How many members do we have?

[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.