Evidence of failure of CAP public affairs

[SoCalMarine]

Let me tell you the problem with CAP Public Affairs as I see it. There's almost a public affairs program, but not quite. To make matters worse? There is no training program to speak of really. Yeah, there's a manual someone updated a few years back. Fantastic. Where's the training? I don't see squadron, group or wing level training as a standard across the country. We all know that an organization makes its living by the grunts, but the grunts in the PA program are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Most of the local PAOs I've met are doing their best with little, to no, guidance.

Look at this example...

Take two kids equal in every way... background, parents, homelife and intelligence. Both are taking a calculus course. One student is given just a text book to use to teach themselves with no help except the occasional person they might be able to talk to. The other kid has a classroom full of other students, teacher's, TAs and even the opportunity to go to special classes specifically to train them in calculus. Which student is going to do better?

The first student is a CAP PAO. The second student is a PA specialist with the CGAUX.

So what's my point? I'm not trying to make the CGAUX out to be better than CAP as an organization. I'm simply making the point that the CGAUX has put in place a serious training program designed to give the local level PAOs all the tools they need to succeed. You add in that almost every other officer on the flotilla level also has training in their own position. So, you don't just have a well trained PAO, but all of his support staff and fellow officers having good training as well.

So, again what's the point? CAP could do well to get onboard with serious training programs. This hodgepodge crap is not working. You can't tell me that the USAF doesn't have the money to work with CAP to set up comprehensive training programs. CGAUX personnel can go to USCG C schools and even Navy C schools completely paid for by the USCG. I know for absolute certain that the USAF has more money. There's no reason that the USAF can't set up a program that would allow CAP officers to attend AF PAO schools and others. Once these training programs get up and running they will be able to run themselves with the first graduates being able to staff future classes and CAP schools.

Anything else and I'll call BS. The USAF is approaching CAP half-assed and we all know it. CAP is a good organization doing a good job with no training. There's already an excellent example in place, and I know for a fact that the CGAUX is willing to help out CAP getting things running. The problem is not just the USAF not investing time, money and effort, but you also have CAP not doing anything to set up training programs on its own (and it doesn't need AF permission for that) and finally you have too many people in CAP who are naysayers. Can't be done, AF won't allow it, don't have the money and so on and so on. People need to stop the negativity and just freaking get on board with making CAP a better organization than it is today. We need dedicated people willing to make the hard choice.

Put suggestions on the table. Quit telling us how it won't work and just tell us what parts will. We can come up with it on our own.

[RiverAux]

I've commented on the relatively more advanced state of PAO training in CG Aux in other threads and there are some things that we could probably do to improve in this area.  But, even though better training is available to CG Aux public affairs folks I'd say my overall assessment of their PAO program would be about the same -- pockets of hope centered around a very few number of good, active PAOs but overall a failure due to the fact that those folks are the rare exception and not the rule.

For example, the number of people with PA ratings resulting from going through the available training (as opposed to those who just hold the PA staff position) was in the dozens the last time I looked (though they have been making an effort to increase this). 

The thing that gets me is that CAP has the huge advantage of being at the center of state, regional, and sometimes nation-wide news events involving missing airplane searches in particular.  And CAP often plays a supporting role in other major national news stories.  But, too often we fail to take advantage of those opportunities either through a lack of PAOs or ICs being scared about having any interaction with the media. 

[jimmydeanno]

I think the amount being spent is insufficient as well.  My experience in the corporate world has told me that a good public affairs team pays for itself and then some because of the increase in sales, services, and personnel that it brings to the company.  In our case, a good public affairs effort, properly funded, with quality players on the team would result in a significantly higher revenue stream from donations, etc.  People want to get on board with organizations that do good things and that everyone knows about.

Getting our name out better improves the chances of getting grants, donations, corporate partnerships, etc.  Throwing some money at public affairs, with a solid plan behind it would be a great thing.  However, the real questions are whether or not that 100K is coming out of corporate funds or appropriated funds, can we use appropriated money for fundraising and public affairs, and if there is more money available in the appropriate pot to put towards that goal. 

If it's corporate money, then I think we'll have a hard time getting an increase in that area - considering how little corporate money we use/have each year.  If it's appropriated money, there will be more restrictions - but my understanding is that we often return about 1 million in unused appropriated money each year.

[RiverAux]

Just to be clear, that 100K figure is the amount specifically spent on advertising.  I'm sure that if we lumped in the cost of salaries and benefits of paid NHQ public affairs staff that it would probably look more like a quarter million and there might very well be some other "public affairs" spending accounted for in other parts of the national budget. 

[flyboy53]

So, what's the solution.

