I had a conversation about how we organize and task our wings to accomplish our missions.
So.....I was toying with the idea of what should a wing look like. Where should squadrons be placed and what sort of tasking's those squadrons should have.
So Try this on for size.
The wing should be made up of groups....one group per county.
The group should have one cadet squadron for every middle school and/high school in the county.
Every town with a population of over 10,000 should have a Senior squadron.
Every town with an airport should have a senior squadron.
Here is my reasoning.
On the ES side of things the Wing's job is to coordinate with the State officer of emergency management/national guard/state police etc.
Groups do the same thing at the county level.
And the squadron coordinates with the city or town.
The "airport" squadron would be mainly there to establish presence if we need to use their airport as mission base.
On the cadet side of things...by assigning cadet squadrons by schools....defines clear lines recruiting. We can use a percentage (say %5 just as a WAG) of school population to determine how much penetration into the target audience.
ES operations would be usually executed at the Group and Wing level. Squadron ES training and personnel requirements would be driven by the coordinated OPLANS written at wing and group level......i.e. no squadron would be expected operate a mission on their own...but would contribute personnel and equipment to support those operations.
As a model, it works, though I don't like non-composite squadrons.
In the real world, we haven't had that many charters or members in 20 years, if ever.
I'd love to see this a a mandate, maybe with a 5 year implementation.
I also don't think we can, or should try to seperate the CP from ES, unless you want to throw down the cards
and accept that cadets would be barred from participation in anything except training.
My idea is to move away from "composite" squadrons and have specialized squadrons....some flying, some GT, some comm, come a mix based on population and proximity to other squadrons.
It allows the squadrons to focus on one or just a few aspects of CAP's core missions.
Try to be the best at the mission assigned instead of being only good enough at all of them.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 15, 2013, 09:34:06 PM
My idea is to move away from "composite" squadrons and have specialized squadrons....some flying, some GT, some comm, come a mix based on population and proximity to other squadrons.
It allows the squadrons to focus on one or just a few aspects of CAP's core missions.
Try to be the best at the mission assigned instead of being only good enough at all of them.
Disagree. Everything we do is inter-related. Composite is the right approach and explains why most squadrons are Composite. And a squadron for every county is way too much.
As for the best model, the one we have works pretty well. If I made any change, it might be to eliminate Groups. If a Wing had more than 25 squadrons, then it could be helpful from a management perspective but in most cases I see little value at that layer.
Where you get to "ideal" is by having the right mix of engaged and competent members in the right positions, particularly in a leadership capacity. Are the right people being attracted and retained. That's ultimately what it comes down to...the people.
Interesting thought.
CAWG would certainly be an interesting place.
According to their Department of Education (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefenrollgradetype.asp), there are something on the order of 1,286 high schools and 1,303 middle schools located in our 58 counties.
So, with a minimum of 3 seniors per cadet unit (which we all know is really too few), we'd need 7,500 seniors to staff just the cadet units. Span of control will be interesting as well with the 2,500 squadrons assigned to a "mere" 58 groups. Wing commander's calls could get a little crowded.
On the senior side, we apparently have 71 cities with a population over 10, 000. (Some, like Los Angeles, with over four million, are a bit larger.)
And according to airport data.com (http://www.airport-data.com/usa-airports/state/California.html), there are 963 airports in the Golden State.
So, our ideal wing would have 2,500 cadet units, and about 1,000 senior units. I suppose we should assume that cities with a population of over 10,000 probably also have one of the 961 airports, so lets just go with the conservative figure of 3,400 squadrons organized into 58 groups.
What would your ideal wing be like?
^ LOL
And let's not even talk about what that would cost, not to mention the logisitics behind it all. CAP a force multiplier? Oh, contraire...the actual Air Force might become our force multiplier (not that we'd need it at that point). ;) ;D
Quote from: lordmonar on May 15, 2013, 09:34:06 PM
My idea is to move away from "composite" squadrons and have specialized squadrons....some flying, some GT, some comm, come a mix based on population and proximity to other squadrons.
It allows the squadrons to focus on one or just a few aspects of CAP's core missions.
Try to be the best at the mission assigned instead of being only good enough at all of them.
While that works for the Air Force, I'm not sure it would work for CAP. In the Air Force, a wing is, for the most part, in a single installation. And manning for their specialized units comes from all over the country (i.e. PCS). I'm not sure how feasible it would be to have a Communications Squadron, for example, where that would be the only thing they do. Even if you could get enough people interested to join such a squadron, how would that squadron support other units that are geographically too far apart? It would certainly be a challenge.
I've seen a "specilized" squadron for flying before, but it ended up becoming sort of a "flying club".
The change I would like to propose is to move some support and admin functions from the squadrons up to the groups. I think this may provide the following advantages:
- It would ensure that certain group support functions were fully manned with talented and qualified people without having to compete with squadrons for these personnel resources.
- This additional manning at the group level would enable Group HQ to provide better support to all subordinate units, ensuring no unit was at a disadvantage in areas such as finance, legal, etc.
- This would allow unit to better focus on training and operations.
I'm sure a change like this would require a lot of thought to prevent issues within the units themselves since they would now depend on group for things that they were previously self sufficient. But it could potentially help units with fewer resources. Either way, I don't think many would go for it.
I do like the idea of having groups and/or squadron better aligned with county and/or city governments, but I don't think we would have the manpower to support such a structure.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 15, 2013, 09:34:06 PM
My idea is to move away from "composite" squadrons and have specialized squadrons....some flying, some GT, some comm, come a mix based on population and proximity to other squadrons.
It allows the squadrons to focus on one or just a few aspects of CAP's core missions.
Try to be the best at the mission assigned instead of being only good enough at all of them.
CAP used to do that a long time ago. There were specialized squadrons like you suggested. They worked fairly well within their little area of expertise, but they became little kingdoms, with little care or regard for the big picture. Another problem was geography. If the closest squadron didn't fit a potential member's interests, he had to travel farther away to participate, or as often as not, simply not join. Specialized units went away for these reasons.
Some additional factoids for the Ideal California Wing:
The least populous county in the United States is Alpine County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_County) in Northern California with no incorporated cities and a county-wide population of just 1,175 folks. It does have a GA airport, however.
Similarly, the most populous county in the US is Los Angeles County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_county), with a little over 9 million folks, more than three dozen cities with over 10,000 population, four large commercial airports, and about 10 other public airports.
Finally, California is also home to the largest geographic county in the US, San Bernadino County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bernardino_County,_California), which, with are area of over 20,000 square miles, is larger than 9 US states and 71 foreign countries. As you might expect, it is primarily rural, but still has over 2 million folks living in 24 incorporated cities and the great desert beyond.
It will be hard to align groups with counties here in the Golden State.
I think we'd be better off with a goal of one squadron per county in "rural" counties and then some sort of goal for "urban" and "suburban" counties based on middle/high school population such as one squadron per 3000 students.
Okay.
First COST? It does not COST CAP anything to set up a new unit. Yes equipping this IDEAL WING would cost money....assuming that each squadron would get at least 1 van and 1 VHF Base Station. But beyond that as it is now.....squadrons are on their own for equipping their ES teams with equipment, securing facilities, etc.
Second 1 Group Per county target of course is the rough rule of thumb target.....some places may need more then one group per county...some places may not need to have their own group.
Third Squadron Size, If we cut down the sort of things a squadron has to do then we cut down the size of the squadrons....but each squadron will have a definite hard number of what they were expect to man, train and equip. A small airport squadron would maybe only need 10 people....say 5 FLMS and 5 MRO's. Some squadrons may be tasked with a lot more and would need more people. The size of the squadron is based on their ES mission tasking's.
Same story with Cadet squadrons.....with the 5% target per school....some would only have 5 cadets and some would have 50 or 100 cadets....and a scaling number of seniors to support it.
Fourth: Specialization....We integrate at the group/count level. No one is allowed to become a little empire. But it allows the squadron to focus on one part of the ES mission. Aircrews, ground crews, comm, support. Most counties are not too large so the travel time for these units to come together fore training, meetings, SAREX should not be more then an hour or two for the majority of the country (see my second point above).
Fifth Span of Control: That could be an issues with many wings with lots of counties...one possible fix for this to split the state into two or more wings....and invent a new organization "Areas" to handle the state level coordination. Another way to go would be build flights as a stand alone unit and one squadron per county....then groups with 10 or so counties and wing controlling the 5 groups.
Sixth separation of cadet squadrons and senior squadrons....again allows us to focus our efforts on a specific mission. This would not mean that cadets can't participate in ES only that those cadet squadrons would not be directly tasked with providing manning, training or equipment towards the wings/groups ES OPLAN.
The state of Georgia has 159 counties with 30+ of those counties having entire populations under 10K.
North Dakota, one of the least populous states, has 53 counties with only 13 having total populations over 10K.
Texas has 254 counties...
Really don't need to go any further to illustrate the problems with the approach.
Quote from: A.Member on May 15, 2013, 09:49:27 PMDisagree. Everything we do is inter-related.
Composite is the right approach and explains why most squadrons are Composite. And a squadron for every county is way too much.
As for the best model, the one we have works pretty well. If I made any change, it might be to eliminate Groups. If a Wing had more than 25 squadrons, then it could be helpful from a management perspective but in most cases I see little value at that layer.
Where you get to "ideal" is by having the right mix of engaged and competent members in the right positions, particularly in a leadership capacity. Are the right people being attracted and retained. That's ultimately what it comes down to...the people.
I don't think our current model works well at all. In some places we have deep penetration but we have zero presence anywhere else. Also currently we have no mandate to wing/group/squadrons to grow more squadrons. We got what we go....and no one is thinking about growing. My model goes with the idea that every city with 10K people with have a CAP squadron. Every middle school and high school will have a CAP squadron. We would be there training, working with or local government so that when they have a problem....they call us first.....via the NOC.
