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.

[Earhart1971]

I think it would help the discussion on this thread to read the "CAP and Air Force Budget" Thread too. Currently 5 down from the top in the lobby section.

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1505.20

Some lively discussions along this subject.

[RogueLeader]

Even if USAF doesn't,or wouldn't care if we stopped External AE, that doesn't mean that we could. According to my understanding of CAP Charter, we are required of preforming that activity.

[Dragoon]

Even if USAF doesn't,or wouldn't care if we stopped External AE, that doesn't mean that we could. According to my understanding of CAP Charter, we are required of preforming that activity.

AE is in the law and the SOW, probably because we, though our lobbying effort,  put it there.

But it has no particular performance standards.  We have to do SOMETHING, but we don't neccesarily have to do much.  And truthfully, how much do we do anyway?  Most units have no external AE program at all, and CAP just gave up ownership of NCASE.


But this brings up a very good point - what exactly are the current performance standards CAP is measured against? 

I just read the statement of work, and to summarize, CAP is tasked to:

1.  Do SAR/DR - but there's no mention of a requirement to do any particular amount of SAR/DR, or to have any minimum response times or truthfully anything measurable.

2.  Radio Nets - but this is optional.  We are "encouraged" but not required to maintain nationwide comms networks.

3.  Do Other Missions (they mentioin damage assessment, photo recon, filling sandbags, light airlift, etc) for USAF, DoD and civil authorities, but again, there are no requirements to perform any amount of it, or meet a certain standards.  Same for DDR, support to law enforcement, etc.  We CAN, but we aren't required to do any given amount.

4.  Prepare and execute a CD flying plan - no details on what the minimum amount of CD support is, but we are tasked to prepare, submit and exectute a plan AND get feedback from customers on how well we're doing.

5.  Cadet Program - we have to have one.  It doesn't have to be of any minimum size, nor do we have to provide X number of USAF recruits or anything else measurable.  We just have to have one, and it must contain certain components (like AE and leadership)

6.  IACE - we have to do it.

7.  AE - up front it says we are "encouraged" to have one.  But there are a few "semi-hard and fast tasks in here

        a.  Make it part of the cadet progam

        b.  Continue to support conferences and produce materials and maintain AE networks within the schools (no metrics on what materials, or how many schools or anything measurable)

8.  Chaplains Service - have to have one, needs to be modeled on USAF standards.


Then we have our specified support tasks

1.  Maintain a safe, airworthy  and ready aircraft fleet

2.  Protect and account for any property, materiel, services or funds anyone gives us.

3.  Provide certain financial data to support the budget and justify the execution of funds

4.  Have a functioning IG, compaints program, and a unit inspection program that meets certain standards

5.  Report safety incidents accidents according to certain procedures.

6.  Have a viable Flight Operations system (checkrides, pilot data, qualifications, etc) Report failed checkrides to USAF.

7.  Have a strategic plan to address future resource needs to the BOG


As far as I can tell, this is what we have to do.  Now some analysis

It,s going to be very hard for us to FAIL at our operational taskings.  Because there are few if any performance criteria.  We do what we can and we only get reimbursed for what we do.

It would be much easier for us to fail in our support (housekeeping) tasks.  Those are spelled out better, and have more way to screw up.


So, if we want more money given the current statement of work, it would be best to tie it to the support tasks.  Point out areas where our "housekeeping" isn't all that good, and how more funds would help.

If we want more money for ops tasks, it's going to be hard to justify, as we can't tie more money to anything measurable.


What I think, based on this, is that we need to enter into a new Statement of Work with USAF that holds us to some standard of operational performance.  That way we get graded on how well we do, and can use that to help justify additional funds to help us do better.

[Earhart1971]

More money is justifiable under the School Programs.

And its not going to solve, the operational missions, necessarily.
What I envision with, a professionally taught in school program is a pool of large units. Paid professional infrastructure, units that are larger, and active in support of disasters, and SAR, other things in the non school hours.