It seems that you want a HQ-level Public Affairs Department that is both marketing and public affairs oriented. The problem is that they are two distinctly different missions, conducted by separate functions: the various recruiting services and Public Affairs. Each has separate budgets for different target audiences.

If you want the flashy billboards, the slick ads, the promos and the PSAs (which is not a bad idea) that's all recruiting. However, I don't see us ever in the situation of giving out t-shirts, ballcaps, cups, etc., to everyone that signs up...but it is necessary to get the message out. The closest we get are all those DDR handouts...but somebody has to pay for all that, and if it isn't the unit, it's the DDR officer out of pocket.

You want to get the story out there, that's all Public Affairs. Air Force Public Affairs at wing level used to be (and probably still is) broken into four policy areas: internal, external, community relations, and policy/security review. It's at wing level that everything (the mission) takes place. As a minimun, a wing-level PAO function had two officers, a NCOIC and at least two to three enlisted types in each functional area. Squadrons had stringers and groups had one to two individuals who managed things like hometown news releases, or prepared things for release by wing.

Also, during my tenure in AF Public Affairs, commands used to quota wings for story ideas that would be marketed to national publications. I know because I managed this program at Mt. Home AFB and actually authored the initial pubic release of information in the Grumman EF-111A; to include writing an article about the aircraft for a national publication...I'm dating myself.

In my own experience, CAP wing or region public affairs don't operate anywhere close to that model and there's a complete lack of community relations. This is because the different NHQ functions guard their own programs. Case in point, the TOP Flight program is a combined AE, community relations and recruiting program.

If I were in a position of authority, I would push for the CAP-USAF side to take over the PA function and let the marketing guys do the marketing, billboards, etc. I would strongly promote things like the Hometown News Release Program and provide the units with the same, very simple, template that is still used today. Also, although it is highly unlikely that a CAP PAO ever gets picked for someting like DINFOS (I'm a DINFOS grad), the summer months, when the school was at Fort Harrision, Ind., were filled with Reservists and Guardsmen who attended week-long short courses to bone up on their skills or give those who learned the job OJT an opportunity to experience DINFOS. I don't understand why that isn't an option for CAP PAOs, especially as a special activity.

Just my own thoughts on this subject.....for what they're worth.

[ProdigalJim]

It seems that you want a HQ-level Public Affairs Department that is both marketing and public affairs oriented. The problem is that they are two distinctly different missions, conducted by separate functions: the various recruiting services and Public Affairs. Each has separate budgets for different target audiences.

:clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:

The mixing of those two concepts drives me bananas, both in the CAP sense and as a recipient of it during my day job (for those who haven't read my profile...which is probably everyone...I'm a senior editor at Aviation Week).

I know because I managed this program at Mt. Home AFB and actually authored the initial pubic release of information in the Grumman EF-111A; to include writing an article about the aircraft for a national publication...I'm dating myself.

Hee! You are. One of the first things I ever read that helped fuel my interest in aviation as a career was an "Amazing Expose" of the F-111 in Popular Science in 1967. Cool piece, and I still have it scrapbooked someplace. That was back when PopSci was small-format and perfect-bound...a book-sized magazine each month that hid nicely away in my desk at school so Sister didn't see me sneaking a peek...

[FW]

I think the amount being spent is insufficient as well.  My experience in the corporate world has told me that a good public affairs team pays for itself and then some because of the increase in sales, services, and personnel that it brings to the company.  In our case, a good public affairs effort, properly funded, with quality players on the team would result in a significantly higher revenue stream from donations, etc.  People want to get on board with organizations that do good things and that everyone knows about.

Getting our name out better improves the chances of getting grants, donations, corporate partnerships, etc.  Throwing some money at public affairs, with a solid plan behind it would be a great thing.  However, the real questions are whether or not that 100K is coming out of corporate funds or appropriated funds, can we use appropriated money for fundraising and public affairs, and if there is more money available in the appropriate pot to put towards that goal. 

If it's corporate money, then I think we'll have a hard time getting an increase in that area - considering how little corporate money we use/have each year.  If it's appropriated money, there will be more restrictions - but my understanding is that we often return about 1 million in unused appropriated money each year.

Most of the money for "advertising" CAP comes from our national "dues".   Salaries and office expenses come mostly from our "appropriated funds". 

CAP's marketing and advertising budget is determined by the NEC and BoG.  Could we spend more?  Probably.  For me to approve of such an additional expense, we would need a comprehensive marketing plan which would show a realistic expectation of positive returns.   Targeting potential members is good however, as Jimmy says, targeting potential contributors is better.   After all, getting members is not our problem; keeping them is. Adequate funding is always a question.  Oh, and last I heard, we never turn back appropriated cash...

[RiverAux]

After all, getting members is not our problem; keeping them is.

