Is CAP under funded and Over tasked?

[Earhart1971]

Last night had a conversation on the phone with another poster on this site, we came, to similar conclusions on some issues.

And we discussed CAP Budget and funding and mission expansion, my position is we are severely underfunded.

We discussed: The funding for CAP and the cost of membership, including the true  cost of participation by members, IE.,  taking time off regular work.

Is it time for CAP to have paid full time positions down to Squadron level, not just at National HQ?

Should we become like the National Guard (as in paid per diems, paid training and  points for retirement) in structure and pay?

In CAP are we too quick to accept new equipment and new missions, and failing to ask for additional operational funding?

Is Mission creep causing organizational stress from being over tasked, and under funded?

Are we Burning out membership, with cost, compliance issues, and slow reimbursements?

Are we supporting CAP missions out of membership wallets?

Could this be the cause of our severe turnover in membership?

Are these enough leading questions?

Any comments?

[mikeylikey]

The very first thing we need and have needed since TP took over is a mission statement that represents where he wants the organization to go in the near future.  Then we can get other stuff lined up under one single vision. 

I seriously doubt there will ever be any non-corporate paid employees. 

The whole structure needs to be shaken up and a lot of the "corporate" needs to disappear.  We need AF help and the higher ups should start asking for it. 

The CAP-USAF liaisons need to start doing a whole lot more for our tax dollars that they are collecting.  I am sure some will say "my State Director is awesome and does alot", but look at what more they did 10 years ago.

We need to set priorities straight, we are either working for the FEDS or we are not.  It is going to burn CAP in a couple of years if we don't find our place in the government.

The Aircraft need to be redistributed not by Wing or region commanders but by committee that look at unit numbers, location, pilots and commitment.  Stop using planes and vans as rewards or favors.

The "fun schools" (like HAWK) need to be revamped to make the curriculum more relevant to what CAP will be doing in the next five years (theres that vision thing again!)  When was the last time you had to let a rabbit go, catch it and eat it like  they do at Hawk MTN.  I looked at the numbers, from what CAP appropriates to HAWK MTN, each rabbit released on the Mountain cost the membership an average of $27.50.  Kind of an expensive meal if you ask me.

We need to start flying Cadets MORE.  Pilots should be flying, if they are not flying, whats the reason?  If they just don't want to, then I say get rid of them!

The supply and logistics at NHQ need overhauled.  There is no reason major equipment should not be coming more frequently from Maxwell and the Liaison Regions.  They also need to implement a policy of using equipment in a specific time period or being forced to return it to sender.  Too often equipment just sits around unused!

Each Wing needs a permanent Wing Headquarters that is quaranteed not to move when the next Wing Commander is randomly picked. 

Get the pre-cadet program out of the middle and grade schools.  Why are we using money to support cadets, that are not cadets?  The estimated return on that investment is only 5 out of every 100 will continue to be a CAP cadet when they turn 12 or 13. 

I will stop my rant here!

[RiverAux]

I think CAP has made significant changes in this area recently.  Look at all the new corporate paid employees out in the Wings.  Look at the millions spent on new comm equipment, which actually has flowed down to the squadron level.  We don't need paid crews on standby or anything like that. 

As to taskings, if anything we are probably under-tasked.  There are many, many Wings out there that barely get enough SAR/DR missions to justify their equipment.  The large population coastal states with large numbers of ELT/EPIRB missions are in their own category as to taskings, but most CAP wings don't have enough to do as far as missions

[O-Rex]

Is CAP underfunded?  That's a rhetorical question: how much is enough?

It's like asking "Could you use a little more money?"

USAF funding is fixed for the year-
That's were the "corporate side" comes in: lobby, lobby, lobby.  Donations, donations, donations......

Is CAP overtasked?   Alas, we should be so lucky. . . .

$27.50 for a live rabbit?  I can get one cooked, with a baked potato, cole-slaw and refills of iced tea for half that (and on Tuesday, kids eat free!)

Better yet, two rabbits for $40, and in a few months, you can feed your whole wing 

[fyrfitrmedic]

27.50 per rabbit?

Where specifically is that number coming from?

[TankerT]

27.50 per rabbit?

Where specifically is that number coming from?

www.buymyrabbits.com

/not a real site
//got nothing

[mikeylikey]

27.50 per rabbit?

Where specifically is that number coming from?

All in the HMRS budget submitted to PAWG.  Call the Wing if you don't believe me and get a copy for yourself!  You will be pleasantly surprised how much is flowing to that mountain.

[Earhart1971]

The very first thing we need and have needed since TP took over is a mission statement that represents where he wants the organization to go in the near future.  Then we can get other stuff lined up under one single vision. 

