Recent membership trends

[RiverAux]

Anyone seen data on CAP membership trends over the last five years?  Our wing has seen a significant drop over the last few.  The trend has primarily been seen in a loss of cadets, but even senior membership has dropped by almost 10%. 

[jhighman]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, volunteerism by the average American is decreasing across the whole spectrum compared with even ten years ago. The good news is that these things tend to be cyclical, even for CAP. But you're right... Even a casual glance at the population figures on eservices suggests we are in a decline. I recall noting in late 2012 that our total numbers were a little over 62,000 and each month since that number seems to drop a few hundred.

This isn't a unique problem for CAP though. Even the armed services have trouble recruiting and retaining personnel, despite throwing countless resources at the problem.

[Live2Learn]

A 10% drop in the past decade is trivial compared to the huge decline in membership experienced between the 60's and 80's.  At least in my CAP wing the present day number of squadrons pales compared to the days before the great famine.  CAP is, I think, struggling to communicate relevancy for both adult and cadet members. 

[Garibaldi]

A 10% drop in the past decade is trivial compared to the huge decline in membership experienced between the 60's and 80's.  At least in my CAP wing the present day number of squadrons pales compared to the days before the great famine.  CAP is, I think, struggling to communicate relevancy for both adult and cadet members.

That, and the general war-weariness of the general public. I would also think the GWOT would have a negative effect on our members, as anyone wearing a uniform these days seems to be a target of opportunity. Just my .02

[NIN]

I happen to be looking at those numbers right now, as I have the presentation I made to the Wing Commander's Course last month up on my screen. How timely. (I have several years of data, but not 5 years worth for all at the moment)


(you can also see this in eServices)

[sardak]

Here's a chart showing monthly membership for the last 15 years. In answer to the OP's question, both senior and cadet membership is down over the last five years. In fact, senior membership is the lowest it's been during this span. Cadet membership almost reached its peak in 2012, but is now closer to the bottom than the top.

Mike

[RiverAux]

That, and the general war-weariness of the general public. I would also think the GWOT would have a negative effect on our members, as anyone wearing a uniform these days seems to be a target of opportunity. Just my .02

I don't know about that.  Sardaks chart may actually show otherwise-- while senior strength was more or less constant since 2005, cadets have been much more cyclical, with the low of cadet membership being at the around the time when the Iraq war was at its worst, but bounced back starting in 2009 through 2013 and jthen went off a cliff (well, steep hill).  That actually doesn't match well with any war weariness, at least not over the last 5 years. 

[ZigZag911]

I wonder whether the GWOT had much impact on our declining membership.

It is certainly possible, but, as I recall, even the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks only had a minimal impact (positively) on membership.

Certainly the decline in volunteerism affects CAP as much as any organization.

The complexity of CAP, at the local level, also does not help. My hope is that the recently announced revision of all regulations will do something to make a CAP flight or squadron a more straightforward group to run. Right now we try to have subject matter experts for every staff function at every organizational level. Ultimately this leads to a handful of senior members wearing multiple hats (often at multiple levels of command).

Wing Banker should have led to some easing of what is required from a local unit in this area, but, in my view, it has not had that effect.

Centralization is certainly not the answer to all problems, but it could relieve some stress on overburdened members.

We ought to be looking at areas where neighboring units could share resources, for instance, a small DDR, Recruiting or PAO team of a few seniors (to name several possibilities) share among the squadron in a group or a geographically proximate area.

We should be looking at other ways to consolidate or eliminate staff functions at squadron level.

While we're at it, might be a good idea to raise the topic of the optimal size of wings.

How can a wing  with 50-60 subordinate units, or 50K plus square miles of area,  possibly exercise reasonable span of control?

How can a wing that, in any other state, would be too small to form a group (that is, less than five squadrons) possibly recruit and retain sufficient seniors to staff a wing HQ effectively?

I know we have always operated under the "State=Wing" formula...I just question whether "that's the way we've always done it" remains sufficient justification for the way we carry out our missions/

[THRAWN]

I wonder whether the GWOT had much impact on our declining membership.

It is certainly possible, but, as I recall, even the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks only had a minimal impact (positively) on membership.

Certainly the decline in volunteerism affects CAP as much as any organization.

The complexity of CAP, at the local level, also does not help. My hope is that the recently announced revision of all regulations will do something to make a CAP flight or squadron a more straightforward group to run. Right now we try to have subject matter experts for every staff function at every organizational level. Ultimately this leads to a handful of senior members wearing multiple hats (often at multiple levels of command).

Wing Banker should have led to some easing of what is required from a local unit in this area, but, in my view, it has not had that effect.

Centralization is certainly not the answer to all problems, but it could relieve some stress on overburdened members.

We ought to be looking at areas where neighboring units could share resources, for instance, a small DDR, Recruiting or PAO team of a few seniors (to name several possibilities) share among the squadron in a group or a geographically proximate area.

We should be looking at other ways to consolidate or eliminate staff functions at squadron level.

While we're at it, might be a good idea to raise the topic of the optimal size of wings.

How can a wing  with 50-60 subordinate units, or 50K plus square miles of area,  possibly exercise reasonable span of control?

How can a wing that, in any other state, would be too small to form a group (that is, less than five squadrons) possibly recruit and retain sufficient seniors to staff a wing HQ effectively?

