Retention

[airforcecolors]

In the past three years, CAP has lost over 58,000 members. Keep in mind, right now we have a little over 70,000 members. This is a HUGE decrease. Just think of what we could be like if we kept half of the lost members.

From your persective, what is going wrong? What can we do to stop this?

[flyguy06]

In my opinion (and thats all it is)

The cadet program is not what most youth expect it to be.

and I think CAP has lostits focus from an aviation centered organization to a law enforcement wannabe organization

[mawr]

1. Acknowledge the prospective member.  

2. Don't over sell the program.

3. Mentor the new member.

4. Make the member feel that they contribute.

5. Mentor the member.

6. Recognize the member's contribution.

7. Mentor the member.

8. Follow the members leadership.

and finally....mentor the member.

[BlackKnight]

In my opinion the #1 cause of poor retention is poor leadership.  Squadron, Group, Wing, and/or National.
One major leadership screwup or mis-speak cancels a hundred attaboys. 

Mentoring is important but it presumes that the mentor is knowledgeable.  If not, see above.

Many senior members seem to think the cadet program is a rescue program for troubled youth.  It ain't.  We can sometimes help problem teens, but only if they're willing to meet our standards. Core values are CORE VALUES.

Aviation focus versus homeland security and DDR?  Follow the money...

The next hard question we should be asking is how much of that current 70,000 membership is actually active?   40,000 perhaps?

[airforcecolors]

The next hard question we should be asking is how much of that current 70,000 membership is actually active?   40,000 perhaps?

That is so true. I would almost say a little less. Thanks for all the input. Let's keep this going.

[flyguy06]

In my opinion the #1 cause of poor retention is poor leadership.  Squadron, Group, Wing, and/or National.
One major leadership screwup or mis-speak cancels a hundred attaboys. 

Mentoring is important but it presumes that the mentor is knowledgeable.  If not, see above.

Many senior members seem to think the cadet program is a rescue program for troubled youth.  It ain't.  We can sometimes help problem teens, but only if they're willing to meet our standards. Core values are CORE VALUES.

Aviation focus versus homeland security and DDR?  Follow the money...

The next hard question we should be asking is how much of that current 70,000 membership is actually active?   40,000 perhaps?

I agree totally with your point about some people thinking its a rescue program for troubled teens.  I have that situation right now. But I will say it can be a good direction builder if you use it properly

[dwb]

Just as a point of reference, CAP has under 60,000 members at the moment.  Given that CAP has lost 56,674 members in the past three years, we're looking at a bleak 33% retention rate.  We've lost the entire population of CAP worth of members in three years.  We were over 60,000 members in 2003, which means we've actually been recruiting really well.  People just don't stick around.

According to the link above, people leave primarily for three reasons:

a. Poor Leadership
b. Lack of training
c. Lack of meaningful activities and/or duty assignments

Sound familiar?  It's the same things we always complain about.  The problem is that those are core issues; very meaty, vague, difficult problems to solve.

A solution that I have proposed in the past is to provide more USAF support at the Wing level.  CAP commanders should be trained, just as USAF commanders are.  Who better to provide that training than the Air Force themselves?

Unfortunately, funding is an issue.  The USAF budget is shrinking, as is CAP's.

In lieu of USAF support ($), we'd still need stronger Wing and Group staff to help train the squadrons, where the rubber meets the road.  Instead of just demanding quarterly reports and putting up roadblocks, Wing staff members should be visiting units, helping train the person responsible for their respective staff area, leading seminars, providing training, mentoring, etc.  But that takes a huge commitment on the part of the Wing staffer, and not all of them can make that commitment.

I don't have a good answer here.  The regulations allow quite a bit of latitude in how units are run, which allows some to run really well, and some to be awful.  All Commanders, even if they don't admit it, would be hesitant to give up that latitude.  And a cookie-cutter program isn't necessarily the answer either.

All I know is that this is not as easy as some people make it out to be.  And I think it's time our leadership stop tinkering with uniforms and start doing some real work.

