Observations from a soon to be ex member.

[RiverAux]

^^^A very good (and troubling) analysis, which should alarm the heck out of anyone who cares about this organisation.

Why?  It shows that basically CAP membership numbers have stayed the same for about the last 40 years at the same time that participation in most other nationwide membership organizations has fallen dramatically.  Senior membership is even better as it has stayed the same since 1950.  The only real significant drop has been with cadet membership which has never really recovered from losses during Vietnam, but is essentially flat, with a few small dips and bumps since the early 1970s.

CAP should be singing halleluiah about a membership number report like that.   

[FW]

A fast look at BSA and GSA membership numbers for the last 3 years show about a 3% drop for the BSA, and a 1% drop for the GSA.  CAP cadet numbers have dropped a little more. I understand the times, however the number drop shouldn't be marginalized. We should be able to generate enough interest for real retention and growth.

[SunDog]

My sqdn has 35 or so senior members. I 've been around about 12 or 13 years, and haven't met most of them. Someting like less than a third of those, maybe even a fourth, are "curent'. They renew each year, so they are on the rolls. Just not playing. Can't see too much positive in that.

I do think the number of active senior members in my sqdn has dropped some - we keep losing and replacing, giving a little ground each year. Not always a bad thing, but the churn in this case is unhealthy; they/we are leaving for reasons such as those mentioned by the OP. The nonsense level is way too high, and that is something CAP could manage, do something about.

If Americans in general aren't as prone to joining, maybe volunteer orgs should adapt - like actualy DO  something based on the exit interview data. Clean up the bureacratic silliness, look at some BPR, get some focus and vision going, do some real communication, vice propoganda.

Someone said earler that CAP has a lot to offer - true enough, at least for me. Probably why some of us that stepped away, came back. But man! It is a difficult, frustrating, and significantly dysfunctional organization to work within.  I understand you may not agree, and the nonsense may not be an issue for you. It does seem to be for many of us, though. Maybe even most?

[Ned]

A fast look at BSA and GSA membership numbers for the last 3 years show about a 3% drop for the BSA, and a 1% drop for the GSA.  CAP cadet numbers have dropped a little more. I understand the times, however the number drop shouldn't be marginalized. We should be able to generate enough interest for real retention and growth.

We've done a lot of exit interview interations for cadets, and the answers are not very surprising.

Basically, if you have dynamic and challenging meetings every week, you will retain cadets.  The reverse is also true:  if you have dull and repetitive meetings ("the AE instructor forgot she had a class, so drill around the parking lot until we tell you to come in"), your retention will suffer.

For CP, at least, retention is almost completely in the hands of local leadership.

[MisterCD]

Plenty of factors play into the membership numbers, be they economic, social, cultural, geographic, etc. There is no one solution but I personally am of the mindset that we need to examine recruiting and recognition, retention, and senior professional development perhaps with approaches akin to the more diverse advancement program of cadets. Talk, however, is cheap, but at least raises food for thought and development.

[FW]

A fast look at BSA and GSA membership numbers for the last 3 years show about a 3% drop for the BSA, and a 1% drop for the GSA.  CAP cadet numbers have dropped a little more. I understand the times, however the number drop shouldn't be marginalized. We should be able to generate enough interest for real retention and growth.

We've done a lot of exit interview interations for cadets, and the answers are not very surprising.

Basically, if you have dynamic and challenging meetings every week, you will retain cadets.  The reverse is also true:  if you have dull and repetitive meetings ("the AE instructor forgot she had a class, so drill around the parking lot until we tell you to come in"), your retention will suffer.

For CP, at least, retention is almost completely in the hands of local leadership.

Ned, thank you for all you've done for CAP, and the Cadet Program in particular. I agree with you, however it may be a good idea to help units, by creating a better "tool kit" to have those "dynamic and challenging meetings". There does seem to be a need.  I understand 75 units were closed in the last few months due to a lack of leadership and/or personnel.  I think this may be something to address.  Curt Lefond and Susan Mallet have done great jobs at NHq, however we also have many dedicated volunteers who make CP a true personal calling... We can think of a few ways to work together and create that better tool kit. 

