Where is the annual financial report?

[RiverAux]

Okay, it has almost been 7 months since the end of CAP's last fiscal year and the 2009 financial report has yet to be released?  Whats the deal?   I know you need a little time to get all the paperwork in order and to make it all look pretty, but this is ridiculous. 

[Pylon]

It is not ridiculous.   The last non-profit I worked for had a Jan-Jan fiscal year, and our financial report wasn't usually published until August or September of the following year.   It's not simply a matter of clicking "Export" in Quicken.   What often takes the most time is the external audit.  The financial data is not released until a full audit is completed and the results are reported.  It can take weeks or months for the final audit report alone, notwithstanding the collection, preparation, and analysis of the actual financial data in the first place.  Then give the PR folks a couple of weeks to compile the final data into pretty charts, write narrative and explanations where necessary, design, edit, and get approved the public version of the report.  You can quickly see why it's not as simple as just getting some "paperwork in order".

Don't spout off about things being "ridiculous" when you don't have a frame of reference on whether it's really out of the norm or not.

[RiverAux]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. 

[Pylon]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Do you know how long a full financial audit takes for a multi-million dollar operation with assets/expenses/income in all fifty states and abroad?  Do you know what's involved?

[RADIOMAN015]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Do you know how long a full financial audit takes for a multi-million dollar operation with assets/expenses/income in all fifty states and abroad?  Do you know what's involved?

Yea large national CPA firms have the capability to hit every sample location, sometimes on the same day and get all that sampling info out of the way quickly and back to the managing partner.  This isn't rock science accounting, it's just sampling!!!!

Not sure how that local Montgomery AL CPA firm that CAP contracts with does the off site far away sampling locations.  It might be possible for them to use some small contract CPA firms in those distant sampling locations, or they could be traveling to those sampling locations.  Of course the way professional accounting works, you are paying them travel/per diem etc to send those junior auditors out to those remote sites.    Seems like 4, maybe 5 months would be enough time after the end of the fiscal year to get it done. 

Surely, the paid professional staff at Nat Hq would have put in a contract requirement that the audit/financial statement opinion be completed by a specific date
RM

[RiverAux]

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Do you know how long a full financial audit takes for a multi-million dollar operation with assets/expenses/income in all fifty states and abroad?  Do you know what's involved?

How about this?
Well, if the Red Cross can get their report out in a reasonable period of time, why can't we?

They ended their last fiscal year on June 30, 2009 and the auditor had their report back to them by October 30, 2009.  By my count the gap between fiscal year end and auditors report was 4 months for an organization that is orders of magnitude bigger and more complex than CAP.

[heliodoc]

I agree about the ARC

What's CAP's excuse? 

ARC.......more serious DR missions than CAP and approx 4 months to gey theirs done....

CAP really needs some time management skills...just think with all that energy for NB meetings....you'd think they'd vote on gettin' something done on time!!

[lordmonar]

I love it when the same people who complain that NHQ can't do something simple like produce a coherent uniform regulation are also amazed when they fail to produce a financial report "in a timely manner"!

[Pylon]

I agree about the ARC

What's CAP's excuse?

Did we all forget about the NHQ staffing cuts in the past few years, too?  You can "agree about the ARC" all you want, but the truth is they have more funding for administration, more staffing, and more resources to pull this together.   CAP NHQ barely has enough funding to keep itself afloat, it would seem, at times.

Since our organization produces 99% of its work from volunteers, if you want more work churned out of NHQ in a timely manner, step up to the plate and volunteer your time.  If you want an updated CAPM 39-1, step up to the plate and put one together and send it up the chain, or seek some fellow volunteers to help out.   If you want PSAs to share with your local radio station, someone is going to have to step up to the plate and make them ourselves.  The truth is that we're a volunteer organization, run on what is --for our size-- a shoestring budget, and if things are to really get done fast and well, it'll be the volunteers who will have to do it.

[RRLE]

And FWIW and your least favorite analogy - the just posted and latest and greatest USCG Auxiliar report, which is just a copy of their 990 tax form, is for 2007. So CAP may be late but it isn't That Late. 

[FW]

The financial report usually is presented to the Board of Governors in June (if I remember correctly). The audit process is usually done by the end of March and, their (the auditors) report to CAP is presented in April. It will take a few weeks to respond to any findings and then, publish them.  Things are probably on schedule.