I know we have always operated under the "State=Wing" formula...I just question whether "that's the way we've always done it" remains sufficient justification for the way we carry out our missions/

After 9/11, we lost a few before we gained a few. I recall a few qualified, experienced and well trained ES types that "turned in their wings" like Cougar after the attacks. Guess they realized that actual ES/EM/DR/CD work is dirty, dangerous work. We did get a small bump in numbers after that. Mostly, it was the revival of the CD spirit, but it didn't last too long.

As to this question "How can a wing  with 50-60 subordinate units, or 50K plus square miles of area,  possibly exercise reasonable span of control?", why not? The DoD does it all the time, and does it well. There are enough levels of command that are available to make the SOC controllable. I do agree that it may be time to look at the structure and organization of CAP. Making it easier to share resources among wings and regions, especially in geographically crowded regions (looking at you, NER...) might make the organization flow a bit easier.

[THRAWN]

Here's a chart showing monthly membership for the last 15 years. In answer to the OP's question, both senior and cadet membership is down over the last five years. In fact, senior membership is the lowest it's been during this span. Cadet membership almost reached its peak in 2012, but is now closer to the bottom than the top.

Mike

The economic environment has a lot to do with that. People spend less time giving their time away when they're having a hard time feeding the rugrats...

[arajca]

I know we have always operated under the "State=Wing" formula...I just question whether "that's the way we've always done it" remains sufficient justification for the way we carry out our missions/

"That's the way we've always done it" isn't the justification. The differences, sometimes significant, in state laws is, from what I've been told, the primary driving force behind State=Wing. Not to mention the funding some wings get from their states.

[ZigZag911]

I know we have always operated under the "State=Wing" formula...I just question whether "that's the way we've always done it" remains sufficient justification for the way we carry out our missions/

"That's the way we've always done it" isn't the justification. The differences, sometimes significant, in state laws is, from what I've been told, the primary driving force behind State=Wing. Not to mention the funding some wings get from their states.

Some how the Coast Guard Auxiliary makes it work...their methods, particularly in view of their very close wrking relationship with active duty USCG, might mean that what they do couldn't work for us...but I think it's worth a look.

If this has been considered in recent years by National or BOG, I haven't heard about it.

[FW]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, volunteerism by the average American is decreasing across the whole spectrum compared with even ten years ago. The good news is that these things tend to be cyclical, even for CAP. But you're right... Even a casual glance at the population figures on eservices suggests we are in a decline. I recall noting in late 2012 that our total numbers were a little over 62,000 and each month since that number seems to drop a few hundred.

This isn't a unique problem for CAP though. Even the armed services have trouble recruiting and retaining personnel, despite throwing countless resources at the problem.

Our membership numbers have been oscillating between 56 and 58 thousand members for the last 40 or so years.  There have been "spikes" (as in after 9/11), but the raw numbers have been stable.  That being said, we do have a problem retaining new members for that 1st renewal.  Until that is addressed, we will IMHO continue to stay at present levels.  There is also the matter of membership category figures.  My cursory search of the data shows the ratio of active to patron/legislative/CSM/AEMs changing drastically.  Statistically, I don't know if our mission effectiveness is threatened, however I think it is a concern.

On a wing level, things are starting to concern me.  My wing has lost over 25% of its membership in the last few years...

[Holding Pattern]

Sometimes I think captalk shares some of the blame on this. People research CAP online and discover a bunch of people more obsessed with minutia instead of execution.

[TheSkyHornet]

Sometimes I think captalk shares some of the blame on this. People research CAP online and discover a bunch of people more obsessed with minutia instead of execution.

Really, I think CAP Talk, while informative, should be closed off to the public's eye if you aren't logged in. It's a lot of gouge and scuttlebutt that needs to be kept out of the public feed since really all of this is unofficial information, no matter how beneficial it may be to some viewers.

Anyway, keep in mind that we have a lot more organizations popping up all the time that makes it even more difficult for us to compete with. CAP also has not done the greatest job, maybe at the group and squadron levels in some areas, getting cadets more involved in the CAP missions, particularly in Emergency Services. A lot of squadrons act like a day camp and don't utilize the potential of cadets.

I think CAP has spent a lot of time marketing the hobby side of the organization (and I consider AE to be more of a hobby for cadets and seniors) than the training and mission focus. Not to mention, the consistency between squadrons is minimal. How many times do we have discussions about "How does your squadron do it?" There are a lot of people in leadership positions who aren't subject matter experts, and it causes a lot of dissension among subordinates and prospective members who walk in and see a group of people who really aren't on their A-Game.

Here's a chart showing monthly membership for the last 15 years. In answer to the OP's question, both senior and cadet membership is down over the last five years. In fact, senior membership is the lowest it's been during this span. Cadet membership almost reached its peak in 2012, but is now closer to the bottom than the top.

Mike

The economic environment has a lot to do with that. People spend less time giving their time away when they're having a hard time feeding the rugrats...

I wouldn't say it's just the economic environment we have across the country. In CAP alone, it's a very expensive organization to be a part of. Granted, all organizations have costs, but in CAP, we still need to pay for nearly everything we work with, from membership dues, to squadron dues (if applicable), to uniforms, to field gear that individuals may purchase, not to mention the constant need for fundraising at the squadron level which can take a bit of your own wallet even thought you're essentially fundraising for yourself/your squadron.

[THRAWN]

Sometimes I think captalk shares some of the blame on this. People research CAP online and discover a bunch of people more obsessed with minutia instead of execution.