Quote from: A.Member on May 15, 2013, 10:13:18 PM
^ LOL
And let's not even talk about what that would cost, not to mention the logisitics behind it all. CAP a force multiplier? Oh, contraire...the actual Air Force might become our force multiplier (not that we'd need it at that point). ;) ;D
What cost? Except for the CAP van and the CAP radios.....my squadron carries the entire cost of operating.
Force multiplier....every county in the U.S. would have a group working with their emergency management people helping their squadrons train equip and man ready to help out in an emergency. It what we are already supposed to be doing.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 15, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
While that works for the Air Force, I'm not sure it would work for CAP. In the Air Force, a wing is, for the most part, in a single installation. And manning for their specialized units comes from all over the country (i.e. PCS). I'm not sure how feasible it would be to have a Communications Squadron, for example, where that would be the only thing they do. Even if you could get enough people interested to join such a squadron, how would that squadron support other units that are geographically too far apart? It would certainly be a challenge.
I've seen a "specilized" squadron for flying before, but it ended up becoming sort of a "flying club".
The reason why you get "flying clubs" is because no one is forcing the to play a part larger then themselves....and if you next largest formation is wing......it is easy for the little quiet squadrons to hide.
As for Communications squadrons....they would be tasked with maintain the wing comm equipment in their group, running the group comm net, maintain any "fly away" kits or airborne repeaters.....and again we are talking countly level....even is big states we are not talking about too far of a drive....and if its....you split it into two groups.
Pat, please define, "not too far a drive." San Diego County is about 80 miles by 80 miles. That's a 70-80 minute drive at typical speeds on Interstates. Corner to corner is substantially longer.
We have 11 airports in the county. Three or four of them are unsuitable for CAP operations, due to remoteness, runway composition (dirt), or traffic volume. They are clustered mostly on the west side of the county.
Soon to be Group 8, apparently.
Quote from: A.Member on May 16, 2013, 01:14:16 AM
The state of Georgia has 159 counties with 30+ of those counties having entire populations under 10K.
North Dakota, one of the least populous states, has 53 counties with only 13 having total populations over 10K.
Texas has 254 counties...
Really don't need to go any further to illustrate the problems with the approach.
Which county is Petticoat Junction located in? I will locate Group HQ there ;)
In the 1960's Florida did have the "Area" concept in place, They were called "Sectors". There were four sectors which oddly enough followed the 1943 Group geographical areas. Each Sector Commander was a Wing Vice Commander. At the time Florida had 25 Groups and almost double the current membership. Now the Wing is down to I believe eight Groups. (this changes often) In the Floridea Panhandle there are several counties without even a public airport and small rural populations even though there are two large Air Force Bases (Eglin and Tyndall) You can almost count on a three hour drive from one Squadron to another.
Since we are taking the CAWG as an example....back in the day when I was Group 4 chaplain...we had (and currently have) 6 squadrons meeting from Paso Robles to Simi Valley (3 counties: San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura) -- 187 mi one way. Close to a 3 hour drive. No way I could just "drop in" for a visit on one of their meeting nights.
Same issue I had - 90-120 minute drive each way, depending on traffic. That required getting out of work early, getting back at O-Dark, etc., all just to
say "hi" - we tried video links, etc. but at the time ubiquitous decent connectivity was not the norm (still isn't 100%).
I seriously like the model, but in my state, there are oodles of counties that do not have the demos to support or be interested in even a flight, let alone a
"real" unit. A lot of the most rural areas don't show a lot of interest in youth programs, and/or have their kids fully engaged in the family business, 4H, Young Farmers, etc.
The flip side is that we have 3 counties in the NE part of the state that account for probably 2/3'rd the population, is heavily urban, and offers the opposite problem in that there are not enough youth programs, but also no one interested in starting them, at least not the CAP model. Light up a rec center, no problem, but anything with objective standards and real discipline tends to fail, either because of logistics, economics, or related factors.
As to specialized unit, that's just not going to happen. We don't have the people, the resources, the meeting locations, etc., etc., I'd hazard just about
anyone worth 1/2 a darn in my wing would need to become a unit CC. That doesn't leave anyone left to actually to the "work".
This requires a massive infusion of membership.
But that doesn't mean we should not be trying for this. Even if it doubled the number of units we'd be way ahead of the game.
The Ideal Wing .. is one that induces perfect Laminar Flow.
One squadron per middle/high school would make for wing-sized groups, at least here in NER!
For instance, in the County of New York alone (Borough of Manhattan, NYC) there are over 150 public and private high schools...which does not even account for all the middle schools!
To the other end of the spectrum from CAWG. Rhode Island has 5 counties (no county level government, just lines on a map). and 4 squadrons, excluding the Wing HQ. By no intended design 4 of the 5 counties have 1 squadron each.
The counties range from Providence (16 cities / towns, 626,667 people) to Bristol (3 towns, 49,875 people) and Bristol has a squadron!
As long as wings are state based, no ideal can exist.
Quote from: phirons on May 16, 2013, 07:46:40 PM
As long as wings are state based, no ideal can exist.
That's the crux of it right there. The demographics in each state vary so much.
I've pondered what would happen if we moved away from the State=Wing idea. On paper, the idea of organizing by state seems simple and obvious. I wonder if there was a more "operational" way to organize units that goes beyond geography?
As I understand it wings that get funding from their state (not RI >:( ) would be concerned those payments would stop if the checks went to Tri-State Wing.
Quote from: phirons on May 16, 2013, 07:46:40 PM
As long as wings are state based, no ideal can exist.
Using the Air Force as an example, a wing is usually within a single installation and has a minimum of four groups. Think of the wing as a "city". Within this "city" wing, you have functional groups and squadrons, just as Lordmonar was suggesting. A given state may have one or more installations and/or wings, but there's no organization at the state level. For the most part, that setup works well for the Air Force.
Because of CAP's missions, especially with emergency services, it makes sense for CAP to have a state level organization. For decades, that's been the wing. But that doesn't mean that that's the only way CAP could organized itself. There's nothing to say that within smaller states (e.g. Rhode Island), there could be a single wing. And within larger states (e.g. Texas), there could be multiple wings.
We could have another level of organization above wings to cover the state, similar to the way the U.S. Air Force has Numbered Air Forces (NAF) above wings. It's also not uncommon in the Air Force for certain commanders to wear more than one hat (e.g. the commander of 1st Air Force also commands Air Forces Northern). The same could be done for smaller states (i.e. the single wing commander would also be the state level commander). For larger states, the state level commander would command over multiple wings.
This proposed organization would maintain a state level command and HQ, while balancing the span of control and resources of each subordinate wing.
Honestly, it only makes sense if we have wing-level relationships that work, and many wings don't.
It might well be better to operate on a more Federal level, but as mentioned, some states might yank funding if
their name isn't on the Wing's flag.
The interesting take-away from this is that not only is CAP not organized around operational need, its administrative organization
is also pretty much "broken".
That's what happens when a national organization tries to act like a local one and also allows its strategic planning to
be done on the basis of random chance and personality-based programs.
i.e.
"Why is this unit/group/wing HQ here?"
"Because it is."
Quote from: Eclipse on May 16, 2013, 09:46:20 PM
Honestly, it only makes sense if we have wing-level relationships that work, and many wings don't.
The interesting take-away from this is that not only is CAP not organization around operational need, its administrative organization
is also pretty much "broken".
That's what happens when a national organization tries to act like a local one and also allows its strategic planning to
be done on the basis of random chance and personality-based programs.
+!00 :clap:
Quote from: Eclipse on May 16, 2013, 09:46:20 PM
Honestly, it only makes sense if we have wing-level relationships that work, and many wings don't.
It might well be better to operate on a more Federal level, but as mentioned, some states might yank funding if
their name isn't on the Wing's flag.
The interesting take-away from this is that not only is CAP not organized around operational need, its administrative organization
is also pretty much "broken".
That's what happens when a national organization tries to act like a local one and also allows its strategic planning to
be done on the basis of random chance and personality-based programs.
i.e.
"Why is this unit/group/wing HQ here?"
"Because it is."
Disagree.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying but this concept, and the one proposed by the OP, is truly based on the premise of fulfilling only one mission - ES. Guess what? We have 2 others.
Units exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit. It's that simple.
While it might be someone's pipe dream to have 150+ units in each state/Wing, the reality is there is not enough interest to support that model; and it's doubtful there will ever be such interest. There are many other programs/activities vying for members. We cannot and should not try to be all things to all people or we lose our sense of purpose. Rather, we should be structured in a way that best allows us to successfully fulfill all 3 core missions.
Does the National Guard have units in every community of every state? No. Why? Because they don't need to in order to fulfill their mission and they don't have the resources to do so. Same holds true for us.
Span of control issues? We would definitely need to add multiple echelons to our COC.
Also, if we went to the ES specialized units, as only GT or Aircrew, how would you deal with those like me that are dual rated?
QuoteUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit. It's that simple.
Any town of at least 10,000 people has the potential to support a CAP squadron (and many do).
The problem is that there is apparently zero interest in CAP in growing back into communities where we almost certainly had units in the WWII era.
The model posted by the OP is certainly appropriate for meeting our AE goals but would certainly be extreme overkill for ES needs (without dramatic changes in CAP's typical ES duties).
Quote from: RiverAux on May 17, 2013, 03:15:11 AM
QuoteUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit. It's that simple.
Any town of at least 10,000 people has the potential to support a CAP squadron (and many do).
Potential? Some do...most don't/won't. Squadrons need to draw regionally because they can't sustain without doing so.
Quote from: RiverAuxThe problem is that there is apparently zero interest in CAP in growing back into communities where we almost certainly had units in the WWII era.