[Pylon]

And as noted above, if you have a burning need to see CAP's financial figures, the IRS Form 990's are available as soon as CAP files their taxes.  You should be able to request a copy from CAP.  They are legally obligated to provide you access to view them, but they may or may not charge you a fee for copying/postage.

[RiverAux]

Ah, but you forget, CAP members do not have any rights to see any CAP information, including financial data. 

[Pylon]

Ah, but you forget, CAP members do not have any rights to see any CAP information, including financial data.

Wrong.  This isn't about CAP regulations.   It's public law.  Any 501(c)(3) corporation must provide a copy of or access to its IRS 990 filings to any member of the public who asks for it.  You can also obtain a copy from the IRS, but they prefer you get it from the charity to save them time/work/money.

[a2capt]

990's can be gotten simply, here too:

http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/

Only caveat is they are a few months behind as they are not the IRS.

[Pylon]

Only caveat is they are a few months behind as they are not the IRS.

Actually they appear to be 12+ months behind.

And RiverAux, you can also submit an IRS Form 4506-A requesting a copy of CAP's 990-T's from the IRS itself.  So, CAP's financial data is filed in a timely manner and available to the public on request.

[SarDragon]

Only caveat is they are a few months behind as they are not the IRS.

Actually they appear to be 12+ months behind.

And RiverAux, you can also submit an IRS Form 4506-A requesting a copy of CAP's 990-T's from the IRS itself.  So, CAP's financial data is filed in a timely manner and available to the public on request.

How can they be 12 months behind? 2009 just finished. The year on the return is for the fiscal year, not the year submitted.

[Pylon]

Only caveat is they are a few months behind as they are not the IRS.

Actually they appear to be 12+ months behind.

And RiverAux, you can also submit an IRS Form 4506-A requesting a copy of CAP's 990-T's from the IRS itself.  So, CAP's financial data is filed in a timely manner and available to the public on request.

How can they be 12 months behind? 2009 just finished. The year on the return is for the fiscal year, not the year submitted.

Negative, the newest return they have on that site is the 2007 990's, filed in early 2008.   This year's return would be the 2009 990's, filed in early 2010.  The "year" column on their website is a little deceiving.  Download the actual return to see what year it's truly for.

[RiverAux]

To be frank, I'm not so much interested in the financial part of the financial report, but in what remnants, if any, of the now-discontinued annual report to congress, will be included. 

I'm sure I'll end up using some numbers from the report at some point, but those aren't my main interest. 

[SarDragon]

Negative, the newest return they have on that site is the 2007 990's, filed in early 2008.   This year's return would be the 2009 990's, filed in early 2010.  The "year" column on their website is a little deceiving.  Download the actual return to see what year it's truly for.

OOPS!

Busted. I thought I looked twice on that and still screwed it up.

[PHall]

Negative, the newest return they have on that site is the 2007 990's, filed in early 2008.   This year's return would be the 2009 990's, filed in early 2010.  The "year" column on their website is a little deceiving.  Download the actual return to see what year it's truly for.

OOPS!

Busted. I thought I looked twice on that and still screwed it up.

Glad you're not doing my taxes Dave.

[SarDragon]

Glad you're not doing my taxes Dave.

Me, too. My own are bad enough. Haven't ever been audited, either. 

[Pylon]

Glad you're not doing my taxes Dave.

Me, too. My own are bad enough. Haven't ever been audited, either. 

*knock knock*  "Hi... I'm from the IRS and I'm here to help..." 

[RADIOMAN015]

And as noted above, if you have a burning need to see CAP's financial figures, the IRS Form 990's are available as soon as CAP files their taxes.  You should be able to request a copy from CAP.  They are legally obligated to provide you access to view them, but they may or may not charge you a fee for copying/postage.

Gee, got to wonder in CAP new era of "openness" that they just wouldn't scan it and put it right on the public access website, just as many other non profits do
RM   

[AirAux]

This shouldn't take any time at all, I mean, after all, we have the Wing Banker Solution that was supposed to make sure they had control and constant accounting of everyone's money..

[RiverAux]

Well, its out and as feared (by me), they did not include any tables on mission activities or membership, which has been about the most useful part of the former annual reports.  Now, there will be no official definitive membership or mission numbers that will be available to future historians in any easy to find location.  Shame on NHQ for this. 

As to the content itself, I haven't had a chance to go over it other than to note a triangle thingy on the back cover.

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/Financial_Report_CAP_LowRes_26810DD106C59.pdf

[O-Rex]

(Wave of the hand) "These are not the droids you're looking for..."