100 Man Units would be around, with support Seniors.

Would Seniors be more active, if the meeting night had about 4 Flights of Cadets to deal with?

Take those units and let them work, jobs at bases for say one week deployments.

I would not take 12 years olds out of school, but a 15 year old Cadet, with encampment out of the way, and a few stripes, thats a kid that will have his self esteem rocketed to the moon, working some intern job shadowing on a Military Base .

Base Civil Engineers, maybe some Flight Line, Base Ops, riding shotgun in the runway vacuum truck.

And I have talked to school principles whose eyes get wide with true enjoyment of the idea. Yes, take the kids out of school for a week, its educational, and they would have the time of their lives.

[SAR-EMT1]

More money is justifiable under the School Programs.

And its not going to solve, the operational missions, necessarily.
What I envision with, a professionally taught in school program is a pool of large units. Paid professional infrastructure, units that are larger, and active in support of disasters, and SAR, other things in the non school hours.

100 Man Units would be around, with support Seniors.

Would Seniors be more active, if the meeting night had about 4 Flights of Cadets to deal with?

Take those units and let them work, jobs at bases for say one week deployments.

I would not take 12 years olds out of school, but a 15 year old Cadet, with encampment out of the way, and a few stripes, thats a kid that will have his self esteem rocketed to the moon, working some intern job shadowing on a Military Base .

Base Civil Engineers, maybe some Flight Line, Base Ops, riding shotgun in the runway vacuum truck.

And I have talked to school principles whose eyes get wide with true enjoyment of the idea. Yes, take the kids out of school for a week, its educational, and they would have the time of their lives.

And yet, you talk about any activity like that at a College and the the Liberals come out of the woodwork like the roachers they are. 

[Dragoon]

More money is justifiable under the School Programs.

And its not going to solve, the operational missions, necessarily.
What I envision with, a professionally taught in school program is a pool of large units. Paid professional infrastructure, units that are larger, and active in support of disasters, and SAR, other things in the non school hours.

100 Man Units would be around, with support Seniors.

Would Seniors be more active, if the meeting night had about 4 Flights of Cadets to deal with?

Take those units and let them work, jobs at bases for say one week deployments.

I would not take 12 years olds out of school, but a 15 year old Cadet, with encampment out of the way, and a few stripes, thats a kid that will have his self esteem rocketed to the moon, working some intern job shadowing on a Military Base .

Base Civil Engineers, maybe some Flight Line, Base Ops, riding shotgun in the runway vacuum truck.

And I have talked to school principles whose eyes get wide with true enjoyment of the idea. Yes, take the kids out of school for a week, its educational, and they would have the time of their lives.

I'm sure school priniciples are happy to let USAF pay for field trips, and provide paid instructors to their schools for free.

But can you convince USAF that such a program brings them enough benefit to add it to the Statement of Work?  Remember, they've already got JROTC - why would they compete with themselves?

[Earhart1971]

The question is could the Air Force be sold on the Middle School Program and fund it?

I think the Air Force can understand the concept, if the right people were in front of the Air Force, and I think they would understand, if we graduate cadets from middle school to a HS AFROTC program, both programs benefit.

Then we ask, what level of funding you want to start with between 1 and 5 million?

If not we go to the Education people with the Grant money, and get a focused Grant just for CAP MSP.

Being on the inside, we might lose sight of how great the CAP Cadet Program is.

The CAP Cadet Program is equal to no other program, and getting kids at age 12 or 13, makes a big difference, than getting them at 15 or 16.

AFROTC is not THE cadet program, its missing the bulk of the CAP designed integrated total cadet program.

The Air Force watered it down, and left things out, and they have no volunteers or Airplanes, no special activities.

When a CAP cadet passes through AFROTC, they know it, they also know it when a CAP goes through the Academy.

We generally drop jaws where ever a Mitchell Award Cadet shows up, and participates in AFROTC.