Again, non-concur. The world has changed significantly over the past 75 years. We need to continue to evolve with it.
Quote from: Ned on May 15, 2013, 11:59:22 PM
Some additional factoids for the Ideal California Wing:
The least populous county in the United States is Alpine County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_County) in Northern California with no incorporated cities and a county-wide population of just 1,175 folks. It does have a GA airport, however.
Similarly, the most populous county in the US is Los Angeles County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_county), with a little over 9 million folks, more than three dozen cities with over 10,000 population, four large commercial airports, and about 10 other public airports.
Finally, California is also home to the largest geographic county in the US, San Bernadino County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bernardino_County,_California), which, with are area of over 20,000 square miles, is larger than 9 US states and 71 foreign countries. As you might expect, it is primarily rural, but still has over 2 million folks living in 24 incorporated cities and the great desert beyond.
It will be hard to align groups with counties here in the Golden State.
To make a correction Alpine County is only the least populous county in California. The least populous county in the United States is Loving County, Texas with a mere 82 people and one community.
Quote from: A.Member on May 16, 2013, 11:06:28 PMUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit. It's that simple.
I would say that at least 50%, maybe 75% or the units in CAP meet where they do based solely on some random factor outside CAP's control (and/or attention span). Where the CC live(ed 10 years ago),
where they moved the plane, where they landed when they got kicked off the airport, because Jimmy was touching my stuff, etc., etc. Need / want to move them? Generally no one cares, other then the direct membership, and around here, 30 mins to an hour commute, 1-way to meetings is pretty much the norm.
They have nothing to do with whether the area can support them, and everything to do with "Well, this is the only place we can find."
Real common?
"Why do we meet here? It's so far away from everything."
"Well, twenty years ago, there used to be an airport over there, and the owner let us park our plane on the ramp and drill in the hangars."
"Um, that whole field has been a shopping center for 15 years, and we've been in this church basement for 10."
"Yep."
"Want to go for pizza after the meeting?"
Quote from: A.Member on May 16, 2013, 11:06:28 PM
Does the National Guard have units in every community of every state? No. Why? Because they don't need to in order to fulfill their mission and they don't have the resources to do so. Same holds true for us.
Not even close to the same paradigm - the Guard, and military in general, can pay / force people to go where they are told. They have centralized facilities where it is (or was) convenient at the
time (or politically expedient) to build them. Further, they have plenty of local armories, administrative offices, and satellite locations. They also don't meet weekly, and the service, especially these
days, isn't remotely "local".
The Guard sends the members away for the same BMT and tech schools that the military does, we don't - we meet locally and training is supposed to mostly happen on weekends at the unit or in the general area. We are also supposed to (mostly) serve the local community where the unit is located. Lastly, in the CP part of the program, the member is being served, not serving.
Wings should be doing demographic studies and seeding units where the potential membership lives.
Quote from: RogueLeader on May 17, 2013, 02:21:46 AM
Span of control issues? We would definitely need to add multiple echelons to our COC.
Also, if we went to the ES specialized units, as only GT or Aircrew, how would you deal with those like me that are dual rated?
Some squadrons/flights would be really specilaised....i.e. only Aircrew and AOBD or GT/GLT/GBD types. Larger units might be tasked for both.
One of the points I am trying to make here is that we build CAP based on the needs of our ES OPLAN and we equip/train/man our units based on those needs......not the other way around.
So...to be blunt....if you wanted to be duel rated...you would have to move units or find a unit willing to add you to their training rotation.
Quote from: phirons on May 16, 2013, 07:46:40 PM
To the other end of the spectrum from CAWG. Rhode Island has 5 counties (no county level government, just lines on a map). and 4 squadrons, excluding the Wing HQ. By no intended design 4 of the 5 counties have 1 squadron each.
The counties range from Providence (16 cities / towns, 626,667 people) to Bristol (3 towns, 49,875 people) and Bristol has a squadron!
As long as wings are state based, no ideal can exist.
The point of the "ideal wing" concept is starting point middle of the road concept that works for most areas.
If we keep the "One State, One Wing" concept.....then we have to come up with "other subdivisions" of the wing beside just groups and squadrons.
One point I am trying to get to is a division of labor. "Wing's" job is to coordinate with the state level government. "Group" coordinates with the County level government. Squadron at City level.
Of course that may not work everywhere....such as RIWG with not county government.
The other aim of my idea is to force CAP into expanding.
We should have a cadet presence at each middle school/high school.
We should have an ES presence at each GA air port.
We should have an ES presence at each county seat.
Quote from: A.Member on May 16, 2013, 11:06:28 PMDisagree.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying but this concept, and the one proposed by the OP, is truly based on the premise of fulfilling only one mission - ES. Guess what? We have 2 others.
I am not forgetting the other two. CP is to have presence in each and every middle school/high school. With a CP staff at all higher echelons.
And let's not play lip service to AE.......in my experience external AE is next to dead.....here and there....once in a while....we actually do some good work.....but really. But okay I'll play along. Each Group will be mandated to have one AE squadron who's sole mission is to do CAP's External AE program.
QuoteUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit. It's that simple.
Yes that is true....because there nothing pushing wings/groups to do anything about it. A unit folds.....it folds....no one is tasked to rebuild it. The "Ideal Wing" model gives higher HQ to grade each wing/group base objective critera....."You have 20 schools in your group....but only have 15 cadet squadrons.....what is your plan to fix this?" "Your cadet squadron only has 10 cadets...but your "school" has 300 students....you need recruit more cadets." Now units don't exist because the members want them to exist....but because CAP wants them to exist and where they want them to exist.
QuoteWhile it might be someone's pipe dream to have 150+ units in each state/Wing, the reality is there is not enough interest to support that model;
That is a recruiting/marketing problem. :)
Quoteand it's doubtful there will ever be such interest. There are many other programs/activities vying for members. We cannot and should not try to be all things to all people or we lose our sense of purpose. Rather, we should be structured in a way that best allows us to successfully fulfill all 3 core missions.
Not trying to be all things to all people. Trying to be an Emergency Services and youth development organization to our community, state and nation.
So CP in each and every school that has our target audience....and enough ES squadrons to support county and state level ES operations.
QuoteDoes the National Guard have units in every community of every state? No. Why? Because they don't need to in order to fulfill their mission and they don't have the resources to do so. Same holds true for us.
No.....it is not the same. In Nevada Wing we have NO.....NO.....viable Ground Team Support. There are a few of us....we can field maybe 3-4 teams state wide......and they are located around just two cities. The rest of the state has almost NO CAP presence. AND there is no plan/desire to fix it. Because higher HQ has no mandate to do anything about it.
We should not just "wait" until some daring sole in a far away town thinks to himself "I wish there was CAP here so I can help my community, state or nation" or "I wish there was a Cadet Squadron in this town so my kid could learn leadership". CAP IMHO should be of the "if you build it they will come" mentality.
And once again we are a volunteer organization.....and as Eclipse has pointed out....more people means we become more effective in getting our missions done.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 17, 2013, 03:15:11 AM
Any town of at least 10,000 people has the potential to support a CAP squadron (and many do).
The problem is that there is apparently zero interest in CAP in growing back into communities where we almost certainly had units in the WWII era.
The model posted by the OP is certainly appropriate for meeting our AE goals but would certainly be extreme overkill for ES needs (without dramatic changes in CAP's typical ES duties).
+1 on the idea that a 10K town should be able to support at least 3 typical cadet squadrons and an ES squadron.
I got to throw the BS flag on the ES overkill....because another pet peeve of mine.....we have NO IDEA WHAT ARE ES NEEDS ARE.....no one has any real OPLAN that spells out what each squadron is supposed to produce. My plan would help that along.....and would tie in with each wing and group coming up with detailed OPLANS that would spell out what each squadron would produce.
Squadron A in a largish city may have an airplane and be tasked with 9 aircrews, 3 AOBDs, 2 PSC, 10 MRO, an IC and one FSC. Squadron B in a small time with a air port may only be tasked to maintain a mission base and have 5 MRO's and 2 CULs, 6 FLMs and 2 FLS's.
Another squadron with no airport may be tasked to produce a single ground team or 3 ground teams and a GBD and some MRO's.
We build our organization to handle WORST CASE scenarios....not typical scenarios.
That is one of our problems on the ES side of things......."Ground teams never get called out" so GT training falls off....then when they do call us no one is trained or available.
QuoteAgain, non-concur. The world has changed significantly over the past 75 years. We need to continue to evolve with it.
Exactly what in the world has changed that makes it not possible to support CAP units in towns as small as 10,000 people? A decent (though not large) percentage of units in my Wing are in towns not much bigger than that, so its certainly possible. These are are small cadet squadrons, but I don't see anything wrong with that.
QuoteI got to throw the BS flag on the ES overkill.
Let me expand a bit. Just as a rough guess I'd say that your plan would result (assuming it was fully implemented and all the kids were recruited) of most CAP Wings being in the multi-thousand people size -- with some Wings being many more than 10,000 people.
Now, I would agree that CAP probably needs to be at least 2-4 times as large as it is today in order to really provide the depth of bench necessary in order to always be able to field aircrews and ground teams for our typical ES missions. That assumes that about the same percentage of members would be active in ES as are today. However, realistically the bottleneck is senior membership and especially pilots -- a few thousand more pilots would dramatically expand our ability to respond but wouldn't change overall membership that much.
QuoteSquadron A in a largish city may have an airplane and be tasked with 9 aircrews, 3 AOBDs, 2 PSC, 10 MRO, an IC and one FSC.
