The Ideal Wing.

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[Storm Chaser]

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.

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

MNWG 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.

[lordmonar]

Yep......those things would have to be addressed......but even more money for O-rides and Uniforms would be a drop in the bucket.

[FW]

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...

[Eclipse]

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...

Sadly I have to agree.

[lordmonar]

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...

Sadly I have to agree.

As do I.

[RiverAux]

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).

[Eclipse]

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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

[FW]

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...

[lordmonar]

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.

[arajca]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[mwewing]

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.

[ZigZag911]

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.

[Eclipse]

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).

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.

[Storm Chaser]

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).

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.