[Pylon]

And I think it's time our leadership stop tinkering with uniforms and start doing some real work.

:clap:  Amen.

[ncc1912]

Just as a point of reference, CAP has under 60,000 members at the moment.  Given that CAP has lost 56,674 members in the past three years, we're looking at a bleak 33% retention rate.  We've lost the entire population of CAP worth of members in three years.  We were over 60,000 members in 2003, which means we've actually been recruiting really well.  People just don't stick around.

According to the link above, people leave primarily for three reasons:

a. Poor Leadership
b. Lack of training
c. Lack of meaningful activities and/or duty assignments

Sound familiar?  It's the same things we always complain about.  The problem is that those are core issues; very meaty, vague, difficult problems to solve.

A solution that I have proposed in the past is to provide more USAF support at the Wing level.  CAP commanders should be trained, just as USAF commanders are.  Who better to provide that training than the Air Force themselves?

Unfortunately, funding is an issue.  The USAF budget is shrinking, as is CAP's.

In lieu of USAF support ($), we'd still need stronger Wing and Group staff to help train the squadrons, where the rubber meets the road.  Instead of just demanding quarterly reports and putting up roadblocks, Wing staff members should be visiting units, helping train the person responsible for their respective staff area, leading seminars, providing training, mentoring, etc.  But that takes a huge commitment on the part of the Wing staffer, and not all of them can make that commitment.

I don't have a good answer here.  The regulations allow quite a bit of latitude in how units are run, which allows some to run really well, and some to be awful.  All Commanders, even if they don't admit it, would be hesitant to give up that latitude.  And a cookie-cutter program isn't necessarily the answer either.

All I know is that this is not as easy as some people make it out to be.  And I think it's time our leadership stop tinkering with uniforms and start doing some real work.

Well "spoken", Justin 

I agree wholeheartedly.

Poor Leadership:
I think that one of the reasons that leadership is perceived as being so bad is in the way that our leaders are chosen.  Commanders are chosen from the top down, and though this is "how the Air Force does it," it has became increasingly difficult to practically ably it to CAP.  For one, we do not have the same performance reporting system with which to gauge competency.  Basically; group, wing, and region commanders, and the national commander are forced to make 'blind' decisions on who to appoint as commanders of subordinate units.  Otherwise, they are appointing based on favors or limited intelligence from 3rd-party sources.

More often than not, at least at the squadron level, the commanders are chosen to be the one person who is willing to raise their hand and say, "I'll do it."  Seldom is there a selection to choose from by the group or wing commander; a group/wing commander that, more than likely, doesn't even know the individual because the he/she didn't do unit visits or is new to his/her position.

As I have said in other forums:  Personally, I would like to see the wing and national commanders be elected by the membership.  I can't help but think that would improve retention.

Lack of Training:
This is a little more complex and like Justin said, stems from financial issues.

What I would like to see are correspondence/in-residence courses for each level of the specialty tracks.  Region staff officers should be acting as functional managers for their respective specialty, providing direction where NHQ falls short, and supplementing for their geographical and operational area.  It would be upon their shoulders to collaborate with counterparts in other regions and NHQ and draft the curriculum. 

Wing staff would responsible for administering the training and supplementing for their wing, but supplements should be ran through the regional counterpart for approval to provide some level of national uniformity.

Group needn't do more than coordinate the dates and location for the in-residence courses within their geographical area-of-responsibility (AOR) should the wing choose to do the training as in-residence.

• Side Note: My opinion on groups is that they should be no more than tactical echelons and shouldn't mirror wing staff positions.  Only coordinate within their AOR.

Lack of meaningful activities and/or duty assignments:
Ouch... 

I know that there are a lot of hard working members out there that put together some really outstanding programs and activities.  This is likely why we have these isolated pockets of high retention throughout the country, but again, I think it boils down to money.

