Membership trends

[davidsinn]

That includes NHQ-000, NHQ-006, NHQ-100, NHQ-113, NHQ-119, NHQ-126, NHQ-996, NHQ-997, NHQ-999.

See here, pg 26 for further info on these units.

Link is broke.

[Eclipse]

As of Jan 7, 2010 membership numbers are:
For NHQ units; 2556 members
For GLR units; 6988
For MER units; 6798
For NCR units; 4275
For NER units; 8939
For PCR units; 7653
For RMR units; 3517
For SER units; 9131
For SWR units; 7183

If my addition is correct, there are 57040 members currently in CAP.  The figures come directly from eservices so, I assume they are accurate.  I have no idea how "the blogger" got a number of less than 35,000.

He's making wild assumptions of the empty shirt ratio.

I wouldn't even argue his math is flawed, but its not "new" - the numbers and ratio have been about the same since I joined in 99, so to decid on a given day to just start purposely underreporting with a guesstimate of empty shirts shows the intention.

The whole idea of reporting membership is dependent on the day you take the snapshot.

One thing NHQ could do that would help this is to make the whole membership co-terminus on 1 Jan, then do you reporting in June or at the fiscal year.   That way you have no issues with large numbers of members falling off because they renewed a day late.

I ran my numbers for a staff meeting last month, and all I had to work with was that day's view.  By coincidence, I used an agenda draft that happened to have numbers from 2 years ago, and it showed a drop in cadet membership of 4% across the board at my level.

Last night I ran the 09 SoM report and it turns out that we actually had an increase of 10% this year (and that's even after moving a lot of empty shirt cadets to 000). 

The detailed parts of the reporting showed that what we already know - active units basically hold their own, and less active units lose members.  Which-are-which varies year-to-year.

It is what it is.

[Hoorah]

My thought on membership trends is when cadets go to encampment then they somdtimes quit.

[Майор Хаткевич]

My thought on membership trends is when cadets go to encampment then they somdtimes quit.

Which is completely backwards, because when cadets DON'T go to encampment they most definitely are more likely to quit.

[Eclipse]

My thought on membership trends is when cadets go to encampment then they somdtimes quit.

Cadets who attend an encampment during their first year of membership are more likely to stay in the program.

[FW]

With our present membership software,  membership numbers drop off every 1st of the month and rise until the last day of the month where by the cycle just repeats itself over and over. The way it's set up, tracking late renewals and early drop offs are difficult to do.  With the new organizational management software NHQ is supposed to begin using next FY, I think reporting membership will be more accurate. However, it doesn't really matter how accurate reporting trends are reported if we don't do anything about them.

[Eclipse]

With our present membership software,  membership numbers drop off every 1st of the month and rise until the last day of the month where by the cycle just repeats itself over and over. The way it's set up, tracking late renewals and early drop offs are difficult to do.  With the new organizational management software NHQ is supposed to begin using next FY, I think reporting membership will be more accurate. However, it doesn't really matter how accurate reporting trends are reported if we don't do anything about them.

+1  All this has happened before and it will happen again.

We need more people to recruit more people, and we need more people to manage the new people.

Also, we need more people.

[RiverAux]

He's making wild assumptions of the empty shirt ratio.

Nope, he is specifically talking about ALL members whether "active" or not.  He is now saying TOTAL membership is actually 22-26K. 

[Eebdog]

My thought on membership trends is when cadets go to encampment then they somdtimes quit.

Cadets who attend an encampment during their first year of membership are more likely to stay in the program.

When they are sent mentally and physically prepared, and when there's quality leadership on the staff, otherwise quite the opposite effect.

[Hoorah]

Yep.

[FW]

We must have touched a nerve with our "blogger" friend.  I was told my post's have been referenced by him recently.  I'm honored

One thing NHQ doesn't do is lie about "raw" membership numbers.  Each member has a distinct CAPID and that number is only associated with one CAP Charter Number.  The raw membership number changes every day.  They can not determine a late renewal or a "drop off" from the rolls until they either renew or the renewal date for the drop off has passed.  I don't think this glitch in the system would account for the wide variance between NHQ numbers and those of others.  When the corporate budget is developed, we must know the actual amount to expect from membership dues.  For FY 09, the 3/31/09 figures were used.  Later in the year, we adjusted the budget UP because of the increased membership revenues. 

