How many members do we have?

[FW]

There seems to be some confusion on how many members there are in CAP.  There also seems to be some discussion (in some circles) on how many members we've lost in the past 3 years.

With a bit of research into the matter (while eating lunch and drinking coffee) I've found that, in actual numbers, there were 57,030 members as of 3/31/06, 55,500 as of 2/28/08 and, 55,636 as of today.  Our turnover rate is about 50% for cadets and 30% for senior members (so I've been told).  So, I guess  we can figure on losing "thousands of members" every year however, our total numbers pretty much stay about the same.

So the question is,  so what?    

[RiverAux]

I've actually been working on some stats on this and I think we do have a serious problem. 

The National membership numbers are a little misleading since they include a few thousand Aerospace Ed and other "members" that really aren't considered CAP members in the traditional sense.

Based on annual reports, here is what I call our "core" membership number -- the number of CAP members assigned to the 52 Wings, excluding all those on Regional and National Staffs.   These are the folks on the ground that get the work done.

2005:  54,121
2006:  53,653
2007:  53,306
2008:  51,223

From 2005 to 2008 40 Wings lost membership.  One wing lost more 46% of membership (Nat Cap).  16 Wings lost 10-20% of membership.  23 lost <10% of membership.  Of the wings that gained members, 9 gained <10%, 1 gained 19% (MO), 2 gained 20-30% (DE, CT), and 1 gained 34% (IN). 

There wasn't a single region that had more Wings with membership gains than losses.   

I'm going to extend this back a few more years and I'll do it again.   

[Major Carrales]

There seems to be some confusion on how many members there are in CAP.  There also seems to be some discussion (in some circles) on how many members we've lost in the past 3 years.

With a bit of research into the matter (while eating lunch and drinking coffee) I've found that, in actual numbers, there were 57,030 members as of 3/31/06, 55,500 as of 2/28/08 and, 55,636 as of today.  Our turnover rate is about 50% for cadets and 30% for senior members (so I've been told).  So, I guess  we can figure on losing "thousands of members" every year however, our total numbers pretty much stay about the same.

So the question is,  so what?    

Of all the cadets that join our unit.  Only 1 in 5 go on beyond the first year, the reason has been that they join as 8th Graders and the High School activities wear at their time.

This has improved with last year where a good number came back, but still their time is limited and they become ON-OFFers.  Still ready, but mandatory Band/Atheltic practices (connected to their grade in that they are co-curricular).

Thus, special weekend activites have to occur to help them out.

As for CAP OFFICERS, the situation normally is that family and work interferres.  Prior to having an aircraft, it was lack of activity that drove them away.  An active unit is a healthy one.  With no activity, there is no reason to stick around.

[Eclipse]

As for CAP OFFICERS,

I'm sure you're referring to the generic term for adult members, which is "Senior Members", unless you're making a point that SMOWG's and those displaying other-service enlisted equivalents have a higher retention rate?

Luv,

   The Proper Terminology Patrol   

[FW]

"The National membership numbers are a little misleading since they include a few thousand Aerospace Ed and other "members" that really aren't considered CAP members in the traditional sense."

Could be River, however, if you figure who is doing all the work, we may figure only about 5-10,000 members are really in CAP.

[Major Carrales]

As for CAP OFFICERS,

I'm sure you're referring to the generic term for adult members, which is "Senior Members", unless you're making a point that SMOWG's and those displaying other-service enlisted equivalents have a higher retention rate?

Luv,

   The Proper Terminology Patrol   

There was a letter put out a few years ago that nixed the notion of calling Adult CAP members "Senior Members" and made it to where they were called "CAP OFFICERS."  I have never recovered.

Until there is a term, Adults are "CAP Officers" and Cadets are "CAP CADETS."

Remember that a SMWOG is an "officer candidate" of sorts with all the rights and privledges of an "officer" in CAP and an NCO is a non-commissioned officer.

[Stonewall]

I posted this 2 years ago based on info gathered from a small collection of Annual Reports to Congress I own.