I also think that a not-so common practice has been that the person who puts these activities together is hidden at their echelon and given a Commander's Commendation or Meritorious Service Award to appease them and, subsequently, forgotten about if not asked to do it again next year; sending the message "Here's a cookie... Now, go play."

There is an increasing need to find better ways for these people to "share the wealth."  Sadly, in some instances, passing the proposal up the chain doesn't get anyone anywhere.  Posting it on a best practices web site doesn't ensure that anyone is going to know it's there.

I believe that this is another instance where initial training and wing and region staffs should step in putting together continuity books and advertising these programs.  They should be cataloging and distributing the materials and coordinating their implementations in their wings and regions.

I am a fan of distributing the workload throughout the organization and a considerable amount of burden, unfortunately, has placed on the squadrons in some instances.  Squadrons should needn't worry about the big stuff such as encampments, practice missions, GT training, SLS, CLC, etc. if the wing and region are doing their jobs.  Wings should worry about re-inventing the wheel with these programs if region is doing it's job.

Like stated earlier, the squadron is where the "rubber meets the road," and it is up to wing and region to support the members and the units at that level by providing meaning full activities and training.  NHQ can't do it all... especially now!

[smj58501]

Out of curiousity, how is that 58,000 broken down? How many were Seniors, how many were cadets, how many were in their first 1-3 years of involvement, what was the age range, were there any exit surveys done, etc....?

I do not think we can answer the question "why" people are quitting until we further define the problem and gather some facts. I agree the number is alarming, and in reference to the comment made about our leadership needing to find something relevant to do besides screw with uniforms.... this may be something to focus on.

[dwb]

Sean,

I can't answer all your questions, but I do know that first-term retention amongst cadets has been identified as a significant problem.  Cadets are joining but leaving after less than one year.  One of the justifications for the Phase I milestone award was to track how many ex-cadets actually make it that far before they leave.

Considering that CAP has maintained roughly the same ratio of cadets to seniors, I assume that the attrition rates are similar.

I think some of the loss of the past three years (2002-2005 specifically) has been members that joined after 9/11 only to find that the HLS mission just isn't there yet.  At least, it's not as far-reaching and nationwide as it was proposed to be.  That probably impacted seniors more than cadets, although it's hard to determine whether the patriotism craze that swept the nation in late 2001 - early 2002 netted us more cadets.

I know of senior members in our local area that we lost because we just didn't pay enough attention to them.  The senior members actively administering the business of the squadron are sometimes too overloaded to train a new person.

(anecdote time)

When I was a squadron commander, we had a woman join with a background in emergency management that we made our ES officer.  Although she understood the overarching goals, she required a lot of time to mentor and bring up to speed to become a meaningful contributor, and I was just too busy trying to keep the basic functions of the squadron running.  Our Group ES officer did little to help us, and she left because (surprise, surprise) she wasn't given meaningful tasking.

Now, part of me says that a more ambitious person would have picked up the ball and ran with it, and in fact, I tried to arm her with all the resources she would need to do that.  But she was too new and too inexperienced managing a program like that.  She probably would have made an okay ES officer if someone who understood the job could spend enough time with her.

She is just one example of people who have came and went because they were essentially neglected.

(another anecdote... you get two for one)

When I first joined the squadron I later commanded, the cadet commander didn't have a schedule.  He just made up the night's agenda when he arrived.  If they ran out of things to do, they'd just have the flight commanders drill the flights while all the rest of the cadet staff hovered around and made corrections.  What a waste of time!  I can certainly understand if we lost some cadets because of that.  Who wants to show up to sit through boring lectures and get yelled at for two hours?

There are examples like this all over the place.  Some are much worse, some unit commanders allow blatant violations of regulations to occur (uniform regulations, cadet protection regulations, etc.)  For years after the 52-16 was first released (1998), people would call NHQ with questions about material in the old 50-16.  What do you do when a unit's regulations binder is four years out of date?