That really doesn't posit the need for many more people than a typical large city squadron might have today. I actually think that is a good goal for every squadron (maybe 3 more aircrews than I would think is necessary, but ok). You forgot ground teams, so lets say that we want that big city squadron to have 5 10 person ground teams. Assuming no qualification repeat, you're only talking about 85 people total.
Obviously thats outside the range of the average 30 person CAP squadron, but in a large city its not impossible to recruit a squadron capable of that -- certainly more possible than starting dozens of new units with hundreds of new members in that same city.
Of course, if you want to dramatically change CAP ES taskings that might change.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 04:53:48 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on May 17, 2013, 02:21:46 AM
Span of control issues? We would definitely need to add multiple echelons to our COC.
Also, if we went to the ES specialized units, as only GT or Aircrew, how would you deal with those like me that are dual rated?
Some squadrons/flights would be really specilaised....i.e. only Aircrew and AOBD or GT/GLT/GBD types. Larger units might be tasked for both.
One of the points I am trying to make here is that we build CAP based on the needs of our ES OPLAN and we equip/train/man our units based on those needs......not the other way around.
So...to be blunt....if you wanted to be duel rated...you would have to move units or find a unit willing to add you to their training rotation.
Considering that dual air and ground rating is a requirement to move up into PSC, OSC, IC making getting the other half harder could only decrease the pipeline for these ratings which at least in my neck of the woods would be a bad idea.
I think the idea has merit, however like some examples pointed out using political subdivisions as your basis varies greatly from location to location and will not produce consistant results in all areas. In my local (and a number of my previous residences) they typical "squadron" usually at least in participation and for the most part in reported membership numbers is really more of a flight sized element. Generally speaking build a squadron at the "county" level- with local flights: you may be able to "specialize" the flights then within the squadron area of responsibilty. Then these multiple counties could be combined into a group structure. Same idea but IMHO a more realistic personnel goal. As far as schools go, just my school district has 2 middle schools and one high school, in the county are at least 4 or 5 other districts with about the same number of schools. My guess is based on the population base you would still only be able to generate a "squadron" of 10-12 students per school. A per district level squadron would be seem more realistic.
mk
Quote from: RiverAux on May 17, 2013, 02:05:25 PM
QuoteAgain, non-concur. The world has changed significantly over the past 75 years. We need to continue to evolve with it.
Exactly what in the world has changed that makes it not possible to support CAP units in towns as small as 10,000 people?
Let's see....just about everything.
Planes aren't falling out of the sky. Populations have shifted. Technology has significantly changed how society/communities interact. Political/social attitudes have changed. There are many more competing activities/interests. The list goes on.
Again, can smaller communities support CAP units? Sure, and some certainly do today but most don't/won't (at least not at level to be effective).
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:38:58 PM
[ Populations have shifted.
Exactly -- there are more larger towns today than in the past. Most of these 10000 person towns probably only had 2000 during WWII and they supported units back then.
A cadet unit is possible just about anywhere that there is a senior member willing to work their butt off to start and run one. I'm not quite as confident as lordmonar that every single middle school could support one, but I wouldn't rule it out.
The limiting factor isn't whether or not there are kids that would join, it is whether there is an adult that wants to run one.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 05:24:04 AM
QuoteUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit. It's that simple.
Yes that is true....because there nothing pushing wings/groups to do anything about it. A unit folds.....it folds....no one is tasked to rebuild it.
Perhaps in some cases but that sounds like a local issue. Have you ever served at the Wing level? I can assure you there is a serious amount of effort and consideration that takes place before a squadron is deactivated. I know of squadrons that were deactviated, combined, reactivated, etc...only to fail again later. Can you imagine how much more time would be spent on such activities in your model? It'd be more than a full time job for numerous people.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 17, 2013, 04:44:15 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:38:58 PM
[ Populations have shifted.
Exactly -- there are more larger towns today than in the past. Most of these 10000 person towns probably only had 2000 during WWII and they supported units back then.
A cadet unit is possible just about anywhere that there is a senior member willing to work their butt off to start and run one. I'm not quite as confident as lordmonar that every single middle school could support one, but I wouldn't rule it out.
The limiting factor isn't whether or not there are kids that would join, it is whether there is an adult that wants to run one.
No. You cannot cherry-pick. It's not just one factor. It's the collective! There is not a single successful squadron I've ever heard of that was run by one single person; it takes a lot more than that.
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:46:54 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 05:24:04 AM
QuoteUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit. It's that simple.
Yes that is true....because there nothing pushing wings/groups to do anything about it. A unit folds.....it folds....no one is tasked to rebuild it.
Perhaps in some cases but that sounds like a local issue. Have you ever served at the Wing level? I can assure you there is a serious amount of effort and consideration that takes place before a squadron is deactivated. I know of squadrons that were deactviated, combined, reactivated, etc...only to fail again later.
If by "serious amount of effort" you mean "notice when the CC doesn't renew because NHQ sends an email", then yes.
They might "have a conversation" (after the 2nd or third failed SUI), and/or move a few empty shirts from 000 to forestall the inevitable, and then when the unit finally lands with the gear up and the tanks empty, they send an email saying "Anyone? Bueheler?" Bueller... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP0mQeLWCCo#ws) and then call it a day.
Unless there are enough people
locally who are interested, there is very little the ubiquitous "wing staff" can do except wring their hands. You can't fire people who have already
quit, and Mark Twain's quote about annoying people is appropo in trying to get disenfranchised members to increase performance after they have checked out.
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:46:54 PM
Can you imagine how much more time would be spent on such activities in your model? It'd be more than a full time job for numerous people.
Yes, it would - say something like the now defunct "Plans and Programs" staff? An underlying thread here, which contains a point I make often and I think Lordmonor is reinforcing,
is that if CAP is going to remain viable, or (Heavens!?!) "grow", there's going to need to be >lots< of "time spent" in administrative, planning and logistics tasks to get the rust off the wheels
and have them turning again.
Sadly, the response many of us get when we raise this, is your response. >Lots< of work, and very little of it involving actual airplanes, which
is why out esteemed and valued core group of members look at us sideways when we bring it up. However if we want there to >be< a CAP
for our grandkids, we better get started.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 05:11:19 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:46:54 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 05:24:04 AM
QuoteUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit. It's that simple.
Yes that is true....because there nothing pushing wings/groups to do anything about it. A unit folds.....it folds....no one is tasked to rebuild it.
Perhaps in some cases but that sounds like a local issue. Have you ever served at the Wing level? I can assure you there is a serious amount of effort and consideration that takes place before a squadron is deactivated. I know of squadrons that were deactviated, combined, reactivated, etc...only to fail again later.
If by "serious amount of effort" you mean "notice when the CC doesn't renew because NHQ sends an email", then yes....blah, blah, blah
Sounds like a local issue. Have you volunteered to serve at Wing to change this?
Several points to ponder:
1) Plans & Programs position still exists, specialty track is gone.
2) We ought to look at something other than state-based structure for our wings, because it clearly is not working in many areas, either geographically (in terms of large distances required for travel by supervisory echelons) or demographically (in terms of smaller populated wings difficulty staffing @ wing level)
3) I think we'd dodge losing funding by "re-flagging" some of these small wings as "XX (name of state) Group"...state legislatures just wants the branding out there, don't really think they give a hoot about our internal organizational structure or nomenclature!
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 05:13:49 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 05:11:19 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:46:54 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 05:24:04 AM
QuoteUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit. It's that simple.
Yes that is true....because there nothing pushing wings/groups to do anything about it. A unit folds.....it folds....no one is tasked to rebuild it.
Perhaps in some cases but that sounds like a local issue. Have you ever served at the Wing level? I can assure you there is a serious amount of effort and consideration that takes place before a squadron is deactivated. I know of squadrons that were deactviated, combined, reactivated, etc...only to fail again later.
If by "serious amount of effort" you mean "notice when the CC doesn't renew because NHQ sends an email", then yes....blah, blah, blah
Sounds like a local issue. Have you volunteered to serve at Wing to change this?
If by "volunteer to serve at wing to change this" you mean "spent the last 8-10 years trying to change attitudes, not allowing it to happen anywhere considered
my AOR while as a commander, and now having served on Wing Staff for about two years, and bringing up these issues at every opportunity I can, to the fatigue of those around me...?
Yes.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 06:29:09 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 05:13:49 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 05:11:19 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:46:54 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 05:24:04 AM
QuoteUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit. It's that simple.
Yes that is true....because there nothing pushing wings/groups to do anything about it. A unit folds.....it folds....no one is tasked to rebuild it.
Perhaps in some cases but that sounds like a local issue. Have you ever served at the Wing level? I can assure you there is a serious amount of effort and consideration that takes place before a squadron is deactivated. I know of squadrons that were deactviated, combined, reactivated, etc...only to fail again later.
If by "serious amount of effort" you mean "notice when the CC doesn't renew because NHQ sends an email", then yes....blah, blah, blah
Sounds like a local issue. Have you volunteered to serve at Wing to change this?
If by "volunteer to serve to serve at wing to change this" you mean "spent the last 8-10 years trying to change attitudes, not allowing it to happen anywhere considered
my AOR while as a commander, and now having served on Wing Staff for about two years, and bringing up these issues at every opportunity I can, to the fatigue of those around me...?
Yes.
So... then... you HAVE?
;D
I like you. You make me laugh while at the same time making me want to learn more about/be a bigger part of the program.
Well played, sir.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 06:29:09 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 05:13:49 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 05:11:19 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:46:54 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 05:24:04 AM
QuoteUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit. It's that simple.
Yes that is true....because there nothing pushing wings/groups to do anything about it. A unit folds.....it folds....no one is tasked to rebuild it.
Perhaps in some cases but that sounds like a local issue. Have you ever served at the Wing level? I can assure you there is a serious amount of effort and consideration that takes place before a squadron is deactivated. I know of squadrons that were deactviated, combined, reactivated, etc...only to fail again later.