[RADIOMAN015]

Well, its out and as feared (by me), they did not include any tables on mission activities or membership, which has been about the most useful part of the former annual reports.  Now, there will be no official definitive membership or mission numbers that will be available to future historians in any easy to find location.  Shame on NHQ for this. 

As to the content itself, I haven't had a chance to go over it other than to note a triangle thingy on the back cover.

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/Financial_Report_CAP_LowRes_26810DD106C59.pdf

Well until I see a footnote on this report that states "units below wing level our substantially self supporting by member's contribution or fund raising activities".   "Where feasible local units are provided facilities by the USAF and other federal, state, & local government agencies by agreement"  This report puts the local units (and possibly even wings) in a difficult position when trying to raise local funds via grants.

I also agree with you about NO statistics being provided.  What are they trying to hide?   I would think membership stats would be very important as well as the total type of mission completed, inventory of major equipment, vehicles, comm equipment, aircraft (and type) etc.

Does anyone know how they came up with the "Use of Facilities/Utilities" figures?   I would think that it would be higher than that.  HOWEVER, we really don't know how many CAP units are using USAF and/or other federal facilities for their meetings.  (That would be another good statistic, missing).

Also another questionable foot note is #19 Concentration of support -- perhaps it should say "will" versus "may" have an effect on the Organization's Programs & Activities.    You don't have to be a CPA to figure that one out.  IF we lost AF funding that would be it for the organization. 

Perhaps when I get some time I'll look at it a bit more.
RM

[Ned]

What are they trying to hide? 

Nothing, of course.

I suppose reasonable minds can differ over whether or not to inlcude memberships stats in a finance report, but I had multiple CPAs from a major accounting firm stare me straight in the eye - and with their licenses on the line - tell me that are finances are in good shape.  They even briefed us on a few minor problems that were detected by the audit problem and we were briefed on the modest systemic fixes necessary to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Anonymously sharp-shooting audited financial data on the internet is problematic for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is the well-poisoning effect on potential donors and customers.

If you have genuine questions or concerns feel free to post them.  Better yet, ask your local or wing commander who might actually be able to answer the question and put your mind at ease.

But dramatic rhetorical questions publicly launched on the net will not achieve any reasonable goal of increased financial transparency.  They just cloud the waters and scare away donors.  And that hurts our membership.

Ned Lee

[CAP Producer]

What are they trying to hide? 

Nothing, of course.

I suppose reasonable minds can differ over whether or not to inlcude memberships stats in a finance report, but I had multiple CPAs from a major accounting firm stare me straight in the eye - and with their licenses on the line - tell me that are finances are in good shape.  They even briefed us on a few minor problems that were detected by the audit problem and we were briefed on the modest systemic fixes necessary to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Anonymously sharp-shooting audited financial data on the internet is problematic for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is the well-poisoning effect on potential donors and customers.

If you have genuine questions or concerns feel free to post them.  Better yet, ask your local or wing commander who might actually be able to answer the question and put your mind at ease.

But dramatic rhetorical questions publicly launched on the net will not achieve any reasonable goal of increased financial transparency.  They just cloud the waters and scare away donors.  And that hurts our membership.

Ned Lee

Ned is correct about the sniping and that NHQ has nothing to hide. It does nothing but hurt us.

If you have any comments (good or bad) or suggestions to make the Financial Report better please post them here or send them to me at al.pabon@mncap.org

I will consolidate them and take your suggestions to the decision makers (volunteer and NHQ) and make sure they get a fair hearing.

Thanks and have a great day.

[Eclipse]

we really don't know how many CAP units are using USAF and/or other federal facilities for their meetings.  (That would be another good statistic, missing).

Correction - you don't know, and what difference would it make if you did?  The statement as written is correct and appropriate.

CAP knows exactly who is using what facilities through the real property surveys, contributed facilities reports, and related information from the SD's.

Listen to Ned.

[BillB]

Florida has I believe sixty-six Squadrons with probably less than t15 active military bases. I would say the same is true throughout the United States. How many Squadrons meet in schools, churches or Veterans Halls. I'd say the largest majority ofSquadrons. So RM's arguement doesn't hold water.

[FW]

we really don't know how many CAP units are using USAF and/or other federal facilities for their meetings.  (That would be another good statistic, missing).

Correction - you don't know, and what difference would it make if you did?  The statement as written is correct and appropriate.

CAP knows exactly who is using what facilities through the real property surveys, contributed facilities reports, and related information from the SD's.