While I agree that retention can be an issue, anyone who thinks that CAP is adequately staffed on the senior side for any of our missions, and ES in particular, is just wrong.  For most ES specialties on a good day we can handle a mission just barely.  We have very little depth at most of our positions and in most of our units given that most of our volunteers don't have job protection and can't respond like the National Guard.  We need a minimum of 3 and preferably 6 people for every slot on whatever team you want to put together.  For example, you need 3-6 GTLs and 12-24 GTMS to have a pretty good chance of fielding a 5 person ground team at any given time, especially for a multi-day mission.  I haven't run the numbers lately, but the last time I looked at mission pilots in particular we were right on the edge of bare minimum nationally and many wings were below it. 

We could also be doing much better in terms of raw cadet numbers.  There is no reason that we couldn't have at least a small cadet unit in any town with more than 10,000 people and any town with more than 30-50K should be able to have at least 50+ cadets. 

There is no reason that we should be satisfied with the stagnant membership numbers we've had for decades.  We appear to be on a slight rise at the moment, but certainly nothing spectacular. 

I too am not totally comfortable with the mixing of marketing and public affairs, but they to have a lot of similarities.  I don't see that confluence as holding us back.  Ideally we would have enough people to separate them out, but we don't.

We do have a marketing plan, but it is more of a general overview rather than laying out particular campaigns. 

Having CAP-USAF do public affairs?  Are you nuts?  What training or experience do they have in it?  There may be a random former public affairs guy in CAP-USAF somewhere, but I don't see them as bringing any more to the table than any CAP PAO might and sometimes less as their knowledge and understanding of CAP can be pretty limited at times. 

[flyboy53]

Having CAP-USAF do public affairs?  Are you nuts?  What training or experience do they have in it?  There may be a random former public affairs guy in CAP-USAF somewhere, but I don't see them as bringing any more to the table than any CAP PAO might and sometimes less as their knowledge and understanding of CAP can be pretty limited at times.

No not nuts, just trying to get someone to understand how this very important function needs to be managed. Ask yourself this question, who manages the PAO function from the Air Force side or does the CAP staff contribute to Air University or Maxwell AFB Publications. Someone is generating news releases that make their way into things like Air Force Times, Airman magazine, or the AFA Magazine.

Think of this. How much more successful would the PAO function be if the wing PAO shop was staffed large enough so that there were teams to put out wing-wide publications. news releases, PSAs, sound bites or community relations projects. A squadron-level PAO could be a stringer for group or wing, which would serve as a less-stressful and better training opportunity. Then at group oir wing level there would be teams of PAO types separated into the different functions and tasked with generating news releases wing-wide or developing one wing-level publication with everyone contributing to it.

You could even have Mission PAO teams capable of responding to a crisis/plane crash/search/etc. just like incident commanders.

[RiverAux]

Your second paragraph sounds great, but I don't see how getting CAP-USAF involved would aid in that at all.  There are very few people assigned to CAP-USAF and I don't see that changing given AF-drawdowns.  So, you're talking about giving them an additional duty.  Doesn't sound like it would lead to an increase in quality or quantity of CAP public affairs work.

 

[flyboy53]

Your second paragraph sounds great, but I don't see how getting CAP-USAF involved would aid in that at all.  There are very few people assigned to CAP-USAF and I don't see that changing given AF-drawdowns.  So, you're talking about giving them an additional duty.  Doesn't sound like it would lead to an increase in quality or quantity of CAP public affairs work.

So that's an unrealistic goal and a given fact. Then that means that NHQ should be studying what they need to do to improve their functions to include re-designing the delegation of authority to all things, not just big wing PA operations. So many times, a wing staff function is just one person trying to manage a wing-wide program.

In a long run, I would think that more people in any given wing function would allow delegation of authority and time to concentrate on projects that could net the CAP things like the Public Relations Society of America's Anvil awards.

The closest we've ever gotten to a massive in-your-face almost daily PR campaign was the search for Steve Fossett or all those neat video products with things like Fox News following 9-11. I've seen CAP in movies like "Solo Flight" and there are a few AF Audiovisual Service movies that make the CAP continue to shine even though those products are now almost 40 years old.

The thing is, is that in recent months, it almost seemed like somebody went to sleep and now we have a public perception problem.

[RiverAux]

Some wings actually do have public affairs "teams".  I think I've seen some with as many as 4-5 people (Wing PAO, Asst. Wing PAO, webmaster, recruiter, etc.). 

[Eclipse]

CAP-USAF's job is not to do CAP's wrench turning, nor are they necessarily more capable simply by their military status.

The USAF's  job is not to do CAP's wrench turning, nor are they necessarily more capable simply by their military status.

Wrench turning is the job of the volunteer membership, that's the whole point, and if we can't or won't do it, then it is to our
detriment.