If by "serious amount of effort" you mean "notice when the CC doesn't renew because NHQ sends an email", then yes....blah, blah, blah
Sounds like a local issue. Have you volunteered to serve at Wing to change this?
If by "volunteer to serve at wing to change this" you mean "spent the last 8-10 years trying to change attitudes, not allowing it to happen anywhere considered
my AOR while as a commander, and now having served on Wing Staff for about two years, and bringing up these issues at every opportunity I can, to the fatigue of those around me...?
Yes.
Yet, by your own account, that approach has apparently failed to instill change and the challenges persist. Why? What leads you to believe that you could instill such change with any other model, especially a significantly larger, more complex model?
As you stated in your previous post, "unless there are enough people
locally who are interested" there is not much that can be done. That actually holds true across the all levels of the organization. The right people are needed in the right positions at the right time. Once again, it comes back to the people.
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 08:05:37 PMYet, by your own account, that approach has apparently failed to instill change and the challenges persist. Why? What leads you to believe that you could instill such change with any other model, especially a significantly larger, more complex model?
Because I've been correct in just about every other assessment and project I've undertaken within CAP.
Just because we don't have the manpower or will to do something doesn't mean it isn't the proper path to follow - it just means the people
we have are unwilling, and those in authority won't take the necessary steps to make it happen.
Give me ten or twenty people with a clue, many of them from this board, and I could "fix" CAP in 6 months, but that fix would involve >lots< of uncomfortable conversations,
and probably 30% attrition (not including the empty shirts who would be taken off the active rosters). We wouldn't even have to change many regs, just actually
read the ones we
have and follow them.
Disruptive change like this is not popular with people who enjoy the status quo, or are too short-sighted to understand that sometimes to save the patient you
have to amputate a limb, or excise the cancer.
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:48:25 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 17, 2013, 04:44:15 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:38:58 PM
[ Populations have shifted.
Exactly -- there are more larger towns today than in the past. Most of these 10000 person towns probably only had 2000 during WWII and they supported units back then.
A cadet unit is possible just about anywhere that there is a senior member willing to work their butt off to start and run one. I'm not quite as confident as lordmonar that every single middle school could support one, but I wouldn't rule it out.
The limiting factor isn't whether or not there are kids that would join, it is whether there is an adult that wants to run one.
No. You cannot cherry-pick. It's not just one factor. It's the collective! There is not a single successful squadron I've ever heard of that was run by one single person; it takes a lot more than that.
I didn't say that they only needed one senior member, just one senior member that is willing to work their tail off to get the unit started and going. For small units, which is what we would have in most schools in this scenario or in most small towns of 10-20K (which I inserted in the conversation), you need that hard charger. Is a cadet unit in a small town that has 3 senior members and 15 cadets not capable of being "successful"?
Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 08:05:37 PMYet, by your own account, that approach has apparently failed to instill change and the challenges persist. Why? What leads you to believe that you could instill such change with any other model, especially a significantly larger, more complex model?
Because I've been correct in just about every other assessment and project I've undertaken within CAP.
Just because we don't have the manpower or will to do something doesn't mean it isn't the proper path to follow - it just means the people
we have are unwilling, and those in authority won't take the necessary steps to make it happen.
Give me ten or twenty people with a clue, many of them from this board, and I could "fix" CAP in 6 months, but that fix would involve >lots< of uncomfortable conversations,
and probably 30% attrition (not including the empty shirts who would be taken off the active rosters). We wouldn't even have to change many regs, just actually read the ones we
have and follow them.
Disruptive change like this is not popular with people who enjoy the status quo, or are too short-sighted to understand that sometimes to save the patient you
have to amputate a limb, or excise the cancer.
So, are you throwing in your hat in for the next Wing CC?
Quote from: RiverAux on May 17, 2013, 09:17:33 PM
Is a cadet unit in a small town that has 3 senior members and 15 cadets not capable of being "successful"?
Based on my experience, I'd call it a long shot at best.
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 10:28:04 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 08:05:37 PMYet, by your own account, that approach has apparently failed to instill change and the challenges persist. Why? What leads you to believe that you could instill such change with any other model, especially a significantly larger, more complex model?
Because I've been correct in just about every other assessment and project I've undertaken within CAP.
Just because we don't have the manpower or will to do something doesn't mean it isn't the proper path to follow - it just means the people
we have are unwilling, and those in authority won't take the necessary steps to make it happen.
Give me ten or twenty people with a clue, many of them from this board, and I could "fix" CAP in 6 months, but that fix would involve >lots< of uncomfortable conversations,
and probably 30% attrition (not including the empty shirts who would be taken off the active rosters). We wouldn't even have to change many regs, just actually read the ones we
have and follow them.
Disruptive change like this is not popular with people who enjoy the status quo, or are too short-sighted to understand that sometimes to save the patient you
have to amputate a limb, or excise the cancer.
So, are you throwing in your hat in for the next Wing CC?
Relevance?
Because I bet the next argument would be along the lines of "because if your not, then keep quiet". Which is in and of itself, a cop out. There's nothing wrong with giving advice, being critical, and backing it up with fact.
Quote from: phirons on May 17, 2013, 04:05:53 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 04:53:48 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on May 17, 2013, 02:21:46 AM
Span of control issues? We would definitely need to add multiple echelons to our COC.
Also, if we went to the ES specialized units, as only GT or Aircrew, how would you deal with those like me that are dual rated?
Some squadrons/flights would be really specilaised....i.e. only Aircrew and AOBD or GT/GLT/GBD types. Larger units might be tasked for both.
One of the points I am trying to make here is that we build CAP based on the needs of our ES OPLAN and we equip/train/man our units based on those needs......not the other way around.
So...to be blunt....if you wanted to be duel rated...you would have to move units or find a unit willing to add you to their training rotation.
Considering that dual air and ground rating is a requirement to move up into PSC, OSC, IC making getting the other half harder could only decrease the pipeline for these ratings which at least in my neck of the woods would be a bad idea.
Or we can pull the duel rating requirement from PSC.
The pipeline will be no more onerous then it is currently for Senior squadrons with no Ground Team element or squadrons with no air planes.....and they seem to do okay.
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:46:54 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 05:24:04 AM
QuoteUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit. It's that simple.
Yes that is true....because there nothing pushing wings/groups to do anything about it. A unit folds.....it folds....no one is tasked to rebuild it.
Perhaps in some cases but that sounds like a local issue. Have you ever served at the Wing level? I can assure you there is a serious amount of effort and consideration that takes place before a squadron is deactivated. I know of squadrons that were deactviated, combined, reactivated, etc...only to fail again later. Can you imagine how much more time would be spent on such activities in your model? It'd be more than a full time job for numerous people.
Yes....we would make Wing and Group recruiting officers actually do something....they would have a hard number of squadrons they need to maintain, and a hard number of people for each squadron.......and yes maybe it may become a full time job for some one....and maybe with the membership numbers we are talking about we could actually afford to pay someone to do the job.
Point is.....currently there is no target, model or goal. Squadron fails....so what. Now....squadron is failing....someone is going to have to step in and make sure it gets fixed.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 10:50:54 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 10:28:04 PM
So, are you throwing in your hat in for the next Wing CC?
Relevance?
As you stated, all you need is 10 or 20 people with a "clue" to fix the issues. If that's all you need, then why not? Start small and let's see what you can do.
And a2capt, I have no issue with someone bringing criticism...but be prepared to offer a solution or do something about it. You don't just get to sit and grumble. That is indeed UNSAT.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 11:30:02 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 04:46:54 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 17, 2013, 05:24:04 AM
QuoteUnits exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit. It's that simple.
Yes that is true....because there nothing pushing wings/groups to do anything about it. A unit folds.....it folds....no one is tasked to rebuild it.
Perhaps in some cases but that sounds like a local issue. Have you ever served at the Wing level? I can assure you there is a serious amount of effort and consideration that takes place before a squadron is deactivated. I know of squadrons that were deactviated, combined, reactivated, etc...only to fail again later. Can you imagine how much more time would be spent on such activities in your model? It'd be more than a full time job for numerous people.
Yes....we would make Wing and Group recruiting officers actually do something....they would have a hard number of squadrons they need to maintain, and a hard number of people for each squadron.......and yes maybe it may become a full time job for some one....and maybe with the membership numbers we are talking about we could actually afford to pay someone to do the job.
Point is.....currently there is no target, model or goal. Squadron fails....so what. Now....squadron is failing....someone is going to have to step in and make sure it gets fixed.
So, wait....earlier you argued there was no increased cost. But now, you're hiring paid recruiters? All while throwing the Recruiting Officers under the bus. Nice.
So, let's see...reading back, so far, Wing Staff is worthless, filled with empty shirts, with particular emphasis on Plans & Programs as well as Recruiting. OoooK. ::) For the sake of argument, let's say for a minute, this is true. Does any of this improve with volume?
I agree with your comment that there must be targets/goals. Where we disagree is your contention that there is no target or anyone monitoring health in the current model. Wings should be monitoring the health of their squadrons. If you are correct and that's not taking place, it's a local issue that needs to be addressed.
No one said wing staff is worthless.
I have pointed out time and time again.....that if a squadron if failing.....it is wing/group jobs to fix it.....that is they should be engaged with the local squadrons and making sure that they doing well and giving assistance and making changes as required.
Too often it is as you pointed out "We thing about it real hard, make some change but it fails anyway". So the answer seems that "there is just no need for a squadron there".
I disagree.
Wing's Number One job is to coordinate CAP's plans with the States Emergency Management Plans.
Group's Number One job is to coordinate CAP's plans with the county Emergency Management plans.
Squadron's number one job is to TRAIN, EQUIP and MAN to fulfill assigned missions.