But the total plan goes beyond the Cadet program.

CAP needs to elevated, to the level of National Guard or Reserve status.

The government is already searching for augmentation of the force, we can be the answer to a lot of that.

But the quickest way to 100,000 members is the large 100 to 200 Cadet/Seniors School Unit.

No sir, that's not a picture of an encampment formation, thats our Squadron meeting night!

[DNall]

I think the answer in genreal is no, the AF is not interested in a middle school program. Such a program may give kids a basis in AE before going on to another service's JROTC program, and that may ultimately bring them back to AF after they graduate or not. The CAP program may or may not feed JROTC units. It's NEVER in my experience been considered a competitor, just based on scale.

The objective of AFJROTC is to get people to go on in the AF - okay I know citizenship & some other crap, that's why the schools are involved, but AF spends penny one cause they get equal or greater return out of it. Still the great majority of that cost is borne by schools. What AF puts in is meager (the dif between teacher salary & what the instructor would be making on active duty, books, some supplies, etc)... the actual contribution per cadet is miniscule, and they're getting their return out of that. Both in that they supply a number of enlistees for the money & beacuse they get a larger percentage thru the program. Our performance is not so good & it's not due to lack of money, but programs spread too thin w/ low quality instructors.

Overall to the AF, getting kids at 12-13, before they get interested in cars/girls & drop off the face of the panet, is MUCH less important than getting kids at 15-16 & holding their interest a couple years till they can ship. That's the key.

Now, what you have to understand here, is they don't want CAP to be an AFJROTC like program. They got one of those already & the curriculum is suprisingly similiar for a reason. They want CAP to fill the gaps where JROTC can't go. That is for private school, home school, & small town kids. For the kids that are too busy playing sports & taking physics to take a blow off class like JROTC or spend the extra curricular time to be successful. hell, it's really hard to do all the things you need to get into the academy while playing at JROTC too. Not so bad if it's one night a week & maybe a wknd a month, that's doable.

The AF isn't going to fund our cadet program like they do theirs cause they don't need to. Yeah look an extra grand or two down to teh actual units for insignia & stuff like decent guidons & color guard gear would be nice, better support on uniforms would be nice. A computer projector & some some thumb drives would be nice. A basic office budget would be nice. I don't need 2grand a cadet though. If I went to full-time instructors rather than volunteers then I'd need more money, if I taught a full-time school program rather than volunteering on nights & wknds then I'd need more money, but that's not what we do & not what they need us doing. So they aren't going to pay for it.

If you want to talk about CPA getting more money, & we do need more, then that argument lies in ES/non-combat missions of the AF. That and reducing the administrative load at the tacitcal local unit level.

[Earhart1971]

DNall,

I skimmed your last post.

AFROTC is not in Middle Schools.

Not necessarilly going to hold my breath depending on Air Force Funding but the right pitch, the right people making the pitch, and there are some CAP Cadets in the hierarchy in the Air Force.

But I could sell the Air Force on it, I might even talk to your buddy on it first.

Ok, back to Middle Schools.

I can get private funding, but I prefer a National Launch.

There is a Federal Branch with a failed program that would bost us up, hey, risk 1 million for Gawds sake!

AFROTC is committed to High Schools, and it tougher to recruit cadets in High Schools, cars, extra curricular, sports and stuff, and a 16 year old is just about too old to start CAP.

Middle Schools are wide open, with limited electives like, art and chorus.

Plus, I would rather have a 12 year old to 14 year Old to work with.

Get them young, get them excited and they stay a CAP Cadet thru College.

CAP is the Strongest Cadet Program, its also a very fraternal organization.

CAP is moving that way slowly to the Middle Schools, although the funding is not straight forward.

Florida has about a half dozen or so programs now.

You think your buddy TD would have some insight?

