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."

[RiverAux]

Anecdotally, I understand that membership is down for almost every similar type group, including the USCGA,

while CG Aux has lost members over the last 5 years that is almost entirely the result of implenting new security procedures.  Unlike CAP, for the last two years CG Aux membership has grown.  Not gangbusters, but grown nevertheless. 

[lordmonar]

An intrsting question.

Does loss of members really indicate a problem in and of itself....without finding the underlying cause of the problem.

Changes over the last 5 years include...

Less member owned aircraft flying
Less paid flying hours
NIMS requirements
Aging population

We lost a lot of pilots when CAP made us fly corporate aircraft almost exclusively.  We also lost a lot of members who were only looking for a cheap plane to fly.  When we started to cut back on the free flying we saw a drop in some membership.  We also took a hit when we started adding training requirments (I have also heard this same lament from volunteer firefighters who now have to do NIMS training as well).

I also look at the aging pilots.  There are a lot of old folks in CAP....as they age and start loosing their medicals or start finding it hard to keep up the pace they are going to drop out.  IIRC the GA community as a whole are seeing a drop in the number of pilots mainly due to age and the high cost of getting a PPL today (i.e. we are not replacing our old pilots).  AOPA reported a 13% drop in AVGAS sales in the 3rd quarter of '08.    The FAA reports about a 16% drop in the number of new students.

By reflection CAP should see much the same drop in our membership as we tend to pull from the same pool of people.

If any of this is a "problem" still remains to be seen.

The units I have been working with for the last three years are seeing the same type of numbers and turn over......and yet we still function.  So I don't see a problem here in S. Nevada.....but I accept that Las Vegas is not the rest of the nation and other places may be taking a hit on this.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

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.

Back to the "senior member" vs. "officer" contention:

-- "Officer" is BS. Many of our senior members aren't officers. They're not "SM"s. They're enlisted. And it creates the perception that CAP is top-heavy. (Everyone's an officer? Wow, who does the work? Cadets? Sounds rump to me.)

-- "Senior member" is a flawed term. I think it only exists to differentiate between cadet members and regular members. (Remember, the adult member came first in CAP, and cadets came later.)

So maybe we should consider...

-- "Regular" vs. "cadet" (vs. "aerospace education member," "cadet sponsor member," etc.)

-- "Airmen" and "officer" vs. the other classifications

Anyone else have an idea?

(Interestingly, Gen. Courter didn't have to "rescind" the "U.S.C.A.P." balderdash. CAP is chartered by Congress not as the "U.S." CAP. All it takes is a look at the law. But HWSRN didn't seem to let rules get in his way.)

[Gunner C]

Sure:

Adult:  Member
Youth:  Cadet

Further broken down:

SMWOG:  Airman
NCO:  NCO
FO - Maj Gen:  Officer

[Major Carrales]

Sure:

Adult:  Member
Youth:  Cadet

Further broken down:

SMWOG:  Airman
NCO:  NCO
FO - Maj Gen:  Officer

This is never fully addressed.  I was hoping this part of the thread would die...however,

In actuality...
FO-SFO- Flight Officers
2d Lt to Capt- Company Grade officer
Major-Colonel- Field Grade Officer
Brig and Maj General- General Officer

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Agreed with Sparky.

And no, flight officers aren't really officers. Second lieutenant is the most junior officer grade.

[Gunner C]

Well, if they're rendered salutes, they're officers.  They're redesigned warrant officers . . . warrant officers are officers.

Yes, you could break it down further into junior NCOs and senior NCOs, but that just didn't seem necessary.  In the military the major divisions of grade are enlisted (airmen), NCOs, and officers.  Officer grades in the military are broken down further into warrant officers, commissioned warrant officers, company officers, field officers, and general officers. For UCMJ purposes commissioned warrant officers (generally chief warrant officers) are the same as company officers, as far as possible punishments and authority to administer punishment as a commander.

[Eclipse]

-- "Officer" is BS. Many of our senior members aren't officers. They're not "SM"s. They're enlisted. And it creates the perception that CAP is top-heavy. (Everyone's an officer? Wow, who does the work? Cadets? Sounds rump to me.)

Are you speaking metaphorically or their actual grade?   Because there's really only about 50 members in the whole organization who have chosen to wear the USAF equivalent of their other-service NCO grade instead of accepting an officer appointment.

It you're speaking metaphorically, I agree and I don't.  If you actually placed everyone in a functional staff position as they should be, then for the most part every senior would be performing a job that would fall into the same general role of an officer in a similar military service.

After all, while we all empty the trash after meetings, go for pizza, and drive the vans, we don't have any traditional war-fighter / grunt / maintainer-type roles as would be the traditional jobs of an enlisted corps.

Even the pure ground-pounders are generally multi-roled and likely have some sort of officer-role by function (if not by training or bearing).

