and CAP membership.  Like I said, I've run the stats and they're as strong as anything you're going to see in a scientific research paper. 

However, as I also said, the relationship does not hold at all at the squadron level.  At that level total population gives the squadrons in bigger towns the potential to be much bigger than squadrons in smaller towns, but for a variety of reasons this doesn't always happen. 

[SarDragon]

I said it before, and I'll repeat it for those who missed it last time - we don't need recruitment, we need retention. When we lose half of our cadets every year, we're doing something wrong.

[Major Carrales]

I said it before, and I'll repeat it for those who missed it last time - we don't need recruitment, we need retention. When we lose half of our cadets every year, we're doing something wrong.

Agreed...new people are good and we will and should not turn them away.  But a solid CAP will come from servicing the folks we have and then adding the new.

Now, I think the CAP Officer Corps could benefit from additional professional aviators that are sold on CAP (that is good for us all)  But quality programs are often more productive than unworkable quantity.

[ZigZag911]

I said it before, and I'll repeat it for those who missed it last time - we don't need recruitment, we need retention. When we lose half of our cadets every year, we're doing something wrong.

There are several reasons we lose so many cadets annually, but based on observation I would suggest that in many, if not most, instances, the problem is that we recruit too quickly -- sign them right up without a real introduction to the program.

Problem #2 is poor training....which is exacerbated the way so many of us have done it for so long, enrolling new members piecemeal.

After 35+ years, I am more and more convinced of the need for a 'cohort' approach to enrolling & training new members, cadet or senior -- discussed on another thread by squadrons having set sign up periods for new cadets, generally twice a year.

For seniors the same should apply, with some adapted version of the Iowa OTS approach.

[RogueLeader]

One note about the OTS program in Iowa, there is an agreement that the new member will serve for at least two years.  I do not know how solid this is, or what happens when a member believes that they can fulfill that time but then can't.  You would want to contact some members of IAWG Contacts to get a better understanding.  It has led to a much better retention rate, at least for the 1^st couple of years, as the 4^th year is coming to a close in the program, they might have more stats about retention.

[Eclipse]

One note about the OTS program in Iowa, there is an agreement that the new member will serve for at least two years.  I do not know how solid this is,

I can tell you - about as good as the word of the person making the commitment, which is no different than any other wing, because there is no way to compel a volunteer to do much of anything, especially when you are talking about basic service.

[RogueLeader]

True, but I do believe that it helps instill how serious the new candidate is about joining.  The OTS program also acts as a delayed entry program as there are only two OTS classes per year, so they would have to wait.

[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...