We have no OPLANS, we have no idea where squadrons should be located, we have no idea how large/small a squadron should be. We have lots of regulations telling us that we should be making these plans and training up our personnel.....but no one know who is actually responsible for coordinating them. Here in Las Vegas metro area (a single county with 5+ cities) we have 5 senior/composite squadrons.....who is responsible for coordinating our plans with the county EMS? All of us individually? We don't have a group because wing does not think it can support another level of admin....so there is almost NO county/CAP coordination.
Yes this will be a lot of work. Yes it would be a full time volunteer job......but what is wrong with that?
I am throwing staff under the bus...because too long we have had wing staff too interested in power politics than in fact running their squadrons. Yes this has changed......now lets continue the change. Give our wings some mandates to create OPLANS, Develop some squadron manning level directives....and a goal for CAP presences.
I know that it may not work perfectly everywhere....but it gives us a goal and guidelines of what we are shooting for.
The Goal of this is to INCREASE CAP presence at the SAR/ES level. Increase our manning at the county level so that we have a usable force a county level EMS agency could call onto for assistance.
Increase our CP penetration to 5% of all CAP aged students.
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 11:33:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 10:50:54 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 10:28:04 PM
So, are you throwing in your hat in for the next Wing CC?
Relevance?
As you stated, all you need is 10 or 20 people with a "clue" to fix the issues. If that's all you need, then why not? Start small and let's see what you can do.
And a2capt, I have no issue with someone bringing criticism...but be prepared to offer a solution or do something about it. You don't just get to sit and grumble. That is indeed UNSAT.
Because you, I, and everyone else reading this knows that my statement is both true, and not possible, for very much the same reason(s) it is essentially not
possible to get much done in government anymore either. I may well throw my hat in the ring the next time around, however I have no interest in playing politics
on any level. When asked what I would do as wing CC, I would tell the board exactly what I would do, who would go day 1, etc. My experience has been that
when otherwise experienced members apply for these jobs, when they espouse disruptive change, they are thanked for their time and the board moves on.
I know exactly what CAP needs, I know exactly how I'd go about it, which areas are fires and which areas should be left by the wayside, and most of it has been consistently posted here, and I would do it on Day 1. Now, I am not under the illusion that I wouldn't open a file on Day 1 and find that more then a few of the things I want to change aren't as clear-cut as they look
from my current vantage point, but I also know that there's a lot of time, effort, and money spent on things that are either irrelevant, or that simply need a "Period-Dot" decision,
and then closed, that's all Day 1. Lordmonor and I argue about minutia, but the kind of strategic planning he's espousing is exactly what CAP needs ASAP.
Ask anyone who has worked with me in CAP and they will tell you that's how I operate, when I have the authority and latitude to do it. I never got 1/2 what I wanted to do done,
but I wasn't and am not afraid of uncomfortable conversations. I cleared a lot of brush and made things easier for the next guy to actually get things done.
Thankfully there have been some outstanding people who succeeded me and who are in the process of real impact and change within the areas they have authority.
Not sure how much more then that I can do.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 18, 2013, 02:30:30 AM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 11:33:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 17, 2013, 10:50:54 PM
Quote from: A.Member on May 17, 2013, 10:28:04 PM
So, are you throwing in your hat in for the next Wing CC?
Relevance?
As you stated, all you need is 10 or 20 people with a "clue" to fix the issues. If that's all you need, then why not? Start small and let's see what you can do.
And a2capt, I have no issue with someone bringing criticism...but be prepared to offer a solution or do something about it. You don't just get to sit and grumble. That is indeed UNSAT.
Because you, I, and everyone else reading this knows that my statement is both true, and not possible, for very much the same reason(s) it is essentially not
possible to get much done in government anymore either. I may well throw my hat in the ring the next time around, however I have no interest in playing politics
on any level. When asked what I would do as wing CC, I would tell the board exactly what I would do, who would go day 1, etc. My experience has been that
when otherwise experienced members apply for these jobs, when they espouse disruptive change, they are thanked for their time and the board moves on.
I know exactly what CAP needs, I know exactly how I'd go about it, which areas are fires and which areas should be left by the wayside, and most of it has been consistently posted here, and I would do it on Day 1. Now, I am not under the illusion that I wouldn't open a file on Day 1 and find that more then a few of the things I want to change aren't as clear-cut as they look
from my current vantage point, but I also know that there's a lot of time, effort, and money spent on things that are either irrelevant, or that simply need a "Period-Dot" decision,
and then closed, that's all Day 1. Lordmonor and I argue about minutia, but the kind of strategic planning he's espousing is exactly what CAP needs ASAP.
Ask anyone who has worked with me in CAP and they will tell you that's how I operate, when I have the authority and latitude to do it. I never got 1/2 what I wanted to do done,
but I wasn't and am not afraid of uncomfortable conversations. I cleared a lot of brush and made things easier for the next guy to actually get things done.
Thankfully there have been some outstanding people who succeeded me and who are in the process of real impact and change within the areas they have authority.
Not sure how much more then that I can do.
Once again . . . +10 :clap:
I have been thinking about the subject of span of control and I came up with an ideal that help solve this issue.
Assuming that the "average" squadron only has 25 or so people.....let's build on that.
Create Flights and Elements as "stand alone" units.
And create "areas" to stand between groups and wings in larger states.
This keeps the basic duties of wings, groups and squadrons the same......coordinating plans with state, county, city governments.
Flights and elements would focus on only a few taskings.....A comm element, an aviation SAR element, a GSAR element, an AE element, a Cadet Flight.
Elements and Flights would be driven by the size of those units.....elements having between 10-30 individuals and Flights having between 20-100.
Because flights and elements are small they would not be expect to have a lot of staff over head....only enough to cover the basics....Personnel Records, Logistics, training.
Operations and planning would be part of the squadron, group and wing functions.....as well as Professional development, and other staff heavy functions.
In this we embrace the concept of volunteer service and wants and needs of our volunteers.
A city of around 10K people could have 3-4 different elements and Flights under a single staff. Smaller towns may have only flights grouped under a squadron geographically central to them.
So Take a notional city of 25K....(cabot Arkansas) It has 2 middle schools, 2 junior highs and 1 high school.
The Cadet Flight Could be organized into five elements each meeting at a school.
There could be a GSAR flight or ES flight with a Communications element, and a GSAR Element. All under a squadron Staff.
The squadron CC would have his staff coordinate with the city ES managers and work with the city Schools to administer the CP program. He could have a dedicated AE element working with local groups and the school math and science teachers.
Since the GS tasking would specific (say 3 Ground Teams) the ES elements would not need a lot of over head to be useful.
That would mean that the Group Commander in Little Rock would not have to deal with three or more squadron commanders from Cabot but only one.
Extrapolate this to large METRO areas and we could have a workable system where span of control is not a huge issues.
In communities smaller then 10K where the CAP presence may only be 10 or so individuals (say a remote airstrip element) they could be attached to the nearest squadron or group several of the smaller ones under a centrally located HQ squadron.
In large states (CAWG, TXWG, NYWG, FLWG) where the sheer size of the state or the population density makes groups to wing span of control too burdensome....we can create "areas" to coordinate and administer the activities of several groups.
At one time CAP did have "area" commands. They were called Sectors. Each Sector had a number of groups under them...the number 5 comes to mind but I'm not sure. They didn't work very well in my opinion. The just turned into another layer to work through.
Additional organizational layers can only be effective if approval authority is delegated accordingly. Otherwise, they just become another layer of bureaucracy to overcome.
In what way do you mean "approval" authority?
For the most part...while more layers may be added....the layer would be closer both operationally and geographically....Group is not going to be some half a state away but will be maybe only 30-40 miles away.
Squadron will be in the same city or maybe the next one over.
I believe my model will actually get units to work closer together in their daily operations then they do now. Increasing our mission response, and CP presence while at the same time reducing the amount of over head at the "rubber meets the road" level.
It would put more of a burden on group/area staffs....as they will pick up a lot of things that squadrons do now (PD for one) but over all not a lot of changes of "approval" authority (for things like promotions and permissions for waiver, would need to be done.
Promotions for Element officers would still need to be routed to squadron for approval (for Capt and below). Yes some things could/should be delegated down.....cadet promotions would be delegated to Element Commanders.
A lot of titles and CAPR 20-1 would have to be rewritten......but that would be one of the first things I would do if I were to implement this model.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 25, 2013, 11:11:51 PM
In what way do you mean "approval" authority?
I mean that certain wing and group approval authority would have to be delegated to these new structures in order for this to work in an efficient manner. For example, for someone at the squadron level to be promoted to major under the current organization, that promotion has to be approved by the squadron, group and wing commander. The same occurs with most Ops Quals. If we were to add all these additional layers of organization, the approval process could become inefficient if approval was required by every level. Using the same example, such promotion or qualification would have to be approved by the element leader, flight commander, squadron commander, group commander, area commander and, finally, wing commander.
With a new organizational structure in place, the approval process could become very cumbersome and inefficient if certain decisions are not delegated accordingly.
No change would be required. Element or Flight Commander would submit the promotion request to the Squadron CC who would forward it to group or wing as required.....just like they do now.
So then I'm right; these personnel actions would have to be approved by the element leader, flight commander, squadron commander, group commander, area commander and wing commander. Add a couple of more layers if they have to go to region and national. You don't think this could make the approval process more lengthy, cumbersome and inefficient?
No need to go through the Area or the Flight Commander.....Squadron, Group, and Wing.
I guess Wing could pass authority down to the Area commander....but it's not necessary.
Just because there is a layer of organization.....not everything MUST go to that layer.