[BuckeyeDEJ]

As CAP is studying ways to increase the NCO corps, I think it's fairly safe to say that "officer" as a blanket term for CAP's adult members is in error, even misleading.

[MIKE]

Nice derail... Not!

[RiverAux]

Well, I suppose it is only about 99.9% right.  

[Eclipse]

Another thing that is not apparently accommodated is cadet-to-senior transition.  These are obviously 1 less cadet and 1 more senior, which is a wash in the total, but not noted in the cadet scheme.

Even if only 1/2 the units only have one a year that's still more transitional cadet loss than we'll ever have NCO's (like how I got that in there...)   

[Always Ready]

^That's so true and so sad *lol*

During my time in Nebraska, they had a monthly/bi-monthly newsletter which listed a variety of things including new members to units. When I transitioned to the dark side (and I sure do love these doughnuts), my name showed up in it as a new Senior Member to CAP. CAPWATCH (or whatever they used to figure it out) had neglected that I was prior cadet. No break in service...one day cadet, the next SM. Just another oddity of CAP.

[Eclipse]

Since I started my current job I've wanted to do some tracking of numbers, if only as part of the pile of info.

The problem is that its such a moving target and there's too little background info to inform the data - in NIN's highly successful pipeline, you have a bunch of members all starting at the same time, that could really skew a graph if 1/2 of them are late on a renewal, but the skew is ultimately meaningless because they didn't really "quit".

[jimmydeanno]

So the question is,  so what?    

Thinking about NIN's "Successful Open House" thread, it made me think about the number of squadrons that are bucking the trend of decreased membership numbers.  I think often times our squadrons operate in a wave (increasing numbers -> decreasing -> increasing), but for the most part I honestly think that currently the majority on the decline. 

So take for instance, NIN's and my squadrons.  Shortly he will add 22 cadets to our cadet membership and I about 10.  So that is 32 new cadets added to the wing/national membership list.  Obviously those two units are increasing in strength and have good forward momentum.  But, that is 2 out of 10.  So the other 8 with their decreasing numbers are offsetting the good stuff going on in the other two. 

I'm our wings CAC Advisor and the unit reports that I hear sadden me.  "We have 2 active cadets," "We haven't had an activity in 4 months," "Our highest ranking cadet is a C/SSgt."  There are some serious health issues with our units that I don't think that our wing leadership is really aware of or understands. 

I mentioned the CAC reports.  Oddly enough, we have CC Call on the same nights.  In the other room, the commander for the unit with "2 active cadets" is touting about how they have 30 cadets (on the roster) and they have this super awesome recruiting plan and their squadron is the best.  Quite the different picture than the cadet is painting for us. 

Do I know how to fix it?  No.  Would I like to?  Yes.  All I can really say is that my unit is bucking the trend of decline and becoming stronger.  We've recruited 15 new pilots in the last 6 months, 8 of whom are CFIIs,  3 CFI, and 2 private pilots.  A few have checked out as CAP Check pilots, we've got about 10 new cadets in the last few months, cadets are promoting, all is good.  However, I don't think that it is good enough to alter the overall picture of our wing.

[Eclipse]

Man I'm getting tired of these "empty shirt" conversations.

We've got one unit in my state that is a successful unit and one of the larger ones, but I keep hearing from them that they are on a "push to 100".

They only way they are going to get there is that they refuse to push empty shirts (i.e. guys no one has ever met in 10 years) to "000".  Then in seperate calls they complain that the empty shirts are never going to complete the required training (EEO, OPSEC, etc.) so they have SUI and similar issues every time it comes up.

Empty shirts may have financial value to the corporation (in some cases), but they are of no value to the average unit CC who needs to actually have members show up to run a squadron.

[NIN]

Thinking about NIN's "Successful Open House" thread, it made me think about the number of squadrons that are bucking the trend of decreased membership numbers.  I think often times our squadrons operate in a wave (increasing numbers -> decreasing -> increasing), but for the most part I honestly think that currently the majority on the decline. 

when I took the reigns of Concord in 1999, it was either I took command or the unit was going to get deactivated (where have we heard that before?). That I lived a 1/2 mile down the street from the unit was a total bonus!

That unit was on a serious decline from just a year before when it had been "OK."  (not perfect, but "OK") 


Since 2001, when we started our "pipelining" process, the unit has grown stronger and membership has held steady between 80 & 90 members ever since.  The wide swings in membership trends have literally *disappeared* in my unit.   (I believe that units are cyclical in nature, and that they go up and down. What I've done is to help the unit avoid the "full-amplitude" swings so now we're experiencing what amounts to "hunting around the mean" of minor variations)

Part of what helps this is that we've managed over the course of successive commanders to "not upset the applecart" too much.  The Major who took over from me in 2004 basically continued many of the same policies and procedures as we had when I was the CO. Difference was that he is a bit of a 'stricter disciplinarian' than I am, so he raised the standards a bit in some other areas.    Awesome.