BTW; I was not unjustly removed from my position as NFO, my term was up and the commander decided to appoint someone else.  That is the commander's prerogative. 
Also, for the record, Gen Courter has complete authority to let anyone she deems necessary use the "commander's directed travel" budget.  Everyone who travels and is reimbursed from that budget must justify it with a detailed activity report.  The commander should (and up to now has had) have this discretion. 

Now, I don't know how "smart" I am when it comes to my posts however, as you probably have figured out by now, I only post what I think is truthful and, I will not sacrifice my integrity for the sake of anyone.

Oh, Ray, the membership numbers from eservices can be easily verified by asking any region staffer to look up their respective totals from "CAPWATCH". Please donate the "crisp $100 bill" to the CAP Foundation (I'm not a a corporate officer) when you are satisifed with the figures.  Yes, right now it is totally controlled by CAP inc.  But, hopefully, the Foundation Board will get their collective butts in gear and get things moving towards independance.  The IRS will not look kindly on this relationship much longer.  And, its second largest donor will not be happy either....

[SarDragon]

That includes NHQ-000, NHQ-006, NHQ-100, NHQ-113, NHQ-119, NHQ-126, NHQ-996, NHQ-997, NHQ-999.

See here, pg 26 for further info on these units.

Link is broke.

Sorry about that. Try this one:

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/Unit_Directory_3449B1BF3A9EC.pdf

[RiverAux]

I see our "buddy" is misrepresenting CAP retention rates as well.  He is confusing the cadet 1st year retention rate and the cadet overall retention rate with that of all members. 

Some of the most recent information, which matches up with other stuff I've seen was posted here:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=7521.msg138182#msg138182

Senior Member Nationwide: 62%
Cadet Member:  46.9%

The cadet 1st year and overall rates were also in the cadet annual report posted elsewhere on CAPTalk.

Of course the overall cadet retention rate will always be fairly low no matter if CAP was the best organization ever put on the face of the earth.  I think the senior retention rate is not bad either.  If we threw out the loss of new recruits and looked at retention of seniors who have been in more than 2 years, its probably much higher. 

[PHall]

I see our "buddy" is misrepresenting CAP retention rates as well.  He is confusing the cadet 1st year retention rate and the cadet overall retention rate with that of all members. 

Some of the most recent information, which matches up with other stuff I've seen was posted here:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=7521.msg138182#msg138182

Senior Member Nationwide: 62%
Cadet Member:  46.9%

The cadet 1st year and overall rates were also in the cadet annual report posted elsewhere on CAPTalk.

Of course the overall cadet retention rate will always be fairly low no matter if CAP was the best organization ever put on the face of the earth.  I think the senior retention rate is not bad either.  If we threw out the loss of new recruits and looked at retention of seniors who have been in more than 2 years, its probably much higher.

And those first year retention rates match what we've had for about the past 20 years or so.

So what's he going to do next Dec 1 when we're still around?

[lordmonar]

We must have touched a nerve with our "blogger" friend.  I was told my post's have been referenced by him recently.  I'm honored

He has removed all CAP related posts from his blog.  I wonder if you are ever going to see your $100.

[RADIOMAN015]

One thing NHQ doesn't do is lie about "raw" membership numbers.  Each member has a distinct CAPID and that number is only associated with one CAP Charter Number.  The raw membership number changes every day.  They can not determine a late renewal or a "drop off" from the rolls until they either renew or the renewal date for the drop off has passed.  I don't think this glitch in the system would account for the wide variance between NHQ numbers and those of others.  When the corporate budget is developed, we must know the actual amount to expect from membership dues.  For FY 09, the 3/31/09 figures were used.  Later in the year, we adjusted the budget UP because of the increased membership revenues. 

I think much of the drama concerning CAP's membership numbers could easily be resolved by posting publically to the CAP website a monthly report showing the stats by region, wing, to include the specific totals for each senior member category as well as cadet totals.   With the 4 computer programmers/analysts assigned to the national staff, I don't think that would be that difficult of a report to develop. 
I doubt that thousands of members are late every month when their renewals are due, so the figures should be pretty close to reality (as far as statistics are concerned).
RM 

[FW]

He has removed all CAP related posts from his blog.  I wonder if you are ever going to see your $100.

In my correspondence with him, I got the feeling he will continue writing about CAP when the need arises. My comment about the $100 was made in jest. I told him I was only interested in accurate reporting; not contests.  I know he reads CT and, understands its contribution to the membership.
BTW; all donations and contributions to the CAP Foundation would be greatly appreciated.