Something I think we could do a lot better is train commanders.  Good commanders will fix problems in their units, given enough time.  In NYWG, we've made a lot of progress on this front for encampment commanders.  Potential encampment commanders are identified early and mentored by former encampment commanders.  There's a support system in place for people who take the job, so people aren't just getting thrown to the sharks.

While it may not be possible to do that at a unit level (not enough people), it certainly is possible at the Group and Wing level.  On my Group staff alone, there are five former squadron commanders.  We should be out there with the squadrons, recruiting and preparing people to accept command responsibility.

(You know, now that I think about it, that's a great idea.  We'd have to get the buy-in from the sitting commanders, but it seems like a good idea)

Anywho, just some more thoughts on the topic, now that I've wandered all over the place with it.  This may be my longest post on CAP Talk!

[ZigZag911]

There was an apparent 'bump' in senior members joining in the months following 9/11.

We've lost a lot of those folks subsequently because everyone, from the White House to the Pentagon down through our own ranks, frittered away so much time figuring out how CAP could contribute.

We were born as an organization in the shadow of World War II, scant days before Pearl Harbor....CAP was up and running in a matter of months (possibly weeks!)

Different times, I know....but also, a greater sense of purpose, clearer focus, and less bureaucracy all around......somehow they got the job done!

[capchiro]

IIRC, CAP has hovered around the 60,000 membership mark for the past 25 years.  We lose about as many as we recruit, which isn't bad for a volunteer organization in this day and age.  Having said that, I think one of our problems is the overall cost of CAP, especially to seniors, but also to cadets.  Seniors in our state pay $67.00 a year to join and $62.00 a year to renew.  That is a little steep to me for a volunteer organization.  They also pay squadron dues of $5.00 a month, or another $60.00 a year.  They have to buy uniforms that aren't cheap anymore, like the old fatigues used to be.  Cadets annual duesare cheaper, but they have to purchase uniforms, and they outgrow them annually.  Boots aren't cheap.  The Air Force doesn't provide much in the line of training and/or encampments, and/or orientation flights in military aircraft anymore.  I think some people are disappointed when they realize how removed from the actual Air Force we really are.  I have been in squadrons that met on Air Force bases and they always seemed to do better than squadrons that met at Churches, community centers, etc.  We also don't get the community support such as local air fields providing us buildings to meet in, etc.  I don't see CAP allowing/encouraging private aircraft owners to join and participate as they once did.  This limits flying activities to 6-8 aircraft a Wing.  I joined because the local airport had a penny-a-pound flight and I got to fly for 97cents.  This was a CAP sponsored event and recruiting tool..It worked for me a long time ago.  I understand that such things are forbidden now.  If we can't offer aviation activities to cadets, the only thing left is emergency services and there you go again with the expenses, 24 pack, 72 hour pack, etc.  CAP actually does stand for Come And Pay.  A lot of us are prepared but never called to do the job we are trained for.  Perhaps frustration drives some away?  As usual, jmho.

[afgeo4]

I agree with most posters on what drives people away.  The costs are huge and while some members are well off, most are not.  In fact, many senior members live on fixed income.  I also agree that we lose many cadets because of lack of mentorship and leadership.  It's hard to find good leaders because let's face it, everyone wants them and most can pay them a lot more than we can.  I agree that we lack missions too.  CAP in general lacks training organization.  We don't teach how to train personnel.  Usually, only the experienced people are on alert rosters and/or get useful duty training.  I do however have a couple of other reasons that I think have affected our retention.  In my opinion one of those reasons is poor recruiting.  No, not poor as in not enough outreach, but poor as intentionally unselective. 

I've noticed some units will take whoever writes a check and passes the background check and choose to figure out what they'll do with this member later.  Many of these people don't know what they're getting into and many aren't a good fit for our organization.  Let's face it, we've got a lot of "dead weight" members.  Too often we concentrate on the size of the unit and number of people recruited.  We do not spend enough time filtering out the bad elements that may end up negatively affecting others in our units.  Same goes for releasing those people from duty and encouraging them not to renew.  I've also noticed units talking about all the glamour of the organization, but failing to mention that none of those missions are regularly performed by their unit.  We cannot recruit people by lying to them and expect them to stay with us!  If the job's boring, say so.  Explain that it's important, but admit that it's no adventure.  You won't recruit many people, but the ones you do get, will have realistic expectations.  Then you can give them realistic duties and training and then follow up with realistic mentoring.