Really, I think CAP Talk, while informative, should be closed off to the public's eye if you aren't logged in. It's a lot of gouge and scuttlebutt that needs to be kept out of the public feed since really all of this is unofficial information, no matter how beneficial it may be to some viewers.

Anyway, keep in mind that we have a lot more organizations popping up all the time that makes it even more difficult for us to compete with. CAP also has not done the greatest job, maybe at the group and squadron levels in some areas, getting cadets more involved in the CAP missions, particularly in Emergency Services. A lot of squadrons act like a day camp and don't utilize the potential of cadets.

I think CAP has spent a lot of time marketing the hobby side of the organization (and I consider AE to be more of a hobby for cadets and seniors) than the training and mission focus. Not to mention, the consistency between squadrons is minimal. How many times do we have discussions about "How does your squadron do it?" There are a lot of people in leadership positions who aren't subject matter experts, and it causes a lot of dissension among subordinates and prospective members who walk in and see a group of people who really aren't on their A-Game.

Here's a chart showing monthly membership for the last 15 years. In answer to the OP's question, both senior and cadet membership is down over the last five years. In fact, senior membership is the lowest it's been during this span. Cadet membership almost reached its peak in 2012, but is now closer to the bottom than the top.

Mike

The economic environment has a lot to do with that. People spend less time giving their time away when they're having a hard time feeding the rugrats...

I wouldn't say it's just the economic environment we have across the country. In CAP alone, it's a very expensive organization to be a part of. Granted, all organizations have costs, but in CAP, we still need to pay for nearly everything we work with, from membership dues, to squadron dues (if applicable), to uniforms, to field gear that individuals may purchase, not to mention the constant need for fundraising at the squadron level which can take a bit of your own wallet even thought you're essentially fundraising for yourself/your squadron.

So do the Boy and Girl Scouts, some volunteer police and fire departments, organized sports, and any other "recreational" organization. People are not interested in spending money on volunteer organizations. Why? Because of the economic environment...

[RiverAux]

Our membership numbers have been oscillating between 56 and 58 thousand members for the last 40 or so years.  There have been "spikes" (as in after 9/11), but the raw numbers have been stable. 

Just because we've gone up and down in the past doesn't mean that we're fated to go up again. 

[FW]

Our membership numbers have been oscillating between 56 and 58 thousand members for the last 40 or so years.  There have been "spikes" (as in after 9/11), but the raw numbers have been stable. 

Just because we've gone up and down in the past doesn't mean that we're fated to go up again.

I agree.  That's why we "hired" NIN to fix our problems.  LOL.  My biggest concern is with the large decline in active participating members vs. patrons, CSMs and AEM's.  I'm not sure it means much, however when we are below 20k "A's", I would definitely take notice.

[RiverAux]

I wouldn't be very surprised if the decline in senior membership is linked pretty directly to the decline in cadet membership.  When we've got fewer cadets, we've also get fewer cadet parents that join CAP to participate. 

Granted, cadet parent members haven't always been the most reliable for long term membership, but you get enough of them that decide to stick around after their kid leaves to be helpful.

[lordmonar]

One part of the decline in Senior membership can be attributed to the removal of private own aircraft on missions and exercises.

Once we closed off the tap to free flying....a lot o members left.

Add to that that number of seniors who only joined because of their cadets and we get the double whammy.

Having said that.

The questions is........Is the decline in senior membership an issue?

I ask that because unlike say the USAF where force strength is driven my mission needs......CAP has not done a very good job defining what our force strength needs to be.

How many pilots do we need?
How many Observers, Scanners, Photographers?
How many IC/FLM/FSC/PAO/et al do we need?

How deep should our market penetration in the Cadet Program be?
How many CP officers do we need for a given size of a cadet unit?

How many outside AE presentations do we need to do...and how many AEOs do we need to do it.

We shot gun our recruiting and put on our programs with very little guidance on what it means to be doing well with regards to a particular mission or task.

So yes....we can be worried that our numbers are shrinking.   But I can't see if anyone has a real good idea if that is a bad thing or just a thing.

[Holding Pattern]

I ask that because unlike say the USAF where force strength is driven my mission needs......CAP has not done a very good job defining what our force strength needs to be.

Just throwing this out there, but since CAP hasn't defined what our force strength needs to be, it is up to the Wings to do so. If the Wings don't, then it falls to the Groups. If the Groups don't, then each Squadron needs to.

If enough squadrons start defining what they want their force strength to be, they can then task their recruitment officer with that plan.

In short: Until we get top-down directives, we get to solve this problem from the bottom-up.

[RiverAux]

One part of the decline in Senior membership can be attributed to the removal of private own aircraft on missions and exercises.

Once we closed off the tap to free flying....a lot o members left.

Very doubtful.  We may have lost some pilots over that, but pilots only constitute a tiny percentage of CAP members.  We could lose half of them and it would barely budge the senior membership numbers. 

And in any case, the chart SARDAK posted doesn't really support that sort of linkage to a specific policy.  Basically it shows a 2 year bump in membership after 9/11 and then a basically flat senior membership up until fairly recently (long after the restrictions on private aircraft went into real effect in the mid2000s.

[SarDragon]

One part of the decline in Senior membership can be attributed to the removal of private own aircraft on missions and exercises.

Once we closed off the tap to free flying....a lot o members left.

Very doubtful.  We may have lost some pilots over that, but pilots only constitute a tiny percentage of CAP members.  We could lose half of them and it would barely budge the senior membership numbers. 