Listen to Ned.

I must agree.  CAP has a very accurate knowledge of the "costs" relating to donated space for CAP activities.  Our auditors confirm the cost analysis.  It's one of the reasons CAP has an "Unqualified" audit opinion.

The Annual Finance Report is not intended to be the annual review of CAP activities.  It is intended to show congress, our current and future outside customers, and current and potential contributors what we do with our money. 

If the Board of Governors wants to have a more inclusive report generated, it should not be a problem.  If the CAP National Board would like to generate an "Annual Report to the Membership", it shouldn't be such a difficult tasking.  I'm sure Maj. Pabon's team can get it done...

[bosshawk]

How about a good, juicy uniform topic?

[RiverAux]

I suppose reasonable minds can differ over whether or not to inlcude memberships stats in a finance report,

Ned, if we were still producing a standard annual report like we have for decades, which included this information, I would totally agree with you that it would be silly to put it in the finance report.  But, since the finance report is apparently going to be the only official national level report put out each year, then that is where it should go.  After all, they spend pages and pages and pages on stuff that has nothing to do specifically with the financial aspects of CAP and would have been more appropriately placed in an annual report.  So, putting in membership and mission information wouldn't be out of line. 

[Ned]

( . . .)  I would totally agree with you that it would be silly to put [membership statistics] in the finance report. 

I'm not saying it would be silly.  After all, part of the information is there already (dues income, which correlates closely with the number of paid members).  But the primary purpose of this particular document is to be a financial report and the more we try to make it serve double duty as the Annual Report, the less like a financial report it becomes.

(And yes, the financial report is already full of pictures of our equipment, members, and customers, so we are not exactly pure on this in the first place.)

And I think I have already told the story here or on CS about the time I went to the Library of Congress to get all of our Reports to Congress for some statistical information for the proposed cadet alumni association, and was disappointed when the librarian presented me with every single CAP Report to Congress on file -- all five of them.  Still pretty interesting, though.  But it made me wonder why we pay all that money to produce glossy Reports to Congress.  The answer appears to be that our report is required by law.  But he law does not apparently dictate the contents or format.  We save many tens of thousands of dues dollars by not producing our traditional RTC.

Ned Lee

[Eclipse]

Until we normailze join and rejoin dates, our membership is a moving target anyway.

Pick a month and it'll be a different number.

Why don't we do that?

[SarDragon]

A rolling membership year eases the administrative burden, and actually provides a better look at membership numbers.

I belong to a different organization with a fixed membership year, ending 31 Mar. The membership numbers, when graphed, look like a sawtooth, with the peak on 31 Mar, and the valley at 30 Apr. Because of the nature of the members, they procrastinate, and renew after 31 Mar. It's really hard to come up with an accurate membership number under those circumstances.

With the rolling year, unless there's one or two months with a disproportionate number of joins/renewals, you get a more accurate count.

[Eclipse]

A rolling membership year eases the administrative burden, and actually provides a better look at membership numbers.

I belong to a different organization with a fixed membership year, ending 31 Mar. The membership numbers, when graphed, look like a sawtooth, with the peak on 31 Mar, and the valley at 30 Apr. Because of the nature of the members, they procrastinate, and renew after 31 Mar. It's really hard to come up with an accurate membership number under those circumstances.

With the rolling year, unless there's one or two months with a disproportionate number of joins/renewals, you get a more accurate count.

But the spikes are the point of a fixed renewal. 
In the past I've said that pipelining doesn't work, but the more I think about it, one or two national join dates would allow for a concentrated effort of recruiting, including media buys, etc., and allow units to better plan for recruiting pushes and training cycles.

That doesn't mean we don't accept new members or run a booth at the air show, but the members can't actually join until the in-process dates.

[RADIOMAN015]

What are they trying to hide? 

Nothing, of course.

I suppose reasonable minds can differ over whether or not to inlcude memberships stats in a finance report, but I had multiple CPAs from a major accounting firm stare me straight in the eye - and with their licenses on the line - tell me that are finances are in good shape.

Anonymously sharp-shooting audited financial data on the internet is problematic for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is the well-poisoning effect on potential donors and customers.

If you have genuine questions or concerns feel free to post them.  Better yet, ask your local or wing commander who might actually be able to answer the question and put your mind at ease.

But dramatic rhetorical questions publicly launched on the net will not achieve any reasonable goal of increased financial transparency.  They just cloud the waters and scare away donors.  And that hurts our membership.