[ncc1912]

I agree with most posters on what drives people away.  The costs are huge and while some members are well off, most are not.  In fact, many senior members live on fixed income.  I also agree that we lose many cadets because of lack of mentorship and leadership.  It's hard to find good leaders because let's face it, everyone wants them and most can pay them a lot more than we can.  I agree that we lack missions too.  CAP in general lacks training organization.  We don't teach how to train personnel.  Usually, only the experienced people are on alert rosters and/or get useful duty training.  I do however have a couple of other reasons that I think have affected our retention.  In my opinion one of those reasons is poor recruiting.  No, not poor as in not enough outreach, but poor as intentionally unselective. 

I've noticed some units will take whoever writes a check and passes the background check and choose to figure out what they'll do with this member later.  Many of these people don't know what they're getting into and many aren't a good fit for our organization.  Let's face it, we've got a lot of "dead weight" members.  Too often we concentrate on the size of the unit and number of people recruited.  We do not spend enough time filtering out the bad elements that may end up negatively affecting others in our units.  Same goes for releasing those people from duty and encouraging them not to renew.  I've also noticed units talking about all the glamour of the organization, but failing to mention that none of those missions are regularly performed by their unit.  We cannot recruit people by lying to them and expect them to stay with us!  If the job's boring, say so.  Explain that it's important, but admit that it's no adventure.  You won't recruit many people, but the ones you do get, will have realistic expectations.  Then you can give them realistic duties and training and then follow up with realistic mentoring.

:clap:

I do not think that I could have said it better myself, George.  I think that you are aptly placed in your position.  I can only hope that you filter that mentality down to your units as well.

Civil Air Patrol makes it hard to sell our organization realistically to new members because the recruiting material provided by NHQ also over-glamorizes the organization.  Yes, it does depict our ideal view of what CAP should be all about, but it does not tell you anything about what you really will be doing as a member.

I suggest using recruiting material provided by NHQ sparingly.  There is no substitute for one-on-one interaction in the recruiting field and you should be handing them a pamphlet with the caveat, "this is a little information about our organization, but let’s talk about what you feel you have to offer CAP."

There is nothing wrong with being selective and the term "dead weight" is accurate.  There is no need in wasting your time to recruit a member who you know is going to be nothing more than a bench warmer or who has an over-exaggerated view of CAP.

If you encounter someone who is enthusiastic about joining and wants to go pound the ground every weekend, burst his/her bubble...  "You more than likely won't be doing that every weekend."  If they understand and are still enthusiastic, by all means, sign 'em up.  You may have yourself a dedicated lifer!

On a related but separate note:  I also consider myself a Civil Air Patrol Recruiter, not a Middle East Region, wing or squadron recruiter.  I do not care where a person is from or whether or not they are going to join a MER unit or a ND Wing unit.  In my opinion, if you encounter someone who is enthusiastic about joining; be honest about what your unit does, tell them you can vouch for where they are from, give them your card, get their information, follow up and get them in touch with the people in the know.  Refer them if you know someone in that area.

Recruiters need to watch each other’s back.  Give recruiting credit where credit is due and do honest research to determine recruiter information if it is not known.  I keep my CAPID on my business cards in hopes that if another recruiter signs that individual, he/she will have enough integrity to credit me with the recruit.  If not, I will not loose any sleep over it, but I know that I would at least return the courtesy.

[dwb]

Hey, it's Captain Lurye... congrats on the promotion!  :clap:

[Xeno]

Its probably not realistic but it would be great if CAP had some type of (wait for it)... "Standardized Test..." which we could use to place Senior Members into positions that they would be most interested in and qualified for. Perhaps something like the ASVAB only more tailored to our own needs. Being a cadet, I'm not very involved with the Senior program but from what I've seen and heard I think we have too many members running around perform mennial tasks which they are either too qualified for or not qualified to perform at all.