And in any case, the chart SARDAK posted doesn't really support that sort of linkage to a specific policy.  Basically it shows a 2 year bump in membership after 9/11 and then a basically flat senior membership up until fairly recently (long after the restrictions on private aircraft went into real effect in the mid2000s.

I think that depends on the type of squadron. My unit is about 75% pilots, so losing half of them would make a serious dent in our membership numbers (18/48).

[RiverAux]

Was referring to senior membership at the national level. 

[lordmonar]

Was referring to senior membership at the national level.

Which show the problem with that sort of thinking and number crunching.

But what ever the causes......bottom line is that with out meaning manning tables, trends up or down are meaningless at the grass roots level.

I got a minim of 3 seniors and 7 cadets I'm in business.  I got enough pilots to put 200 hours on my plane...I'm good.   Pass my SUI every other year and everything else is just gravy.

And this is not really something that can be fixed at the squadron level.

[SarDragon]

Was referring to senior membership at the national level.

But the squadron is where "the rubber meets the road". Lose half of our pilots, and that airplane fleet will sit idle far more that desired. We have enough trouble getting hours on planes as it is.

And, I believe there are a lot more pilots than you think.

[RRLE]

I know we have always operated under the "State=Wing" formula...I just question whether "that's the way we've always done it" remains sufficient justification for the way we carry out our missions/

"That's the way we've always done it" isn't the justification. The differences, sometimes significant, in state laws is, from what I've been told, the primary driving force behind State=Wing. Not to mention the funding some wings get from their states.

Some how the Coast Guard Auxiliary makes it work...their methods, particularly in view of their very close wrking relationship with active duty USCG, might mean that what they do couldn't work for us...but I think it's worth a look.

The USCG Auxiliary somewhat follows the USCG districts. I write "somewhat" since half the USCG Aux districts match one-for-one with USCG districts. However, in the other half, the Aux has two or three Aux districts to one USCG district. That happened when the USCG consolidated its districts and the Aux did not. And some have argued that the Aux could have some significant savings if it consolidated its districts to match the USCG.

If CAP were to follow the USCG Aux model, it would have to organize wings to follow whatever first level sub-national organization the USAF has, if such a thing even exists.

[FW]

I don't really equate organizational structure with membership recruitment and retention trends.  Leadership, training, and mission opportunities do.

CAP is a non profit beneficial organization which serves local communities, as well as a national interest.   The state/wing model fits us well; not only for funding purposes, but for mission coordination; as many wings are integrated with state government EMAs. That being said, squadrons need to figure out what works best for them within the CAP "framework".  Members need to work together and develop a meaningful/productive program and structure which encourages retention and recruitment of new blood for continuity. How this happens depends on the ability of the leadership and a level of commitment which insures success.  Groups/Wings; etc.  just need to coordinate when necessary, provide the strategic, tactical plans, and tools to help make it all work. 

[TheSkyHornet]

I know we have always operated under the "State=Wing" formula...I just question whether "that's the way we've always done it" remains sufficient justification for the way we carry out our missions/

"That's the way we've always done it" isn't the justification. The differences, sometimes significant, in state laws is, from what I've been told, the primary driving force behind State=Wing. Not to mention the funding some wings get from their states.

Some how the Coast Guard Auxiliary makes it work...their methods, particularly in view of their very close wrking relationship with active duty USCG, might mean that what they do couldn't work for us...but I think it's worth a look.

The USCG Auxiliary somewhat follows the USCG districts. I write "somewhat" since half the USCG Aux districts match one-for-one with USCG districts. However, in the other half, the Aux has two or three Aux districts to one USCG district. That happened when the USCG consolidated its districts and the Aux did not. And some have argued that the Aux could have some significant savings if it consolidated its districts to match the USCG.

If CAP were to follow the USCG Aux model, it would have to organize wings to follow whatever first level sub-national organization the USAF has, if such a thing even exists.

Plus, CAP squadrons are really "all-inclusive" when it comes to the mission. Aside from getting an aircraft, pretty much every squadron can offer every duty position if the roster filled up.

Coast Guard Aux can also go out to patrol coastal and inland waterways. It's part of keeping their currency and being available to provide assistance. CAP doesn't really have that patrol aspect, but sometimes the activity can be a constant exercise/alert mode. Still, it doesn't necessarily make people outside of the mission scope feel like they have a role, especially smaller units.

Unlike the Air Force, CAP isn't split into targeted squadrons with a specific responsibility. We don't have the 1st Emergency Service Operations Squadron, 2d Airborne Reconnaissance, Photography, and Surveillance Squadron, and 3d Mobile Logistics & Support Squadron. This is purely example of course, but you see my point.

Squadron recruiting and retention is only as good as the activities that squadron can offer its members. You cannot build up a new training program to cover every aspect of CAP in the course of a year for all members, or specifically those that want to engage in that specialty. It just isn't feasible. Most squadrons don't have the resources. But you get squadrons that have a lot of turnover of leadership, and the subject matter experts go away and we lose the training opportunities in-house.

In another thread regarding cadet physical fitness, Col Lee said he would like to see at least 3 master-rated CP officers in each cadet/composite squadron. It's not feasible. And I don't say that to insult him, but we just don't have the manpower to do that. It's going to make it even more difficult for the volunteer side to stay involved if we start requiring even more training and consolidating units that don't have the staff. Imagine requiring 3 master-rated CP officers, 2 master-rated ES officers, and 2 master-rated AE officers in a composite squadron.