Ned Lee

Since CAP elected not to publish a separate public report to congress with more statistics provided the 'devil in the details", the current narrative with the financial statement fails in this regard.  Before units had something at the unit level we could give to those interested in donating to CAP, and add our local statistics to mirror those national stats.  Perhaps CAP could fill the void by making a report "Report to America" (pdf format able to be downloaded or emailed) to mirror fiscal year financial statement close period, that would provide all those "missing" statistics, and add more (perhaps by state/wing), which we could download to give to potential local donors.  With all the multi millions of taxpayers dollars being given to CAP, surely the taxpayers would like to see more program statistics, (you get x amount of money and here's how many missions, members, radios, vehicles, flying hours, cadet flights, etc, etc, etc, you get for you money),  which are common reporting by other non profits (e.g. clients served, meals served, ambulance responses, rescue missions, etc, etc, etc,).   

I personally would NEVER give a copy of our audited financial statements to a potential local donor.  All they would see is multi millions of taxpayer dollars being given to CAP, and would have the assumption that the local level units get some of that support directly. We'd be dancing around that....   So when faced with MANY requests from local non profits groups, it is more likely the local CAP would loose out.  Again without a footnote in the financial statement about local units pretty much being on their own financially, these reports are just about worthless to us at the local level.

As far as our customers relationship to CAP, frankly they are the ones that decide what documentation CAP will submit to them for any sort of financial reimbursement.  Whether you have a qualified audit or not, it doesn't matter to them, we meet what their requirements are.

Of course at the National level, looking for large national sponsors/donors, perhaps these unqualified audits might help.   My take on it is CAP will have a very difficult time in diversifying its' revenue/donor sources, regardless of the unqualified audit, unless we are willing to become more of the CIVIL Air Patrol -- but of course that would be another topic for us CAP'ers here on captalk.

BTW Ned, when I was a cadet in CAP in the mid 1960's, interestingly every month on the unit bulletin board without fail the unit finance officer posted our unit financial statement (major revenue sources, major expenses, and cash in the bank end of period).   Got to wonder how many units automatically do that now (surely the bulletin board has now become the electronic web or email)  -- It's funny that in our so called era of transparancy, we don't have it in our regulation that at least below the wing level this reporting to the unit membership be a requirement  

RM

[FlyerJosh]

But the spikes are the point of a fixed renewal. 
In the past I've said that pipelining doesn't work, but the more I think about it, one or two national join dates would allow for a concentrated effort of recruiting, including media buys, etc., and allow units to better plan for recruiting pushes and training cycles.

That doesn't mean we don't accept new members or run a booth at the air show, but the members can't actually join until the in-process dates.

If you limit joining to only two inprocess dates, then you significantly limit the ability of CAP to recruit (and more importantly) utilize talent.

Imagine if you had an experienced pilot, former military, and significant general aviation and SAR experience want to join, but had just missed the supposed cut off date. What are you going to do?

"Gee, sorry sir, but you are going to have to wait until 5 months from now to pay dues and get started with the organization." Not a very valid situation.

There's nothing that prevents CAP from having specific targeted recruiting periods and concentrated media buys in addition to year round recruiting and retention efforts. Nor does year round recruiting mean that units can specifically target a particular timeframe (such as the start of summer or the school year) to do targeted recruiting.

[Eclipse]

Imagine if you had an experienced pilot, former military, and significant general aviation and SAR experience want to join, but had just missed the supposed cut off date. What are you going to do?

You have him submit his application, and he waits.  Then when the time comes the unit is ready to accept him and train him properly, along with a group of his peers, instead of coming into the unit and bumping into walls for the same amount of time trying to figure out how things work.

This also aids in the planning process in that the unit knows they have "x" members scheduled for in-process on "y" date, and can prepare the necessary resources, including trainers, to be ready for the newbs when they arrive.

This is how most FD/LE and the military do it.

Would we miss out on some members?  Probably.  But we lose plenty of people today because of start-up issues, anyway, and this would make the experience a lot better for everyone involved.

[RADIOMAN015]

What are they trying to hide? 

Nothing, of course.

I suppose reasonable minds can differ over whether or not to inlcude memberships stats in a finance report,

Anonymously sharp-shooting audited financial data on the internet is problematic for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is the well-poisoning effect on potential donors and customers.

If you have genuine questions or concerns feel free to post them.  Better yet, ask your local or wing commander who might actually be able to answer the question and put your mind at ease.