As for cadets, there is sometimes bad leadership there. All too often I come across Commanders who , as was stated earlier, make up a meeting as they go along. All too often they turn to drill as the answer to their problems. While I understand the importance of drill, the fact is, its pretty boring. Its boring because we don't have enough members who are trained to do it properly and make it fun. Sure, cadets who participate in Color Guard and certain NCSAs have the skills, but again, the people that do that are few and far between, smaller squadrons may not have those types of people available at all. It is my belief that most cadets leave because they get tired of simply showing up and drilling for 2 hours and then going home. Basic Wing Encampments are not instilling the neccessary skills into cadets and I think that the regulation (the reg # escapes me at the moment) concerning the structure of the cadet encampment should be reevaluated to have more physical, hands-on, team building activities for cadets. At my last encampment we spent far too much time touring base facilities and not enough hands-on time with the cadets. If drill could be, for lack of a better term, "drilled" into cadets at encampment then perhaps it would not be so boring to cadets back home, where they don't seem too inclined too even learn it as of late.

Part of the blame lies with the cadets themselves though. The current view of CAP among many young people today is that it is an afterschool program, just another good mark on their record but not something that they really need to bother to show up for every week. Kids are too apethetic these days. Perhaps the reasoning behind this is that its just not fun for them. CAP should have something to offer to just about everyone... Instead, we have limited things to offer to limited amounts and types of peoples.

Discuss.

[SarDragon]

Its probably not realistic but it would be great if CAP had some type of (wait for it)... "Standardized Test..." which we could use to place Senior Members into positions that they would be most interested in and qualified for. Perhaps something like the ASVAB only more tailored to our own needs.

Well, that's fine in theory. The problems come in two areas -
First - many folks already know what they are good at/interested in and do it as a day job. Several members I know have little interest in extending their day doing the same stuff they get paid for.
Second - there needs to be rotation and cross training. I've been an Admin Officer for seven years. It's somebody else's turn now. We just got a new member that is willing to learn the job. Huzzah!

Burnout is a bigger problem than people realize, and both of the above are significant contributions.

[afgeo4]

On the burnout issue:

I'm seeing a tendency in units to recruit for the bread & butter positions, a.e. ES, CP, AE, etc.  What I'm not seeing is units recruiting for the necessary positions, a.e. Operations, Public Affairs, Recruiting & Retention, and Professional Development.

Now I know a unit needs to have ML, Safety, Finance, and Admin/Personnel, but please realize folks that it's not enough for a unit to be safe from being closed down or safe from a negative mark on an inspection.  The job of a unit Commander is to improve and succeed, not stay afloat.   For a squadron or group to succeed these positions need to be filled not by the CC, but by a dedicated person.  I suggest starting with Recruiting & Retention and Professional Development since it's those two jobs that will lead you to the path of retention salvation. 

Once you have people in slots, make sure your "elders" become trainers and not operators.  Then make sure these "elders" get some much needed rest by relieving them of their duties.  Make sure not one senior is bogged down in one position for say over 2 years without some break.  It leads to burning out, complacency, and lack of flexibility within your unit.  X-Train your members, develop them, use them, rest them, and then begin the cycle again! 

I promise you that if you do that, you will be successful in this business and not just "good enough".

[ryan s]

i really think its a problem no one knows about us I'm a die hard pilot wannabee
and i hang around all pilot wannabees too. i hapend to stumble across CAP at our state fair and so i joined and a bunch of my friends want to join too. see all it takes is some sort of advertising/recrouting campain. Almost all kids go through a period where they want to be an "army man" or a "jet fighter pilot" and a lot o those kids never stop. I'm sure if they found out they would join and stay in CAP. WE also have to tak in acout the war im sure several of those who left CAP joined the armed forces.