He handed the reigns over to another major, this one an active ARNG major.  In 8 months, he virtually dismantled everything we'd built.  (I'm not saying he wasn't a good officer. He is.  But he came in and pretty much poo-poohed everything we'd built before then. At one point it was : "Look at all this stuff I'm bringing to the unit. Like my new testing log form?" and we said "How is that different from the testing log form we have now?" and he said "We have a testing log form already?  Oh, well, but this one is better cuz I did it.."  Hard to keep people motivated when you basically say "Everything you did before was crap, now that I'm here, I'll show you how to be an expert..") Thankfully, the unit's membership was able to sustain that a little, and he did continue to use the pipelining process we'd already built.

When I took the squadron back over, it was

So take for instance, NIN's and my squadrons.  Shortly he will add 22 cadets to our cadet membership and I about 10.  So that is 32 new cadets added to the wing/national membership list.  Obviously those two units are increasing in strength and have good forward momentum.  But, that is 2 out of 10.  So the other 8 with their decreasing numbers are offsetting the good stuff going on in the other two. 

No kidding.  I have 89 members.  Your squadron has a similar number. The entire wing is only 500 members (-ish).  Between the two of us, we have 40% of the wing's membership.  There are 8 other units in  the wing who get to fight over the remaining 60% of the membership. Ugh. Those are not good numbers.

I'm our wings CAC Advisor and the unit reports that I hear sadden me.  "We have 2 active cadets," "We haven't had an activity in 4 months," "Our highest ranking cadet is a C/SSgt."  There are some serious health issues with our units that I don't think that our wing leadership is really aware of or understands. 

I mentioned the CAC reports.  Oddly enough, we have CC Call on the same nights.  In the other room, the commander for the unit with "2 active cadets" is touting about how they have 30 cadets (on the roster) and they have this super awesome recruiting plan and their squadron is the best.  Quite the different picture than the cadet is painting for us. 

And my recently past cadet commander is the CAC chair who works for you Just last night he and I were discussing pipelining and he said that every time its brought up at a CAC meeting, the other reps all say "Oh, we can't afford to recruit that way.."

I looked at him and said "Ariel, did you tell them they can't afford NOT to recruit that way?"

He shrugged his shoulders and said "I tried, sir, but they just don't get it."

(And we've had this same discussion here, and the problem is that its such a paradigm shift away from "the way we've always done it" for units that they just can't wrap their hands around it...)

Do I know how to fix it?  No.  Would I like to?  Yes.  All I can really say is that my unit is bucking the trend of decline and becoming stronger.  We've recruited 15 new pilots in the last 6 months, 8 of whom are CFIIs,  3 CFI, and 2 private pilots.  A few have checked out as CAP Check pilots, we've got about 10 new cadets in the last few months, cadets are promoting, all is good.  However, I don't think that it is good enough to alter the overall picture of our wing.

Darn dude, let me know what it is you're doing to recruit pilots. I want some of that!

We keep recruiting pilots and wing keeps taking our plane for extended periods. Its really cheesing me off.

(thankfully, I'm not the commander any more!)

[Major Carrales]

I have the hardest time recruiting cadets from Corpus Christi Proper.  The Urban youth is hard to reach, I don't know if the message doesn't get through or if there have so much other stuff to do.

I will, however, keep trying.  I'm sure there are some youth looking for something like CAP, we just have to connect with them.

[SAR-EMT1]

I have 18 members in my squadron according to the books. Of those 11 are active to some degree.
This is up from a membership of only 7 just a few years back..
Problem is, many of those above are transfers from when a nearby unit was shut down.
Only two people in the unit served as cadets.

We do our best at recruiting and submit a press release quarterly but it doesn't help that much.
The local schools aren't friendly to our presence, and JROTC takes a lot of our perspectives.

We don't have a van, airplane, or ground team. But I can field a UDF crew and am working on a GT program.

[Major Carrales]

I have 18 members in my squadron according to the books. Of those 11 are active to some degree.
This is up from a membership of only 7 just a few years back..
Problem is, many of those above are transfers from when a nearby unit was shut down.
Only two people in the unit served as cadets.

We do our best at recruiting and submit a press release quarterly but it doesn't help that much.
The local schools aren't friendly to our presence, and JROTC takes a lot of our perspectives.

We don't have a van, airplane, or ground team. But I can field a UDF crew and am working on a GT program.

My advice is simple, "be there" and do for those you have and don't worry about those you don't. 

While it would be nice to have those that JROTC takes away...remember that you do have some.  Make it special for those.

We have Army JROTC in Kingsville...we work with them, not against.