But dramatic rhetorical questions publicly launched on the net will not achieve any reasonable goal of increased financial transparency.  They just cloud the waters and scare away donors.  And that hurts our membership.

Ned Lee

Ned is correct about the sniping and that NHQ has nothing to hide. It does nothing but hurt us.

If you have any comments (good or bad) or suggestions to make the Financial Report better please post them here or send them to me at al.pabon@mncap.org

I will consolidate them and take your suggestions to the decision makers (volunteer and NHQ) and make sure they get a fair hearing.

Thanks and have a great day.

Here it goes:
*I didn't see any Asian Americans in any of the pictures.
*Perhaps 1 cadet minority member (black) in uniform  in 1 picture.  Lots of white people in CAP uniforms.
*Didn't see much of CAP distinctive uniform wear -- Didn't see any Blue BDU's or Blue Flight suits in any of the pictures.  Perhaps 1 white shirt/grey pants combination.
*At least one picture appeared to have a member wearing an AF style uniform and was not/or very close to non  compliance with AF grooming standards. 
*I thought the community services pictures & narratives failed to display what typical CAP units do to support their communities.   IF you want community support you've got to show what is done FOR the LOCAL COMMUNITY.   

I think you need to work up a "Report to America" that statisically closes on the same day of the financial report and post it to the website.  Provide very significant statistical information (covering every aspect of all our programs), down to the wing level.  I would also require from every wing for the same period to show what their major accomplishments were.    This way ANYONE can compare the costs of CAP with at least what quantity of program services were provided & what were the major accomplishments. 

When the report is done I would let all the PAO's know and we could email ALL our media sources and perhaps put a local spin to those statistics.   I think it also serves as a great historical document that can be kept for many years IF the same format is utilized every year.

Until we do that CAP will remain America's "Best Kept Secret", but pehaps there are some in the organization that would just as well keep it that way :angel:
RM 
       

[PHall]

Radioman, why are you still in CAP? You're obviously not happy because all you seem to do, at least here on CAPTalk, is complain about everything CAP.

[RADIOMAN015]

Radioman, why are you still in CAP? You're obviously not happy because all you seem to do, at least here on CAPTalk, is complain about everything CAP.

Actually I'm a very productive member in CAP, contributing to a few areas both at the squadron and also help at the wing level.

Sometimes, I like to take a contra approach just to see what others will say.   As you see some folks seem to get very upset.

BTW for the record, I am happly CAP got an unqualified audit.  I sincerely hope it will get the organization more funding sources that will help ALL subordinate units. :angel:
RM 

[PHall]

Sometimes, I like to take a contra approach just to see what others will say.   As you see some folks seem to get very upset.
RM

Yeah, there's a word for that.  TROLL

They're usually not welcome on most boards.

[Short Field]

This is how most FD/LE and the military do it.

LOL  I walked into the recruiting station after 1500 on a Wednesday many years ago.  I took the written tests and that night I was on the bus to the induction center for my medical (four hours away).  The following Wednesday, I reported into Basic Training.

Most LE and all the military pay their membership.  A large number of FDs pay their members as well (in our area - very very well).  The processing time for new members varies so they end up waiting anyway.  Why tell them they can't attend meetings until the magic date rolls around that we accept members?  We don't have a problem grouping new people for training.  We do have a problem getting all the new members to complete Level I in the same length of time.  Some members knock it out ASAP, others drag it out for a few months.  But they pay US for attending meetings, we don't pay them.

[FW]

I just discovered we have posted "annual wing newsletters to congress" on the CAP Website.

52 identical newsletters save for the first page which includes a brief summary of the wing's activities, saves, appropriations, etc. 

Very interesting....

[RADIOMAN015]

I just discovered we have posted "annual wing newsletters to congress" on the CAP Website.

52 identical newsletters save for the first page which includes a brief summary of the wing's activities, saves, appropriations, etc. 

Very interesting....

Ahh, found it at:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/All_Stares_Leg_Day_Brochures_72_42AD867B0D0EA.pdf   :clap:
RM

[RADIOMAN015]

I just discovered we have posted "annual wing newsletters to congress" on the CAP Website.

52 identical newsletters save for the first page which includes a brief summary of the wing's activities, saves, appropriations, etc. 

Very interesting....