I seriously doubt there will ever be any non-corporate paid employees. 

The whole structure needs to be shaken up and a lot of the "corporate" needs to disappear.  We need AF help and the higher ups should start asking for it. 

The CAP-USAF liaisons need to start doing a whole lot more for our tax dollars that they are collecting.  I am sure some will say "my State Director is awesome and does alot", but look at what more they did 10 years ago.

We need to set priorities straight, we are either working for the FEDS or we are not.  It is going to burn CAP in a couple of years if we don't find our place in the government.

The Aircraft need to be redistributed not by Wing or region commanders but by committee that look at unit numbers, location, pilots and commitment.  Stop using planes and vans as rewards or favors.

The "fun schools" (like HAWK) need to be revamped to make the curriculum more relevant to what CAP will be doing in the next five years (theres that vision thing again!)  When was the last time you had to let a rabbit go, catch it and eat it like  they do at Hawk MTN.  I looked at the numbers, from what CAP appropriates to HAWK MTN, each rabbit released on the Mountain cost the membership an average of $27.50.  Kind of an expensive meal if you ask me.

We need to start flying Cadets MORE.  Pilots should be flying, if they are not flying, whats the reason?  If they just don't want to, then I say get rid of them!

The supply and logistics at NHQ need overhauled.  There is no reason major equipment should not be coming more frequently from Maxwell and the Liaison Regions.  They also need to implement a policy of using equipment in a specific time period or being forced to return it to sender.  Too often equipment just sits around unused!

Each Wing needs a permanent Wing Headquarters that is quaranteed not to move when the next Wing Commander is randomly picked. 

Get the pre-cadet program out of the middle and grade schools.  Why are we using money to support cadets, that are not cadets?  The estimated return on that investment is only 5 out of every 100 will continue to be a CAP cadet when they turn 12 or 13. 

I will stop my rant here!

That rant was pretty good.

My thinking was raise the level of professionalism, also at the same time, stop having to dip into the personal wallets to support  our many missions.

We are at War to boot, and this War is going to be a lot longer, than WWII.

Yeah, lady you want me to train your kid, get him in the Air Force Academy, I can do that, but get Uncle Sugar to step up a little, yes we want some pork for a program that works!

And my number one gripe, the stupidity of accepting more mission taskings, and getting tons of new equipment, and continuing to operate stripped to the bone, with no real operations budget.

Lets elevate CAP to a National Guard like organization, with more funding.

Or else let's collaspe the organization and start fresh, with a realistic funding of a new organization.

There are plenty of failed programs in Washington, to fund a REAL Budget for CAP.

[SAR-EMT1]

Mikey the rant was excellent.
If I could "DREAM"  I would want want CAP to have a more guard/reserve like atmosphere within the USAF community. Better IDs, the ability for members to augment AF personnel on base. (and I mean the -Senior- Membership as a whole, not just Chaplains and other specialists)  more funding for missions, equipment and possibly perdiem for AFAMs. We'd loose the INC  part of our title and be the full time United States Air Force Auxiliary. HOWEVER. I would only accept such actions from the DoD IF we as a collective membership can get more in line with the "Air Force way" and rid of the idea that we are a private corporation and that Uncle Sam cant tell us jack. We'd need better accountability, better professionalism, and a firm loyalty to the principles of our founding: Serving our Community States and Nation through acts of Civil Defense Air Ed, and (Cadets).


Some might say, Im "trying to play Air Force" well, yeah in a way you can say that. Im in the Coast Guard Auxiliary. And I can augment stations and have more respect from the AD Coast Guard for who I am and what I can contribute to the total force then I ever have in CAP. I want to see the USAF- Aux brought up to the level that the Coast Guard Aux has.

[swilliams]

Of course

[Earhart1971]

Mikey the rant was excellent.
If I could "DREAM"  I would want want CAP to have a more guard/reserve like atmosphere within the USAF community. Better IDs, the ability for members to augment AF personnel on base. (and I mean the -Senior- Membership as a whole, not just Chaplains and other specialists)  more funding for missions, equipment and possibly perdiem for AFAMs. We'd loose the INC  part of our title and be the full time United States Air Force Auxiliary. HOWEVER. I would only accept such actions from the DoD IF we as a collective membership can get more in line with the "Air Force way" and rid of the idea that we are a private corporation and that Uncle Sam cant tell us jack. We'd need better accountability, better professionalism, and a firm loyalty to the principles of our founding: Serving our Community States and Nation through acts of Civil Defense Air Ed, and (Cadets).