Membership numbers:

As of 31 Dec 81
Cadets: 23,020
Seniors: 37,668
Total: 60, 688

As of 31 Dec 82
Cadets: 24,645
Seniors: 40,024
Total: 64,669

As of 31 Dec 83
Cadets: 26,104
Seniors: 41,669
Total: 67,773

As of 31 Dec 84
Cadets: 24,900
Seniors: 41,605
Total: 66,505

As of 31 Dec 86
Cadets: 25,940
Seniors: 40,991
Total: 66,931

As of 31 Dec 87 (year I joined)
Cadets: 30,500
Seniros: 42,469
Total: 72,969

As of 31 Dec 88
Cadets: 30,505
Seniors: 42,331
Total: 72,836

As of 31 Dec 89
Cadets: 27,188
Seniors: 40,151
Total: 67,339

As of 31 Dec 90
Cadets: 23,780
Seniors: 36,486
Total: 60,266

As of 31 Dec 91
Cadets: 22,509
Seniors: 35,281
Total: 57,790

As of 31 Dec 92
Cadets: 21,128
Seniors: 34,551
Total: 55,679

As of 31 Dec 93
Cadets: 19,607
Seniors: 33,709
Total: 53,316

As of 31 Dec 94
Cadets: 17,688
Seniors: 33,353
Total: 51,041

For 1995, I can't find the number breakdown, but in the letter to Congress, Gen Anderson says "on behalf of our more than 53,000 members". the 1995 RTC was smaller than the others, I mean, physically smaller, as in its measurements were smaller for some reason.

As of 31 Dec 96
Cadets: 19,523
Seniors: 33,350
Total: 52,873

As of 31 Dec 97
Cadets: 23,211
Seniors: 33,478
Total: 56,689

As of 31 Dec 98
Cadets: 25,860
Seniors: 34,508
Total: 60,368

As of 31 Dec 99
Cadets: 26,189
Seniors: 35,027
Total: 61, 216

As of 31 Dec 02
Cadets: 26,937
Seniors: 37,598
Total: 64,535

The reason why I have more statistics than RTCs is because some RTCs list membership numbers for previous years that I didn't snag an RTC.

Note: I wonder how much the membership changed due to the middle school initiative. If you subtract those numbers, what are the true numbers. Of course, they still wouldn't be "true numbers" in the sense that just because we have x number of members doesn't mean we have x number of participating members.

[NIN]

I dunno, my unit has fluctuated around 70-80 members for the last 7 years or so.  We go up a little, we go down a little. But when I took over the sq in 1999, we had "active/on the books" 3/12 SMs and 12/27 cadets.  Now we're at something like 15/30 and 45/55 or something like that.

When people start talking about membership being down, I'm not seeing it.

[ctim]

So what? This means that my squadron has 0.07% of all CAP members!
Anyway, I do think we MAY have a problem in the facet that CAP membership has dropped in the past few years. I say may because over the years the membership numbers has been up and down, it hasn't experienced a smooth path. Right now is a time where a lot of parents (where I live) do not want their kids to be in a "military uniform," this causes a lack of publicity which in turn affects the senior side.

[Eclipse]

As for CAP OFFICERS,

I'm sure you're referring to the generic term for adult members, which is "Senior Members", unless you're making a point that SMOWG's and those displaying other-service enlisted equivalents have a higher retention rate?

Luv,

   The Proper Terminology Patrol   

There was a letter put out a few years ago that nixed the notion of calling Adult CAP members "Senior Members" and made it to where they were called "CAP OFFICERS."  I have never recovered.

Until there is a term, Adults are "CAP Officers" and Cadets are "CAP CADETS."

Remember that a SMWOG is an "officer candidate" of sorts with all the rights and privileges of an "officer" in CAP and an NCO is a non-commissioned officer.

Sorry, your memory of this is flawed.

In fact, adopting the term "Officer" as a replacement for "Senior" was a suggestion by HWSRN based on his personal notion that the term present an incorrect view of our adult members.

The fact that this would result in the term "Officer without grade", and similiarly silly derivitives apparently escaped him.

It was never adopted by any regulation, nor was there ever an ICL or similar to that effect.

However, when Gen. Courter rescinded the use of "U.S. CIVIL AIR PATROL", she specifically indicated in those meetings that we should discontinue the use of the term "Officer" as the generic for adult members.

If you can show me a single regulation or ICL to the contrary, I will stand corrected.

[Major Carrales]

I dunno, my unit has fluctuated around 70-80 members for the last 7 years or so.  We go up a little, we go down a little. But when I took over the sq in 1999, we had "active/on the books" 3/12 SMs and 12/27 cadets.  Now we're at something like 15/30 and 45/55 or something like that.

When people start talking about membership being down, I'm not seeing it.