[Guardrail]

AFROTC is committed to High Schools, and it tougher to recruit cadets in High Schools, cars, extra curricular, sports and stuff, and a 16 year old is just about too old to start CAP.

Actually, AFROTC is committed to colleges/universities.  AFJROTC is committed to high schools. 

Yes, I agree it is tougher to recruit high schoolers into the CAP cadet program, but I wouldn't say that 16 is too old to start the Cadet Program. 

CAP is the Strongest Cadet Program, its also a very fraternal organization.

No, the CAP Cadet Program is not a very fraternal organization at all.  Knights of Columbus is a fraternal organization. 

Fraternal means you're permitted to join because a parent was a member. 

[Earhart1971]

AFROTC in GENERAL, both AFJROTC and yada yada, don't get technicial with me this time of night, tired from the days work.

Same with Fraternal.

I mean, I keep in touch with my fellow cadets and buddies from Squadrons past.

[DNall]

But I could sell the Air Force on it, I might even talk to your buddy on it first.

You think your buddy would have some insight?

Good luck. Nobody cares what a former congressman thinks, even a connected one. I've tried & I know he'd spend a lot more money on CAP if it was there to get & could be justified.

There might be a hundred failed programs in the federal budget, but every one of them is someone's pet, and ever congressman pours over the budget looking for things to cut to fund his own pet projects. Fact is CAP is so spread out around the country & in such small numbers that it really doesn't matter what we think cause there's not enough of us to sway an election.

Far as the money, it isn't for free, they expect something in return & thet's meassured in terms of AF recruits. You know AF has the lowest recruiting budget, why you think that is? You know they get the most tech savey recruits that all the services would kill for. The AF is doing great right now on what they already give us. They're going to look at it as a margin of deminishing returns, both as you work with the younger range of cadets & when you invest further in to cadet programs beyond what you're already getting from AFJROTC, and they have to keep up JROTC in competition with the other services.

[Earhart1971]

But I could sell the Air Force on it, I might even talk to your buddy on it first.

You think your buddy would have some insight?

I've tried & I know he'd spend a lot more money on CAP if it was there to get & could be justified.

Fact is CAP is so spread out around the country & in such small numbers that it really doesn't matter what we think cause there's not enough of us to sway an election.

Yes, it the small numbers in CAP that needs to be corrected.

[Guardrail]

AFROTC in GENERAL, both AFJROTC and yada yada, don't get technicial with me this time of night, tired from the days work.

Same with Fraternal.

I mean, I keep in touch with my fellow cadets and buddies from Squadrons past.

Okay.  Sorry about that. 

[Guardrail]

I just found out something interesting...

Civil Air Patrol gets $9.5 Million
By News of the Force

"The Civil Air Patrol, Inc., Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., is being awarded a $9,502,000 cooperative agreement contract. This modification will increase funding for FY 2007 Civil Air Patrol operations and maintenance and counter-drug activities, drug demand reduction and Air Force liaison office space and support as authorized by and 10 USC 9442(b), 10 USC 9444(a) and (b) and the FY2007 DoD Appropriations Act, Section 8022.

At this time, total funds have been obligated. This work will be complete in September 2007.
The 42nd Air Base Wing, Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., is the contracting activity."

Has anyone else heard about this?

[Earhart1971]

I just found out something interesting...

Civil Air Patrol gets $9.5 Million
By News of the Force

"The Civil Air Patrol, Inc., Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., is being awarded a $9,502,000 cooperative agreement contract. This modification will increase funding for FY 2007 Civil Air Patrol operations and maintenance and counter-drug activities, drug demand reduction and Air Force liaison office space and support as authorized by and 10 USC 9442(b), 10 USC 9444(a) and (b) and the FY2007 DoD Appropriations Act, Section 8022.

At this time, total funds have been obligated. This work will be complete in September 2007.
The 42nd Air Base Wing, Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., is the contracting activity."

Has anyone else heard about this?

That is a very interesting development.

O and M funds are what CAP needs.