I'm not advocating consolidating units or splitting them off to be specific to a role, but it's something to discuss when we're considering trying to figure out how to resolve this one-size-fits-all mentality in a volunteer organization. It's a very complex issue.

I don't really equate organizational structure with membership recruitment and retention trends.  Leadership, training, and mission opportunities do.

CAP is a non profit beneficial organization which serves local communities, as well as a national interest.   The state/wing model fits us well; not only for funding purposes, but for mission coordination; as many wings are integrated with state government EMAs. That being said, squadrons need to figure out what works best for them within the CAP "framework".  Members need to work together and develop a meaningful/productive program and structure which encourages retention and recruitment of new blood for continuity. How this happens depends on the ability of the leadership and a level of commitment which insures success.  Groups/Wings; etc.  just need to coordinate when necessary, provide the strategic, tactical plans, and tools to help make it all work. 

Organizational structure plays a huge factor in retention. That's where the line of leadership is established. From a standpoint as to "Who should be above the squadron," I don't think that's necessarily the problem at the squadron level regarding retention of senior members. But the squadron structure does play a role in that retention. It determines who is supposed to be responsible for a particular task or area, and how that plays into the responsibilities of the people below them. Many people in the position of Squadron Commander, Deputy Commander, CDS, CDC, and other significant leadership roles have no clue what they're involved in and don't even know their own chain of command. Not to mention the inconsistencies between org charts for senior squadrons (with more or less than 50), composite squadrons, and cadet squadrons.

Plus, I think technology has been a huge factor. Outdated media, specifically in regard to videos for recruiting or training. Poorly-designed website. Even more poorly managed wing, group, and squadron websites. Poorly-interfaced manuals, pamphlets, and posters. CAP has a very dated feel to it that hasn't caught up with the second decade of the 21st Century.

[FW]

Lines of authority and responsibility are established by organization structure. Leadership is found at every level.  CAP's organizational structure, as found in CAPR 20-1, works for us.  It may need tweeks from time to time, however I don't see a need for major change. 

Your claim of some who hold positions of responsibility at the squadron level may be true, however that is a failure of leadership of those above.  As I state again; higher levels up the chain need to coordinate, provide strategic, tactical planning, and tools to help make it work.  Good Leadership is necessary at every level. 

Reversing membership trends is not an easy task.  There are many variables, and you mention some.  I don't envy those tasked to reverse them.  I wish them success.

[SarDragon]

In another thread regarding cadet physical fitness, Col Lee said he would like to see at least 3 master-rated CP officers in each cadet/composite squadron. It's not feasible. And I don't say that to insult him, but we just don't have the manpower to do that. It's going to make it even more difficult for the volunteer side to stay involved if we start requiring even more training and consolidating units that don't have the staff. Imagine requiring 3 master-rated CP officers, 2 master-rated ES officers, and 2 master-rated AE officers in a composite squadron.

That's an 18-24 month journey, with significant participation outside the unit. Hard to do? Perhaps, depending on interest or initiative. Not feasible? Depends on how hard you try. It's all about goals.

[TheSkyHornet]

In another thread regarding cadet physical fitness, Col Lee said he would like to see at least 3 master-rated CP officers in each cadet/composite squadron. It's not feasible. And I don't say that to insult him, but we just don't have the manpower to do that. It's going to make it even more difficult for the volunteer side to stay involved if we start requiring even more training and consolidating units that don't have the staff. Imagine requiring 3 master-rated CP officers, 2 master-rated ES officers, and 2 master-rated AE officers in a composite squadron.

That's an 18-24 month journey, with significant participation outside the unit. Hard to do? Perhaps, depending on interest or initiative. Not feasible? Depends on how hard you try. It's all about goals.

How hard you try doesn't equate to your ability to be there. I put my nose into the books. I show up when I can, especially for weekend training. I try to get the online training done as much as possible. It's one thing to take my Saturday and Sunday and work entirely for CAP all weekend. But I can't be driving 300 miles all the time to attend training events across the state or go visit other Wings, nor can I take a week off of work to fly down to Florida for a SAREX and PDO week. I can't take 4 days off and staff encampment. Some people have that ability. I don't. If I had the ability to take a week, unpaid even, off of work with a CAP excused absence, like military leave, I would. But I don't have that option. My interest and initiative is there. But I'm not willing to lose a paying job over it.

Everyone in CAP is a volunteer. But not everyone in CAP has a full-time job. I'd like to see something in the training program that allows us full-timers to receive training in a way that we can afford to attend/participate (even if online). We want to get that training, but we just can't get to it.There are a lot of good people out there who want to participate but can't commit to the schedule. Maybe some of those people should just steer clear of CAP, but if this discussion wants to address retention, that's one of the talking points.

[Holding Pattern]

In another thread regarding cadet physical fitness, Col Lee said he would like to see at least 3 master-rated CP officers in each cadet/composite squadron. It's not feasible. And I don't say that to insult him, but we just don't have the manpower to do that. It's going to make it even more difficult for the volunteer side to stay involved if we start requiring even more training and consolidating units that don't have the staff. Imagine requiring 3 master-rated CP officers, 2 master-rated ES officers, and 2 master-rated AE officers in a composite squadron.

That's an 18-24 month journey, with significant participation outside the unit. Hard to do? Perhaps, depending on interest or initiative. Not feasible? Depends on how hard you try. It's all about goals.