Some might say, Im "trying to play Air Force" well, yeah in a way you can say that. Im in the Coast Guard Auxiliary. And I can augment stations and have more respect from the AD Coast Guard for who I am and what I can contribute to the total force then I ever have in CAP. I want to see the USAF- Aux brought up to the level that the Coast Guard Aux has.

Actually, you, me, and Mikelikey are on the same page.

I believe that CAP should move towards a direction that increases our role of support, and just getting realistic on our funding and Budget, and not being required to operate on peanuts. 


Sooner or later I hope a CAP Leader will emerge that has a vision, and can get past all the "we have always done it this way" people both in CAP and the USAF.

CAP could have a greater role, larger membership, and the country would reap the benefits.

[Earhart1971]

https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FMB/pb/2007/afoandm_3400/AF3400_FY07_PB_OM_Vol%201.pdf

This link provides the current Budget for CAP FY 07.

We are on Page 781.

After reading 781, go to page 629 and read how the Air Force funds just a Cadet Program.

[Dragoon]

The obvious metric of whether we are underfunded and overtasked would be....are we failing at accomplishing the missions USAF asks of us?


I think the answer is no.  I'm not sure - for all I know MG Pineda gets daily nastygrams from AFRCC about how slow we are to respond to SAR requests, or from AETC wondering why more CAP cadets aren't joining the air force.

But my guess is, USAF is not complaining about our ability to get done what they truly want done.  So, from that point of view, we are not underfunded nor overtasked.

I think we internally overtask ourselves by taking on missions that, truly, USAF doesn't care much about.  For example, external AE - if we completely stopped that program, would USAF complain?

Now, those with vision for the organization can make the case that we could do a lot MORE with MORE money, and they'd be right.

But does USAF want us to do more?  Have they asked for something and had us tell them "sorry, can't do it?"

[Earhart1971]

The obvious metric of whether we are underfunded and overtasked would be....are we failing at accomplishing the missions USAF asks of us?

No thats not the question, we could probably operate at a certain level, cut down to 5 million a year budget, since none of the local units get direct funding.

We are member financed, and that is why we have flat numbers.

Just like survival on just intake of water for a certain period of time.

[Dragoon]

"Survival on water" is temporary - you begin to lose energy, ability to concentrate....even though you're surviving you're finding it harder and harder to function.


I'm not sure that's true with CAP.  As far as USAF (the guys paying the bills) are concerned, we continue to function at a satisfactory level.  ELTs being turned off on time, adequate resources availabel for SAR missions, and acceptable number of new enlistees, etc.

If we were "surviving on water", you'd see us starting to fail in our ability to meet USAF missions.  And as far as I can tell, that ain't the case.

In the fedearl budget world, as long as you are accomplishing the mission, you don't need more money.  It's a simplistic view, but  pretty universally held by the green eyeshade types.

Now, if you EXPAND the mission, you can then claim inadequate funding.  But so far, USAF isn't asking any more of us.  And they seem to be happy with the results they get for their money.  Why would they pay us any more?


Now don't get me wrong - I would like us to get more money.  But making the case for it is hard.

For example, let's say lack of adequate funding IS the cause or our high turnover.

Does the Air Force care?

Why should they?

They give us X dollars to get Y done.  And as long as we're gettting Y done, why should they care at all about our high turnover?   As long as we have enough folks to get the job done, they're going to be happy.

And any additional dollar they give us means less money to buy spare parts, ammunitiona and fuel.  Being connected to USAF means competing for dollars with all other USAF needs.

[Earhart1971]

"Survival on water" is temporary - you begin to lose energy, ability to concentrate....even though you're surviving you're finding it harder and harder to function.


I'm not sure that's true with CAP.  As far as USAF (the guys paying the bills) are concerned, we continue to function at a satisfactory level.  ELTs being turned off on time, adequate resources available for SAR missions, and acceptable number of new enlistees, etc.

If we were "surviving on water", you'd see us starting to fail in our ability to meet USAF missions.  And as far as I can tell, that ain't the case.

In the fedearl budget world, as long as you are accomplishing the mission, you don't need more money.  It's a simplistic view, but  pretty universally held by the green eyeshade types.

Now, if you EXPAND the mission, you can then claim inadequate funding.  But so far, USAF isn't asking any more of us.  And they seem to be happy with the results they get for their money.  Why would they pay us any more?


Now don't get me wrong - I would like us to get more money.  But making the case for it is hard.

For example, let's say lack of adequate funding IS the cause or our high turnover.

Does the Air Force care?

Hard to make the case for funding?

My question would be how can a National Program with 50,000 to 60,000 members operate anything on 21 million dollars annual budget?