Making it easier for senior members to get the training needed to use the tool kit would help as well.  It's still a common complaint; poor leadership/poor planning/poor meeting activities/nothing worthwhile to do.  We have heard this for years.  With the proper direction and motivation, I know we can be successful. 

Just my $.02 :angel:

Plenty of factors play into the membership numbers, be they economic, social, cultural, geographic, etc. There is no one solution but I personally am of the mindset that we need to examine recruiting and recognition, retention, and senior professional development perhaps with approaches akin to the more diverse advancement program of cadets. Talk, however, is cheap, but at least raises food for thought and development.

Senior member exit "interactions" also show a problem with good leadership/programs/training opportunities.  Mission participation is another factor in SM retention.  Economics, social, cultural factors are important, however they can be overcome with a productive/worthwhile program.  It is kind of amazing when things come together.  There are some fantastic units in CAP.  Some are not in the "perfect" location.  We should be able to capitalize on these "best practices" and spread the "wealth".

There was a time when squadrons were pretty much on their own.  That isn't the case today.  We have a fleet of great aircraft, about 1000 vehicles for units, Wing Banker, Consolidated Maintanence, online reporting, mass electronic distribution of information, a viable web presence, and an established grape vine (CAPTalk!)  Our infrastructure is sound. It's now time to turn some dreams into reality.  With precise stated goals, and a motivated membership to accomlish them, we will succeed.

[Panache]

I see membership (both cadet and senior) took a big hit in 1994.  Correct me if I'm wrong, as I wasn't around at that point, but isn't that when the maroon shoulder marks were forced upon CAP?

If so, that has some interesting implications.  I know some here will say "if you're in it for the uniform, we don't need you" but this makes it pretty apparent that the uniforms DOES have a pretty big impact on our membership numbers.  NHQ might want to take note of that.

[RiverAux]

I know some here will say "if you're in it for the uniform, we don't need you"

If there was a relationship it was probably more like, "Why are you punishing me for what some stupid CAP leader did?  If you all don't want to be associated with us, I don't want to be associated with you." 

Many people join CAP as a way to provide assistance to the Air Force and if the AF does things that show that our help isn't really appreciated, they walk.  There are a myriad of ways that the AF could do this, uniforms being only one. 

[jeders]

I understand 75 units were closed in the last few months due to a lack of leadership and/or personnel. 

This right here is why I left, though my old unit hasn't been closed...yet. I was in a unit that was circling the drain due to a commander, an AF NCO with no CAP experience, that thought CAP was his own personal playground. He had left the AF and was no longer living in the state for a couple of months when I volunteered fought and begged to take command. This unit is the one I joined as a cadet 13 years ago and I have always fought for its survival. First I was told by group to shut and go away because there was already a commander assigned. Then when group asked for volunteers to take command I was again told to shut up and go away; apparently the group commander would rather appoint a new member who has never been to an actual meeting and had not started Level 1. When I went to the wing commander I was told to trust that the group commander because, "he has a plan." Now, 6 months later, the appointed commander still hasn't shown up to any meetings and is being replaced by another member from the squadron who happened to corner the group commander at a recent SAREX. At every point that I tried to volunteer for command, I was not the only experienced member stepping up.

This sounds like grumbling and sour grapes, I know; but as much as I and the others who stepped up love CAP, we have all left now and have no desire to return because of the back-room politics being carried out by group. It's not the conflicting regs or the bureaucratic encumbrances, it's the politics. The first two can be worked around by commanders who have half a clue, the latter cannot.