Ahh, found it at:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/All_Stares_Leg_Day_Brochures_72_42AD867B0D0EA.pdf   :clap:
RM

What I find interesting is each wing has a item in their report "Value of Wing's Volunteer Hours", generally showing millions of dollars.  Of course I'm wondering HOW that was calculated.  Anyone know how each wing came up with that figure?
RM   

[Eclipse]

What I find interesting is each wing has a item in their report "Value of Wing's Volunteer Hours", generally showing millions of dollars.  Of course I'm wondering HOW that was calculated.  Anyone know how each wing came up with that figure? 

My guess would be multiplication.

[RiverAux]

But multiplying what?  CAP has no progam that collects information on the amount of time members contribute to the organization. 

[FlyTiger77]

What I find interesting is each wing has a item in their report "Value of Wing's Volunteer Hours", generally showing millions of dollars.  Of course I'm wondering HOW that was calculated.  Anyone know how each wing came up with that figure?
RM   

Having numerous more important things to do, but always loving a chance to make another spreadsheet, I did some back of the envelope calculations based on the data from the 52 newsletters.

The aggregate of the Value of Volunteer Hours is: $122,930,064.00 (although there is an error in the newsletter data as TN and SD have identical values)
Assuming federal minimum wage ($7.25/hr) leads to an average of 300.2 hours/member. (This strikes me as high merely because the 'ghost' squadrons are not factored out, so the active members would have to contribute much more.)

It is also interesting to note that states fund CAP at an average rate of $64.67/member (even with 14 wings not receiving ' state' funding) with AK providing the most generous funding of $538/member.

AK also has the greatest aircraft density (acft/member).

If anyone wants the spreadsheet, shoot me an e-mail. It provides some interesting insights and statistics.

[FlyTiger77]

My guess would be multiplication.

My guess would be the "Left Hand Extraction" method, which is slightly less precise than a WAG, which, of course, is not quite as accurate as a SWAG. But, I could be wrong.

[Eclipse]

But multiplying what?  CAP has no progam that collects information on the amount of time members contribute to the organization.

Whole numbers.

Government agencies estimate this kind of stuff all the time.  Heck, all you have to do is take your state's minimum wage times a couple hours a week times your members and you get a good number walking in.

Logic dictates that the vast majority of our services rendered are worth 10x's that (see Flytiger's #'s above).

[RiverAux]

You're missing the point....CAP has absolutely no idea how many hours its members contribute, so there is no firm basis upon which to make an estimate of their value.  The average CAP member could be contributing 50 hours a year or 500.  Theres no way to know. 

[Eclipse]

We have WMIRS, we have calendars, we know where the meetings are and all the activities.

You, apparently have no idea on our members' activities, or no one has involved you in the math, that doesn't mean others don't.

[RiverAux]

WMIRS counts flight hours.  Does not account for how many people were actually in the plane (though with a lot of work you could probably figure it out, but it doesn't show up in a report anywhere).  Does not account for hours of ground team members or mission staff.
No one reports meeting attendence to anyone.

If this information is so available, please tell me exactly how many total member hours your squadron devoted to CAP activities in 2009. 

The CG Aux has a system which attempts to comprehensively tracks member time, but even it is vulnerable to the fact that many don't bother reporting a lot of time.  But, they can at least come up with an accurate account of the minimum amount of time that their members have spent in any given, week, month, or year.

The best CAP can do is tell you that at a minimum members spent X number of hours in planes (total flight hours x 1 - since there had to be at least a pilot). 

[Eclipse]

If this information is so available, please tell me exactly how many total member hours your squadron devoted to CAP activities in 2009.

Actually, if I felt like it, I could - my units all complete an activity report after all meetings and activities - I'd just have to run the numbers.

Sadly, my IQ has dropped so low from today's conversations here that I can no longer remember my password...

[FW]

Flight man hours are easily figured out by the CAPF 99's submitted every month. It includes pilot/crew.

Other volunteer man hours are determined by sign in sheets and length of meetings, missions, conferences, etc.   

If I remember correctly, the "multiplier" is the current Federal GS4 hourly wage rate. 

[SJFedor]

WMIRS counts flight hours.  Does not account for how many people were actually in the plane (though with a lot of work you could probably figure it out, but it doesn't show up in a report anywhere).  Does not account for hours of ground team members or mission staff.

You must not have used WMIRS lately. Each aircrew member's CAPID on board the aircraft is input into WMIRS into the sortie. And as long as I've been playing w/ WMIRS, there's always been a "man hours" block in the GT sortie entry. Staff is the one thing not accounted for on WMIRS, but can easily be had just from mission sign in/out sheets.