Simple, just require that the element/flight/whatever leader pass along all such paperwork to the squadron commander. In other words, they don't have any approval authority over that sort of thing.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 27, 2013, 03:26:02 AM
Simple, just require that the element/flight/whatever leader pass along all such paperwork to the squadron commander. In other words, they don't have any approval authority over that sort of thing.
Yes....the Element/flight commander is the "requester" as it is on the current CAPF 2a
Minnesota has 87 counties. 4 groups gets the job done. This "ideal" wing doesn't sound very ideal. And keep in mind, not everyone in schools are interested in CAP. And it is better to have squadrons at airports IMHO (more convinient for cadet o-flights). An Ideal wing is one with good recruiting, qualified and experienced people in their field, with a broad variety of options for people to choose what to specify and focus. What gets the mission done is the task force of different people getting the mission done. I'd love to see a squadron of only pilots get a mission done by themselves. Somebody needs to get their boots dirty.
Danger.
The idea is not to wait until people are "interested in CAP"....but to market and sell CAP to them.
MNWG has 87 counties....and only 20 squadrons.
Four groups means that each group is coordinating with 20+ counties.
So we could have 9 Areas each with about 10 counties/group. Each Group would have 10 or so squadrons with enough flights and elements to get the penetration into the schools and have enough ES presence to actually be of service to our Community, State and Nation.
Your area must be different than mine. Most schools around here don't want anything to do with us. Not because they're anti-military (though some are), but if they let us in they potentially have to let every org in.
When I say "in the school"....while it would be cool to actually meet in the school itself.....but if that is not possible we should still have one unit per school.....the idea is that we recruit from where we know our target audience is five days a week....in stead of just letting them come to us.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 27, 2013, 04:02:45 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 27, 2013, 03:26:02 AM
Simple, just require that the element/flight/whatever leader pass along all such paperwork to the squadron commander. In other words, they don't have any approval authority over that sort of thing.
Yes....the Element/flight commander is the "requester" as it is on the current CAPF 2a
So what if the element/flight commander doesn't want to request it? It seems to me that any supervisor directly in the chain of command, especially for separate organizations, will have a saying on these types of approvals. That still adds extra layers. Why not have wing commanders delegate some of their approval authority to the area commanders or group commanders as appropriate? That could make things more efficient.
The current organization allows for the wing commander to appoint two vice commanders and yet not every wing commander has done so. With multiple vice commanders, do we need area commanders? And if we do, then having more than one vice commander would be unnecessary.
I wonder if the solution is not to add extra organizational layers below the wing level, but to make the wings smaller. Perhaps small states could retain the one wing-one state model and large states could have multiple wings. Then the additional layer, if necessary, would be above wing level.
If the element/flight leader does not want to submit the promotion.....what would delegating wing authority have to do with it?
In the proper way thing are going....the unit personnel officer submits it to the squadron CC who approves/disapproves and then it goes up to group (if you have one) and on to wing.
If we have area commands......promotion and decoration requests would skip that level.
As for multiple Vice Commanders......as I have seen CAP do it.......they are doing it wrong. The Vice Commander is the commander when he is not present for duty.
A DEPUTY Commander is in charge of specific functional areas or geographical areas........so yes.....multiple deputy commanders would be another way of calling "area commanders".....Deputy commander North, South, East, West, Central.......where the groups under each deputy know they have to route certain operational things to him.
Making wings smaller could be an option.....but then you add a level of command over the wing and below region to deal with state level coordination.
My idea is that our CAP titles should match up with a particular level of government for coordination purposes....so that we know who is supposed to be coordinating the plans and operations with who on the civilian government. Wing=State, Group=County, Squadron=City.
Area commands are just to help relive the span of control on the wing commander......ie instead of dealing with 80 group commanders....he deals with 8 area commanders who each deal with 10 squadron commanders.
By setting this standard......just like in ICS it is clear who is dealing with who and what their duties are.
Of course some of our authorities could be change.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 28, 2013, 05:36:31 PM
If the element/flight leader does not want to submit the promotion.....what would delegating wing authority have to do with it?
Nothing; I was merely pointing out that by having that extra level of organization, that you wouldn't just be able to ignore it when submitting for approvals. Delegating approval authority to lower levels could avoid having to go through all those extra layers. You say that that wouldn't be necessary, but you wouldn't be the one tasked with restructuring the organization and rewriting the regs. If we add additional levels each with a commander, it's very likely that they would all want to have a saying on those approvals.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 28, 2013, 05:36:31 PM
Making wings smaller could be an option.....but then you add a level of command over the wing and below region to deal with state level coordination.
I think that would be an acceptable solution and much easier to implement.
Well.....I don't see how adding element and flight levels of command is going to make getting a promotion/decoration/rating through the approval chain more difficult.
And yes.....all of our regulations would have to be double checked an rewritten to account for the changes I have proposed.....and IF this proposal was adopted I most certainly would want to be part of the team that rewrote those regulations.
AS it is......promotion approval authority sits as Squadron (Sgt-FO-Capt), Wing (Maj) and region (Lt col).
Nothing I have proposed would really change that.
We could give Flight/Element commanders approval authority below Capt....but I don't see that we have to do that either.
The problem with adding "super Wings" (i.e. the over lord of a multi wing state) is that you have to write the regulations for that which would only be used in a few states. To steal a line from the USAF "One State, One Wing".....is simple and we right the regs to allow the wing to organize their groups under a subordinate command if they need them.....this would keep most wings "group" commands, as the exist today" intact.....just with a name change.
Remember alone with this idea is the goal that CAP would increase in size and visibility maybe a hundred fold.
MNWG would go from 20 units covering 80+ counties to something like 300 units covering the same geographical area.
As part of the streamlining we could just move promotions to be "matter of course" situations where once your boxes are checked, they auto-process.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 28, 2013, 08:27:45 PMMNWG would go from 20 units covering 80+ counties to something like 300 units covering the same geographical area.
It would be interesting to know what CAP-USAF would have to say about such a large increase in scope. They are barely able to stay current now, and have dropped to essentially no
presence below the wing level.
At least on paper, unit growth in scope and size would be self funded. Many units run on zero budget, and those that have expenses generally get their money from donations and dues, etc.
However...
A 5-fold increase in membership, especially cadets, would need a similar increase in USAF funding on the FCU, and O-ride budgets, not to mention significantly increased aircraft MX and other ancillary
costs. That's >not< self-funded, and wouldn't just appear because CAP finally woke up and decided to start doing something.
Yep......those things would have to be addressed......but even more money for O-rides and Uniforms would be a drop in the bucket.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 28, 2013, 08:37:44 PM
It would be interesting to know what CAP-USAF would have to say about such a large increase in scope. They are barely able to stay current now, and have dropped to essentially no
presence below the wing level.
At least on paper, unit growth in scope and size would be self funded. Many units run on zero budget, and those that have expenses generally get their money from donations and dues, etc.
However...
A 5-fold increase in membership, especially cadets, would need a similar increase in USAF funding on the FCU, and O-ride budgets, not to mention significantly increased aircraft MX and other ancillary
costs. That's >not< self-funded, and wouldn't just appear because CAP finally woke up and decided to start doing something.
I finished my popcorn so, I decided to present my thoughts... ;)
There is basically no CAP-USAF presence below region level any longer (CAP-RAP is ?). However, I'm pretty sure they would be happy with a great increase in CAP's membership numbers.
A 5-fold increase in membership is great, however the incresed funding it will generate will not come from congress (at least not through the DoD). I would think that, with 300k members, other funding oportunities would present themselves easily.
There is a reason Civil Air Patrol has stayed at the 60k level in membership for the last 40 years. To break the "barrier", IMHO, we must redifine ourselves in a major way. There currently is no desire to change the S.Q. (that's status quo) of who we are and what we do...
Quote from: FW on May 28, 2013, 09:19:44 PMThere is a reason Civil Air Patrol has stayed at the 60k level in membership for the last 40 years. To break the "barrier", IMHO, we must redifine ourselves in a major way. There currently is no desire to change the S.Q. (that's status quo) of who we are and what we do...
Sadly I have to agree.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 28, 2013, 09:23:56 PM
Quote from: FW on May 28, 2013, 09:19:44 PMThere is a reason Civil Air Patrol has stayed at the 60k level in membership for the last 40 years. To break the "barrier", IMHO, we must redifine ourselves in a major way. There currently is no desire to change the S.Q. (that's status quo) of who we are and what we do...
Sadly I have to agree.
As do I.
Quote from: FW on May 28, 2013, 09:19:44 PM
There is a reason Civil Air Patrol has stayed at the 60k level in membership for the last 40 years. To break the "barrier", IMHO, we must redifine ourselves in a major way. There currently is no desire to change the S.Q. (that's status quo) of who we are and what we do...
It could be that the reason is that the "marketplace" has determined that this is about the maximum level of interest in joining an organization like CAP (absent a WWII-sized burst of patriotism and enthusiasm for national service).
One could say that there is nothing that really prevents CAP from being as large as lordmonar envisions under our current regulations and organizational structure. The limitation isn't our structure, but it is the lack of a few adults in each school willing to organize and lead a small CAP unit in that school.
Each city now could have multiple squadrons or a single squadron with multiple semi-independent flights right now. It just doesn't happen.
At least on the macro-level we know that the number of members in a CAP wing is pretty directly related to the population of that state. At local levels we all know that can break down -- a real go-getter can build a squadron 2-4 times the normal CAP squadron of about 30 members. So, there is definitely room for major growth, but not at the level lordmonar envisions.
I think a reasonable statewide goal would not be to focus on counties since the authority of counties varies significantly by state and there are many rural counties that just aren't going to have the population to support a CAP unit.
The goal should be to at a minimum have a CAP squadron in any town with at least 50,000 people and at least a flight in every town with 10,000 people (though I do think that most towns that size could support a small squadron).