How hard you try doesn't equate to your ability to be there. I put my nose into the books. I show up when I can, especially for weekend training. I try to get the online training done as much as possible. It's one thing to take my Saturday and Sunday and work entirely for CAP all weekend. But I can't be driving 300 miles all the time to attend training events across the state or go visit other Wings, nor can I take a week off of work to fly down to Florida for a SAREX and PDO week. I can't take 4 days off and staff encampment. Some people have that ability. I don't. If I had the ability to take a week, unpaid even, off of work with a CAP excused absence, like military leave, I would. But I don't have that option. My interest and initiative is there. But I'm not willing to lose a paying job over it.

Everyone in CAP is a volunteer. But not everyone in CAP has a full-time job. I'd like to see something in the training program that allows us full-timers to receive training in a way that we can afford to attend/participate (even if online). We want to get that training, but we just can't get to it.There are a lot of good people out there who want to participate but can't commit to the schedule. Maybe some of those people should just steer clear of CAP, but if this discussion wants to address retention, that's one of the talking points.

This pretty much mirrors my situation, except that in addition, I can't make weekend trainings because this year our weekend trainings have managed to land on the same days of our Cyberpatriot competitions/trainings where I am coach.

Crazy thought, but if I can make a youtube video demonstrating a task proficiency, why can't an evaluator review the video and sign off on my proficiency? You could even put in a requirement for say, 2 evaluators, one not from your squadron to allay any concerns that might crop up from the practice.

[arajca]

Crazy thought, but if I can make a youtube video demonstrating a task proficiency, why can't an evaluator review the video and sign off on my proficiency? You could even put in a requirement for say, 2 evaluators, one not from your squadron to allay any concerns that might crop up from the practice.

Not so crazy. Finding ways to work outside the box can be challenging. My personal example is the vast number of describe, list, or identify tasks for GTM3 (and a few others). Why do those need to evaluated in the field? I had one group ESO tell me ALL GTM tasks had to evaluated in the field, no matter how simple and refused to consider alternatives. Fortunately, when I presented my plan for a WRITTEN test for those tasks to the wing, they liked the idea, with the caveat that the test had to be supervised and graded by a proper SET-qualified member. Suddenly, at regular meetings during the winter, we could get half or more of the GTM3 tasks signed off, saving the fun stuff for spring and summer when we could run around outside instead of spending valuable sunlight listing the signs, symptoms, and treatment of cold weather injuries. Hot weather injuries became part of the safety brief.

We did tell everyone that once qualified, they needed to remember the info as they could be quizzed at any time. And I've done a couple of those quizzes.

[RiverAux]

I'm still amazed that CAP hasn't turned all of those things into online tests.  No need to waste valuable face time taking a test. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

How hard you try doesn't equate to your ability to be there.

Which, as many of my former colleagues on this board know, is one thing that killed my CAP career.

I put my nose into the books.

Which is what I was doing (among other things, to keep my safety currency up).  However, in the last nastygram I got from my CC, he told me that "self-aggrandisement" by doing online courses did nothing to help the unit.

Everyone in CAP is a volunteer. But not everyone in CAP has a full-time job. I'd like to see something in the training program that allows us full-timers to receive training in a way that we can afford to attend/participate (even if online). We want to get that training, but we just can't get to it.  There are a lot of good people out there who want to participate but can't commit to the schedule. Maybe some of those people should just steer clear of CAP, but if this discussion wants to address retention, that's one of the talking points.

I can say that in my case this attitude directly affected the non-retention of a member.

It is all well and good for National to say that they appreciate the efforts of every volunteer in CAP, but at the local level, when you are told that your efforts to "telecommunicate" are not valued, and are even an example of selfishness, there's a level of cognitive dissonance there that I do not understand.

[Robert Hartigan]

Anyone that wants to be a member of Civil Air Patrol and needs to telecommute is welcome in my unit. I have plenty of projects that need worked on that don't involve attending unit meetings. Talent is talent and I'll put it to use to make my little corner of CAP better.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Anyone that wants to be a member of Civil Air Patrol and needs to telecommute is welcome in my unit. I have plenty of projects that need worked on that don't involve attending unit meetings. Talent is talent and I'll put it to use to make my little corner of CAP better.

I wish I would have lived near you.  Leaving CAP was one of the most difficult and disheartening decisions I ever had to make.

[41839j]

I don't think the numbers are as important as the quality of the people you have.  Our membership is down about 25% compared to three years ago, but this was by purpose and design.  The decision was made to have quality rather than quantitiy, and we culled a lot of dead weight.  We don't need people that are consuming resources without contributing.

It is my opinion, but I would say we are better off since having done this.

[Storm Chaser]

The problem is that, in general, we're losing more members than we're recruiting or retaining. While some unit may chose to remove inactive members, it doesn't change the fact that CAP as a whole is not manned to fulfill all the functions and roles required by regulations. That's why you have in every unit and at every level a few key players with 3-5 duty assignments, many at different organizational echelons. While that may seem standard practice, CAP's organizational chart is not designed to be run by a few members. This is something that needs to be addressed for the wellbeing of our organization and members.

[lordmonar]

The problem is that, in general, we're losing more members than we're recruiting or retaining. While some unit may chose to remove inactive members, it doesn't change the fact that CAP as a whole is not manned to fulfill all the functions and roles required by regulations.