My answer is it cannot, and when membership realizes they cannot afford it, they leave.


I don't believe we should leave it, completely up to the Air Force, to decide our fate, we should go direct to Congress, budgeting is a political process we need to participate in.

I do think inadequate funding is causing high turnover.

And if you look at the Air Force Budget, they have assigned a one mission program AFJROTC 60 million dollars for the coming year. They have a fully funded program.

The Air Force has  cut CAP Funding to 21 million this year.

Our missions are SAR, HLS, Aerospace Education, and a Cadet Program.

Now if you had a kid interested in the Air Force or the military, knowing nothing about the two programs CAP  or AFJROTC.

Which would you have your kid join? CAP and pay $300 for startup, uniforms, dues, and necessary equipment?

Or AFJROTC, free uniforms, no dues, free books, no startup cost, paid instructors and classroom credit.

Civil Air Patrol can actually help AFROTC increase its ranks, by the Air Force or the Dept of Education funding of the Civil Air Patrol Middle School Program, my opinion is they should fund that program and help AFJROTC in the process.

And the Air Force is clearly ripping our heads off on the SAR/HLS side of our mission, flight operations $100 per hour is a ridiculous bargain basement rate of reimbursement.

[Dragoon]

Hard to make the case for funding?

My question would be how can a National Program with 50,000 to 60,000 members operate anything on 21 million dollars annual budget?

My answer is it cannot, and when membership realizes they cannot afford it, they leave.

Ahh...but our program DOES operate.  It does everything USAF wants us to do.

USAF doesn't care that we have 50,000 members.  They also don't care how many members leave.  They only are that we have enough members to accomplish the missions.  Which we obviously do.  If we didn't, they'd let us know.



Why pay more than you need to for anything?

Heck, as a taxpayer, I don't want Congress to spend one more penny on anything than is absolutely neccessary to get the job done.  Any more than that is just pork.

(and it hurts to say that, because I'd love CAP to pay for my uniforms, IFR training, etc.)

[Earhart1971]

Hard to make the case for funding?

My question would be how can a National Program with 50,000 to 60,000 members operate anything on 21 million dollars annual budget?

My answer is it cannot, and when membership realizes they cannot afford it, they leave.

Ahh...but our program DOES operate.  It does everything USAF wants us to do.

I have the highest confidence that we could operate with less money and no increases, and our organization would make the adjustment, for a time.

Your view point is the exact view I would expect from the Air Force or any active duty military person. 

We can sell the Air Force or give them a chance to be sold, and then move on to Congress. 

Speaking of pork, I can find wasteful spending in a budget, most of it probably would come out of the Dept of Education.

[Dragoon]

. 

We can sell the Air Force or give them a chance to be sold, and then move on to Congress. 

Speaking of pork, I can find wasteful spending in a budget, most of it probably would come out of the Dept of Education.

But doesn't it bother you to ask Congress to make the Air Force give up some spare parts and ammo just so we can have some bennies?   Especially when that additional money isn't needed for us to accomplish our missions?  This may be exactly how the stuff in Dept of Ed that you don't like got there.  You wanna be like them and make the problem worse?


The key to increasing our budget is to show USAF what benefit the money would give - and not a benefit to CAP members, but a benefit to USAF.  You have to convince our customer that if we had more money, we could do more stuff that they really need done.

[ddelaney103]

I think there should be a big sign in every CAP office from the CC on down that says:

IT'S THE MISSION, STUPID!

Look at this from the AF standpoint.  They have this black box labeled "Civil Air Patrol."  They throw money into it at the start of every year and then submit requests: chasing ELT's, working the odd disaster and giving them a few young men and women every year who want to join Big Blue.  AFRCC's happy, AFNSP's happy, AETC's happy - everyone's good to go.  As long as the output (missions and accessions) meets their needs, the AF really doesn't care what goes on in the box.

Now, there are two ways to change the equation.  Either the AF decides they want different outputs or we convince them that we can meet an unmet need they have and it's worth their money to pay for it.  The important thing is that it's output driven.  Telling them more money will mean a better functioning box (happier auxie's, lower turnover) won't sway them because the box is working just fine as is.

This is the nature of contractors, and we are contractors as far as the AF is concerned - otherwise we wouldn't have a Statement of Work (SOW) as our operating document.  Either they want something enough to alter the arrangement, or they don't.

Our current stressor is that we have a lot of unused capability (aircraft, equipment and personnel) and a few other orgs that would be happy to make use use of it.  Also, we have a membership driven to assist others.  This dovetailing s hampered by the AF's belief that you dance with the one who ponies up for the aircraft and equipment.  Resolve that and you've got it made.