I agree, our unit is at an all time high in both numbers and "active" participants.

I have always suspected that there is a "core/corps" group of people that are the "constants" of CAP.  The number can move up and down (even thousands) however it is that group of dedicated CAP Officers that keep it effective.

That group is not any sort of special "club," but rather a group of people what love to do it.  You know, those cadets that live for it...those CAP Officers (Sorry Eclipse ) that stay despite all.  Those that when the unit is about to die, remain behind and build it up again.

Also, the numbers don't appear to be dependend on who is in charge of the Wing or the Region.  Most people are hardly aware of the leadership beyond Group, or in Wing without, beyond Wing.  Since all CAP is basically, local...the game is won or lost at the weekly meetings.

[Major Carrales]

If you can show me a single regulation or ICL to the contrary, I will stand corrected.[/i]

I can't and won't,  but this is a matter of CAPTALK semantics not CAP policy.  "Senior Member" is a bit of a flawed term since a newbie of three days would be called senior.  "CAP Officer" is just as flawed.

My memory is not any more flawed than the reality of those days.

[Eclipse]

Interestingly, with all the talk of attrition over the last few years, the numbers around me have been pretty constant.

People come and go, but there seems to be a leveling effect in the units as to their general numbers, whether that's by design or by accident.

I will say CAP squandered a lot of members and re-ups right after 911.  Had we played that right we'd have a lot more people on the rolls today, however like many other agencies, CAP wasn't ready for the "New America" or the extra taskings, etc., and by the time we got ramped up, a lot of the FNGs had left out of frustration.

[Eclipse]

I can't and won't,  but this is a matter of CAPTALK semantics not CAP policy.  "Senior Member" is a bit of a flawed term since a newbie of three days would be called senior.  "CAP Officer" is just as flawed.

What does it say on your ID card?.......Denny Crane....

[Major Carrales]

I can't and won't,  but this is a matter of CAPTALK semantics not CAP policy.  "Senior Member" is a bit of a flawed term since a newbie of three days would be called senior.  "CAP Officer" is just as flawed.

What does it say on your ID card?.......Denny Crane....

If this was an officical "CAP" forum, it would matter a great deal more.  But since it is not...I will not squander our amiciable exchange on the matter.

[jimmydeanno]

Holy Cow! Build a bridge and get over it.  What the heck does what you call our Adult Volunteers on CAPTALK have to do with our membership numbers? 

<- Trying to actually get something from this thread...

[Ned]

And we should probably not consider CAP in isolation either.

Anecdotally, I understand that membership is down for almost every similar type group, including the USCGA, boy and girl scouts, and volunteers with the ARC.

I'm not sure what wisdom to draw from that, but I'm not sure it supports the notion that that CAP - in particular - has a problem so much as it suggests a problem with volunteerism in contemporary American society.

Maybe if we could re-configure CAP so that full membership simply consisted of SAR by examining Google Earth photo's at home or learning Character Development via inspirational tweets we could get those numbers back up to where they belong.   

[JoeTomasone]

What does it say on your ID card?.......Denny Crane....

On mine it says "1LT", yet I am clearly a "1st Lt".  Your point?

[Always Ready]

Personally, I see the membership numbers as the pulse of the unit. I like to see when units go through a purge where their membership numbers drop and only the loyal few remain. Those are the people, regardless of what happens, that will keep the unit going (I hope). Not to say that we don't lose good people, it's not that. I just feel that when membership levels start to drop, the unit commander should go, "Uh Ohh...this is a bad sign. We need to fix things." If they fix things, membership numbers will go back up and that means the squadron is performing well. If nothing is done to remedy the drop or the membership continues to drop, then something needs to change.

If it takes people leaving the unit for it to change, then so be it. If the people leaving the unit are truly loyal to our organization and what we do, they will keep with their unit or transfer. When the unit has completed the purge, they should transfer back and help the unit bounce back. YMMV

[Major Carrales]

Suqadron "maintenance," where people actively work to improve and "keep up" their unit, is key to unit survival.

Honestly, there is a lot of work to do in keeping the place running.  If everyone pitches in and is shown this serious attitude from day one they will know what is expected.   If we promise "candy" and deliever "pickles," those with the wrong palate will of course run away.  But if we offer the flavor we normally serve, then we will attract those for the long ride.  Fact is, in keeping with the metaphor, we at the local level are the "cooks."