While I agree with you in principle........since CAP has yet to produce a manning document of any kind.....you cannot say that with authority.

[FW]

The problem is that, in general, we're losing more members than we're recruiting or retaining. While some unit may chose to remove inactive members, it doesn't change the fact that CAP as a whole is not manned to fulfill all the functions and roles required by regulations.

While I agree with you in principle........since CAP has yet to produce a manning document of any kind.....you cannot say that with authority.

CAP does have 20-1, which requires certain positions to be filled at each level of the organization.  Each position should be manned by 1 member, however that is not often the case, and mission effectiveness can be degraded.  Basic aircrews and Ground teams are defined.  AE outreach and CP program leaders are not defined, however CPPT does infer numbers greater than 1.  That being said; is there a need for numbers greater than we have today? Other than the basic function of the squadron, what is our true internal need for membership?  Is there a greater demand for our services than the membership numbers can support?  Are our cadets not getting the activity time and development support from our senior members?  Is there a true need for greater AE outreach?  Is "new blood" needed to maintain current activity/mission readiness? What is it about our program(s) which keep membership at current levels?  IMHO, these are questions which require answers.  Then we can get to the challenge of finding a reason to recruit and retain.

[RiverAux]

Pretty easy to say that we are significantly undermanned in order to provide ES services.   IMHO at a BARE minimum we need enough aircrews to be able to man all our aircraft for a mission at all times of day for at least 3 days in a row.  In my experience that takes at least 12-24 aircrews members including 4-6 pilots.    Some squadrons may be lucky enough to have enough retired aircrew members to be able to do this with fewer people, but even they go on vacation, get sick, etc. 

Oh, and CAP does have some unofficial standards for manning -- just look at a Commanders Dashboard in Eservices.  You'll see that you need at least 4 mission pilots per aircraft to stay out of the "red zone" (which is probably considered a bad thing), want want at least half our CP-rated folks to hold senior ratings, at least 50% of our squadrons to have a Chaplain or CDI, at least half our chaplains to be mission chaplains, and more than 20% of our Chaplains with Level IV and CDIs with Master ratings. 

[TheSkyHornet]

The problem is that, in general, we're losing more members than we're recruiting or retaining. While some unit may chose to remove inactive members, it doesn't change the fact that CAP as a whole is not manned to fulfill all the functions and roles required by regulations. That's why you have in every unit and at every level a few key players with 3-5 duty assignments, many at different organizational echelons. While that may seem standard practice, CAP's organizational chart is not designed to be run by a few members. This is something that needs to be addressed for the wellbeing of our organization and members.

While I very much agree with this, I also feel that a lot of those different hats are worn by people who can't help but micromanage and are picking jobs based on hobbies. "I want to do this...and this...and this...and, oh! This would be fun!" That comes with a lack of structured training in my opinion. It reduces the quality of that single area of responsibility because now they have, as you said, 3-5 different things going on: AEO, PAO, CDS, PDO, all under one person.

What happens a lot in this regard especially is that people don't understand how the chain of command works based on the duty position and duties being performed. Say you have a squadron AEO who is also the CDS. Well, when they are teaching cadets, they report to the CDC. The same goes for an Activities Officer who is also the ES Officer. When planning cadet activities, they report to the CDC, not the CDS/Ops Officer. There are a lot of people who jump the chain of command because they either don't know the difference or they don't care about protocols. It establishes a very bad quality output, and adds to retention problems.

Pretty easy to say that we are significantly undermanned in order to provide ES services.   IMHO at a BARE minimum we need enough aircrews to be able to man all our aircraft for a mission at all times of day for at least 3 days in a row.  In my experience that takes at least 12-24 aircrews members including 4-6 pilots.    Some squadrons may be lucky enough to have enough retired aircrew members to be able to do this with fewer people, but even they go on vacation, get sick, etc. 

Oh, and CAP does have some unofficial standards for manning -- just look at a Commanders Dashboard in Eservices.  You'll see that you need at least 4 mission pilots per aircraft to stay out of the "red zone" (which is probably considered a bad thing), want want at least half our CP-rated folks to hold senior ratings, at least 50% of our squadrons to have a Chaplain or CDI, at least half our chaplains to be mission chaplains, and more than 20% of our Chaplains with Level IV and CDIs with Master ratings. 

Welcome to a volunteer organization that offers minimal training in your area in a very small time frame.

As I've said in a previous post on the board, how many of us are full-time employees during the week that would love to receive more training to better qualify us in our jobs, but at a time and place that's reasonable to our schedules? Now ask yourself: Is it realistic? Is CAP able to offer a training course in your local area? Does that mean someone else doesn't get one in their local area? It's a very complex issue, and part of that is the lack of manpower to host these sessions effectively.

Our last PDO weekend was fantastic, and there was so much offered. But they're usually 6 months apart, and they aren't located close for a lot of people, and not always at the same location each time around. What if you can't make that single weekend in the Spring? You have to wait a full year for another unless you travel far outside of your area, on your own time, at your own cost. Just about every PDO course instructor, also, isn't a full-time CAP instructor. This is part of their already busy schedule. Most of them can't run a training class every month or every few months, traveling around the state, region, or country.

But even as a salary employee who works 08-17 M-F, I can't take days off from work so I can drive 500 miles and attend another wing's training event. If this was the military, maybe you'd be sent somewhere at their cost or have the option to attend courses with approved leave. But this is the volunteer spectrum, and those of us who aren't in the retiree pool can't afford to do that. I think it plays a major factor in retention because it ties in with the discussion above about the quality of work that gets put out.