I'd disagree that the market has determined CAP's size.
CAP has made that determination. 60k is clearly "fine", at least at the national level.
Anything which NHQ decides is important is done rather quickly, CAP's lackadaisical recruiting and attention to retention may not be by design, per se, but it's
clearly within the comfort level of the national leadership, otherwise a lot more would be made of it, including better definitions "active" then we have today.
The disruptive change CAP really needs would almost certainly spur a fair amount of attrition, initially. That's a lot easier to control then
trying to push commanders who clearly aren't interested in the conversation to start meaningful recruiting.
And without that recruiting, Lordmonor's plan remains pretty pins on a map.
Oh, I'd say that any national commander would love to see even a 10% increase in CAP membership and their head would explode with a 25% increase. I'd say that their incentive to increase CAP is incredibly strong.
The issue is that there is very little that national can do to cause such an increase to happen. It wasn't that long ago that they created the recruiting and retention track, obviously as a way to encourage more of that to happen.
Its hard enough to recruit new members into existing units and to retain the ones you have. We're obviously able to at least tread water.
However, starting the thousands of new units envisioned by this thread goes well beyond anything that can be encouraged from above. Anyone that has tried to has tried to support a new unit knows that it demands an incredible amount of time and effort. Just trying to find the core group of people needed to start a new unit is very, very hard.
If there were thousands of adults out there with an interest in leading new CAP units, they would get formed.
I think we could "recruit from above" to the level I described using more or less traditional CAP techniques and with a little more emphasis from NHQ is feasible. But, I see no evidence that we could ever do what lordmonar describes.
Riv; I agree with you to a point, however it is actually relativly easy to increase the size of our membership with little effort on anyone's part (other than the leadership). There is already a ready "market". Funding can be found, and we already have a pool of (potential) senior members willing to support the new units...
The problem is developing a desire to "make it so". I remember reading a rather extensive document a couple of years ago about it, but no one cared... :-[
I agree with out a lot of effort this is just pins on the map.
But as a comparison with what we do now......there is NO effort to expand CAP. There are no standards on how big a squadorn shoul be, where they should be located and what ES taskings the squadron should have.
My plan would have standards that the wings would have to work towards.....It would take maybe 10 years to go from the current situation to my Ideal Wing model.
Wing would have to stand up the group units....find the staff for them and then get them working with their county EMS people.
That would take 2-3 years just to get all the groups stood up.
As soon as a group stands up the CC would have to identify what squadrons he needs, and where he needs them....and then to start standing up those squadrons.
Same story for the cadet squadron.
This is not going to happen over night.
The key here is to keep squadrons fairly small....40 people would a BIG squadron....most would hover around 15 or so.
The second key is to make sure that each squadron has a specific job and goal. (maintain XX number of people GT qualified, XX number people MP qualified, etc) That way each squadron can build a traning and operations plan and can be graded on how they are meeting that everyday (or more likely once a month).
This is a big paradymne shift.
I disagree with River that there is nothing National can do to make this happen.
First....they establish the clear mandate that we expand.....in a logical reasonable way (not just say "everyone increase membership by 10%).
Second....they establish a mandate that wings make and publish real ES oplans that are cooridinated with state and county Emergency Management Agencies. Both short turm....what we got now.....and long term.....what we can give them in 10 years. These plans should cover everything from a lost aircraft, lost person, disaster response, Homeland Security, and counter drug operations. These plans drive how many people, how many aircraft, vans, L-pers, GT gear, radio nets, first aid kits...etc and so forth. These plans drive where we put these people and asstes.
Third....we set our goals.....long term (10 years....1 squadron per 10K city, 1 squadron per rural airport, 1 cadet unit per school, 1 group per county). We set our short and long term goals to work toward the final ideal state.
If we build it....they will come. Waiting for them to learn about CAP in a city 20-30 miles away.....then to go out of their way to try to get a program started in their area. Waiting for an ES unit just to grow and start providing a capability to their county or city.....basically our current model......is why we have the problems we have today. County Sherifs don't know about CAP because there is no CAP presance. But if we purposely go to a fresh town. Our CP types would make contact with the schools, do presentations to the students and their parents. Provide a core of seed officers and train up new units. Our ES types would do the same...visiting VFW, civic groups, volunteer fire fighters, air ports....and build the units.
It can be done.
Something I haven't seen mentioned is the cost to make this happen, not the costs that would appear once it has happened.
Many members would be ok to travel 100miles/2hrs one way a couple times to help get a unit/flight/group/??? started. Few would be willing to absorb the costs to do this for six months (two/three time per month). Some form of funding would be necessary to cover those costs. Figure gas/mileage, meals, hotels, probably $100-$125 per person, possible a little less by double rooming. Comes to roughly $2000 per person for the six month start up period and you'll need four or five folks to get the unit trained and self-sufficient.
I would think that depending on how you grew it.....the drive time would not be that far.
Also as with all things......we pay up front getting it started and then the overall costs of this sort of thing would be lower then what we have now.
Reimbursement could be talked about......and the money could be recouped by the increased membership numbers.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 28, 2013, 10:33:59 PM
Oh, I'd say that any national commander would love to see even a 10% increase in CAP membership and their head would explode with a 25% increase. I'd say that their incentive to increase CAP is incredibly strong.
The issue is that there is very little that national can do to cause such an increase to happen. It wasn't that long ago that they created the recruiting and retention track, obviously as a way to encourage more of that to happen.
Its hard enough to recruit new members into existing units and to retain the ones you have. We're obviously able to at least tread water.
However, starting the thousands of new units envisioned by this thread goes well beyond anything that can be encouraged from above. Anyone that has tried to has tried to support a new unit knows that it demands an incredible amount of time and effort. Just trying to find the core group of people needed to start a new unit is very, very hard.
If there were thousands of adults out there with an interest in leading new CAP units, they would get formed.
I think we could "recruit from above" to the level I described using more or less traditional CAP techniques and with a little more emphasis from NHQ is feasible. But, I see no evidence that we could ever do what lordmonar describes.
I am sure you are correct that any national commander would love to see an increase in membership, much like we all agree that solid growth would be great. However, I strongly disagree that national is limited in their ability to facilitate this effort. Creating a specialty track for recruiting/retention was at best a symbolic nod to the idea that we need emphasis in that area. The specialty track requirements are not very difficult to satisfy, and there are very limited training opportunities to adequately develop the necessary skills for success in the role.
What we need is a marketing plan and branding strategy at the national level. That plan
MUST include money and resources necessary for success, a lot of which can be obtained through fundraising and grant opportunities. Subordinate regions, wings, groups, and squadrons, can then develop marking plans in support of the national strategy and seek out the resources necessary to implement these efforts at their level. Michigan Wing developed a marketing plan back in 2008, which included a significant amount of market research and established goals and objectives for the coming years. This needs to be done in a consistent manner at various levels throughout our organization.
It is true that most recruiting/retention work is done at the local level. However, we know from our current situation that the strategies available to most squadrons and groups are ineffective at producing sustained growth. I can much more effectively recruit at local schools, air shows, holiday parades, etc, if my prospects already know who we are and what we do. I think there are plenty of people who would be interested in CAP if they knew we existed. Our highest levels of leadership have a big role to play in developing our brand. If we don't make this a national priority, we will continue to spin our wheels with the same membership patterns we are accustomed to.
A couple of thoughts:
1) if we initiate lower/more localized command echelons, these should be "tactical" in nature...focused on activity, training cadet and seniors, mission readiness and participation. The administrative nightmares should be consolidated at a higher level (squadron or group) rather than trying to replicate a full staff structure all the way down the line).
2) Part of our marketing problem, as well as getting us known to county sheriffs, state agencies and so forth is the problem of time -- most organizations our size would have at least a small professional staff (4-6 people) dedicated to these matters at the state, if not county (CAP group) level. Most of our full time personnel are centralized at Maxwell, and our trend in recent years has been to reduce paid people at the wing and region levels, not enhance staffing.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 30, 2013, 07:13:53 PM1) if we initiate lower/more localized command echelons, these should be "tactical" in nature...focused on activity, training cadet and seniors, mission readiness and participation. The administrative nightmares should be consolidated at a higher level (squadron or group) rather than trying to replicate a full staff structure all the way down the line).
I agree - this would be one way that we could significantly cut down on the check-box nonsense of the SUIs. Drop real echelons to the Group at the lowest, or maybe even just a single CI in each wing.
The results would essentially the same, or perhaps even better - as a wing staffer, I'd be a lot more invested in the local unit operations if the total inspection depended on it,
instead of treating every echelon like an island.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 30, 2013, 07:26:48 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 30, 2013, 07:13:53 PM1) if we initiate lower/more localized command echelons, these should be "tactical" in nature...focused on activity, training cadet and seniors, mission readiness and participation. The administrative nightmares should be consolidated at a higher level (squadron or group) rather than trying to replicate a full staff structure all the way down the line).
I agree - this would be one way that we could significantly cut down on the check-box nonsense of the SUIs. Drop real echelons to the Group at the lowest, or maybe even just a single CI in each wing.
The results would essentially the same, or perhaps even better - as a wing staffer, I'd be a lot more invested in the local unit operations if the total inspection depended on it,
instead of treating every echelon like an island.
I agree as well. In the Air Force, Numbered Air Forces (NAF) and Groups fit that criteria, as they both have minimum staff. Because of the nature and geographical area of our current organization, I believe some of the admin, finance, legal, PA, and such functions should be consolidated at the Group level so that the squadrons can focus on operations, training and readiness.
Didn't CAP just get budget cuts though? Even if this idea worked, where would we get the funds? Obviously we would have more members which means we would need more money....... So I just don't see this happening.
The IDEAL (not perfect) wing?
Utah, of course.