[RiverAux]

Other volunteer man hours are determined by sign in sheets and length of meetings, missions, conferences, etc.   

Yes, that certainly could be a source to come up with some estimates, but the point is that has not been done unless there has been some mass solicitation of this data by NHQ that I am unaware of. 

The question remains, where did the numbers in those reports come from?

Now, NHQ could do some surveys of CAP members and come up with some scientifically valid estimates that would be acceptable by most. 

[FlyTiger77]

Now, NHQ could do some surveys of CAP members and come up with some scientifically valid estimates that would be acceptable by most.

And your position is that these statistically accurate surveys were not conducted?

I don't know if they were or weren't, but am willing to accept that they may have been, and thus I retract my post regarding methodology above, which was meant more in jest than in seriousness.

v/r

[RiverAux]

Now, NHQ could do some surveys of CAP members and come up with some scientifically valid estimates that would be acceptable by most.

And your position is that these statistically accurate surveys were not conducted?

My position would be that these would be the first scientifically valid surveys conducted by CAP in years, if ever.  I am certain they used some sort of methodology to come up with the numbers and that they just didn't pull them out of thin air.  However, I am just as confident that if they did use some sort of survey methodology that we would have heard about it and that if they had requested that individual wings come up with some hour estimates, I'm 100% positive I would have known about it in my Wing.   

At this point, I'd just say that I'm doubtful that the numbers have much validity, but it would be great if I was shown to be wrong because I am all for evaluating our programs and if this information is based on something solid, its great to have.

[FlyTiger77]

If I remember correctly, the "multiplier" is the current Federal GS4 hourly wage rate.

Assuming a GS-4 Step 1 dollar value per hour, the average member donated 186.4 184.6 hours for the year. At 3.6 3.55 hours/week, I would submit that that number  is certainly within the bounds of reason.

Now, imagine if time spent on CAP Talk was factored in!!!!!!!!!!!

[RADIOMAN015]

Now, NHQ could do some surveys of CAP members and come up with some scientifically valid estimates that would be acceptable by most.

And your position is that these statistically accurate surveys were not conducted?

My position would be that these would be the first scientifically valid surveys conducted by CAP in years, if ever.  I am certain they used some sort of methodology to come up with the numbers and that they just didn't pull them out of thin air. 

At this point, I'd just say that I'm doubtful that the numbers have much validity, but it would be great if I was shown to be wrong because I am all for evaluating our programs and if this information is based on something solid, its great to have.

Reading the reports there's nothing in that statistic box that says "Estimated".  Again it's great  :clap: that they published these reports BUT when you put any numbers down on any report, one needs to be very careful how those numbers are presented.  Same thing goes for our monthly membership statistics (which as we all know no longer are published on the public website), which does need to be adequately explained. 

At work I'm always very careful to ensure any "estimated" versus actual numbers are appropriated identified in any reports to the executive staff.   Of course, when I place 'estimated" in any report, there's always a chance they will ask me to explain how the estimate was arrived at.  So perhaps the estimated was left out of the CAP's reports for that specific reason.
RM     

[FW]

I just discovered we have posted "annual wing newsletters to congress" on the CAP Website.

52 identical newsletters save for the first page which includes a brief summary of the wing's activities, saves, appropriations, etc. 

Very interesting....

Since it's a slow day for me, I decided to do some research on a CAP issue which will be dealt with in the next week or so.  In my preliminary work, I came across this interesting section in the CAP Bylaws:
                                                             SECTION 24
                                                         ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS
24.1 The Civil Air Patrol shall have prepared during the current year a full and complete written report on
all activities of Civil Air Patrol for the preceding year. This shall be known as the Annual Report to
Congress required by 36 USC 40307. Copies shall be provided to the President, all members of
Congress, and such other persons as deemed appropriate.

So, what do you think about this?  Are we doing "our job" by printing and distrubuting these "annual newsletters"?

[RiverAux]

I think not (big surprise).  Both the financial report and wing "newsletters" have some info, but I think they're far from "full and complete" reports on CAP operations.

[Gunner C]

I've gotta agree with River.  It's not close to a full report. 

[RiverAux]

You know, if copies were actually sent to the President, they are probably still floating around in various Presidential libraries.  So, old ones are probably out there even though no one evidently ever thought to provide the Library of Congress with copies. 

[Short Field]

Wings using the IMU for ES missions have a very accurate number for total man hours.  The only inaccuracies have to do with how accurately members sign in and sign out.