It should be noted that this level of politics is fairly new to our squadron. We've always had to deal with a normal level of politics from wing, but when the new wing commander took command a few years ago we were ripped from our home group and put in a new group with a new commander that does not like us (his words). This commander also does not care about the regs or those who try to enforce them (again, his words), which causes a lot of the conflict.

I know some here will say "if you're in it for the uniform, we don't need you"

If there was a relationship it was probably more like, "Why are you punishing me for what some stupid CAP leader did?  If you all don't want to be associated with us, I don't want to be associated with you." 

Many people join CAP as a way to provide assistance to the Air Force and if the AF does things that show that our help isn't really appreciated, they walk.  There are a myriad of ways that the AF could do this, uniforms being only one. 

If you are truly in it just for the uniform, then we don't want you. But River hit the nail squarely on the head, those who left after that incident did so largely due to a massive drop in morale, not because they want to be posers in a air force uniform.

[SunDog]

It's not the conflicting regs or the bureaucratic encumbrances, it's the politics. The first two can be worked around by commanders who have half a clue, the latter cannot.
[/quote]

Back up at 20,00 feet,  in varying degrees of individual importance, it's all these things - we have lost people due to bureaucratic encumbrances, for sure. Working around the nonsense became too much aggravation. Ditto silly, conflicting, badly conceived regs. And normal human politics, certainly.

Recent poster mentioned the solid infrastructure, and with the exception of the truly wretched web services, he's essentially correct. It's likely Border's Books and Blockbuster Video had decent infrastructures, as well.  You gotta DO something that makes sense with the sound infrastructure, right?

I doubt we lose someone just because eServcies bites. Or the flight release procedures are gacked. Or the GOBN jobs the aircraft locations. Or the abcd/1234 form instructions conflict with a reg. But we do lose them because of the preponderance of these things, because we've wasted their time and energy.  We just aggravate people out the door!

I think there is a hard core of folks who are willing to work around the nonsense, willing to spend more time feeding NHQ than doing the mission, willing to press on through it all. I respect them, but I think we wear them out, too. People are frustrated because they aren't hearing the issues being acknowledged.

Hey, we could be wrong about the impact - enough folks willing to do soldier on in the current environment may stick around, get the job done.  CAP won't miss what it never knew it could have,. . .

[Private Investigator]

I see membership (both cadet and senior) took a big hit in 1994.  Correct me if I'm wrong, as I wasn't around at that point, but isn't that when the maroon shoulder marks were forced upon CAP?

If so, that has some interesting implications.  I know some here will say "if you're in it for the uniform, we don't need you" but this makes it pretty apparent that the uniforms DOES have a pretty big impact on our membership numbers.  NHQ might want to take note of that.

That would be true if CAP Talk has a say. But some Squadrons do not know what is happening in CAP. i.e., If it is outside of Petticoat Junction Squadron who cares? 

[NIN]

That would be true if CAP Talk has a say. But some Squadrons do not know what is happening in CAP. i.e., If it is outside of Petticoat Junction Squadron who cares? 

There was a lot of turbulence in 1994. Remember, thats when we went from the EX being dual-hatted as the commander of CAP-USAF and NHQ staff being a blend of CAP-USAF and civilians to an all civilian CAP, Inc NHQ with the Executive Director (later COO) being a CAP-only person and not the Commander, CAP-USAF.

I'm sure it contributed to the membership hiccups.

[m981]

Does anyone else notice that none of this crap happened when our boss was a real AF O7? I know, it's not about to revert. Just sayin'.

[NIN]

Does anyone else notice that none of this crap happened when our boss was a real AF O7? I know, it's not about to revert. Just sayin'.

There was different crap, I'm sure.

[m981]

Maybe, but it never rose (sank?) to the scandalous levels repeatedly seen at National since then. Was  it better conduct or better damage control back then? I was not addressing anything at mid to lower levels. These have been covered elsewhere.

[Private Investigator]

When it comes to scandals at the NHQ level you will have 60,000 +/- POVs. I think 50% is totally clueless and/or do not care.