[Storm Chaser]

The problem is that, in general, we're losing more members than we're recruiting or retaining. While some unit may chose to remove inactive members, it doesn't change the fact that CAP as a whole is not manned to fulfill all the functions and roles required by regulations.

While I agree with you in principle........since CAP has yet to produce a manning document of any kind.....you cannot say that with authority.

Oh, I think I can. FW explained it well in his post above, but I think I can expand. CAPR 20-3 states that the minimum number of senior members in a cadet or composite squadron is 3. Of those, 2 are require in every cadet activity IAW CAPR 52-10. Here's a list of other required positions:

• Finance Officer (cannot be the commander) - CAPR 173-1
• Safety Officer - CAPR 62-1
• Testing Officer (required if testing materials are stored locally; cannot be the commander) - CAPR 50-4
• Public Affairs Officer - CAPR 190-1
• Communications Officer (required if ICUT is going to be offered locally) - CAPR 100-1
• Aerospace Education Officer (if not assigned, commander must assume duties) - CAPR 280-2
• Unit Alerting Officer - CAPR 60-3
• Awards Review Board (composed of the Personnel Officer and 2 more members) - CAPR 39-3
• Promotion Review Board (composed of the Personnel Officer, Professional Development Officer and an additional officer) - CAPR 35-5
• Personnel Officer (not specifically required, but implied in CAPR 39-3, CAPR 35-5, and CAPR 39-2)
• Professional Development Officer (not specifically required, but implied in CAPR 35-5, CAPR 39-2, and CAPR 50-17)
• Chaplain/Character Development Instructor (required to conduct Character Development; provision for commanders to temporarily perform that function was removed) - CAPR 265-1

This list only covers required positions by regulation. It doesn't account for the fact that a unit still needs someone to manage Operations/Emergency Services, Logistics/Supply/Transportation (if COV is assigned), Cadet Programs, Admin, etc. In many units, the commander does it all/most, but that's not how CAP is designed, although it's become common practice.

So, you see, while CAP doesn't have a manning document like the Air Force does, they do impose requirements that many units find difficult to meet with their current manning. In fact, I would argue that there's no way a unit can operate with the minimum 3 senior members required. Furthermore, a flight is not exempt from these unit requirements.

And these are only the staff requirements. When it comes to mission requirements, we have too few members qualified in too many specialties. Assuming they're proficient in all of them, they can't perform all at the same time. So when a unit has a GTL who is also a MP and an IC, do they have three resources or one? While that unit can provide a GTL, MP, and IC, it cannot provide them all at the same time. That's another limitation of not having more people, who are also well trained, qualified, proficient, and competent in the specialties we need.

A manning document would be helpful (and I think we need it), but it wouldn't make much different unless we recruit, retain, and have more active members.

[ZigZag911]

CAP doesn't have a manning document because:

1) members not paid by government (for the most part)

2) Congress has not imposed limits on our staffing (although, as advised by USAF) there are Congressional limits on our government funding and assets)

3) while we might be able to determine how many people we need, how many we can get to volunteer -- where we need them -- is difficult to determine.

[TheSkyHornet]

Again, welcome to a volunteer organization. While this is a "stay at will" organization, it is not one that is capable of filling every slot.

The recruiting isn't great. The retention isn't great. This much we know. Why? That's a much more difficult question, and it's very subjective. Every person on this thread has their own reason for staying out leaving. Some of them may be similar. But that's just as much of a question as saying "Why do some people join the military and stay? While do some leave after their first contract?"

As a volunteer organization, we cannot impose a great burden on our existing members. It's fatiguing and lacks quality. But at the same time, we can't afford not to get the minimum work done that we need to do in order to stay afloat as individual squadrons. It's all tied together. Recruits want to be a part of a mission. They want to "play military" (like it or not, it's true). They want to wear a uniform (it's expensive and hard to come by at times). Who's going to run all of this? What about the recruiting side alone? You have to present yourself as a worthwhile organization. It's a very complex issue, and more than likely, it takes solving a lot of smaller issues to fix the overall recruiting and retention problem in CAP.

I, for one, would really like to see CAP modernize a bit and look less like a basement run organization. I have a great appreciation for the work everyone does nationwide, but let's be honest---there are a lot of aspects of CAP that lack in quality control, mission effectiveness, and downright fun for volunteer members, especially cadets. Whether you agree or disagree with me on that point, the numbers don't lie. Look at the retention percentages across the country. They aren't good.

[The14th]

My Squadron (Which was tiny anyway) "took the summer off" and then completely closed up shop recently. I was moved to a Squadron that is an hour away from me, which basically means I'm done with CAP for now. This whole experience has been pretty off putting, as a whole, and that's because of different issues in two different Squadrons. I suppose some of you are just lucky to be in areas with good programs, whereas I have sadly been without that.

[THRAWN]

My Squadron (Which was tiny anyway) "took the summer off" and then completely closed up shop recently. I was moved to a Squadron that is an hour away from me, which basically means I'm done with CAP for now. This whole experience has been pretty off putting, as a whole, and that's because of different issues in two different Squadrons. I suppose some of you are just lucky to be in areas with good programs, whereas I have sadly been without that.

Stuff like this really gets my goat. "Took the summer off"? WTH is that?!!? Any chance of getting put into a role that you can telecommute? How about reflagging as a flight under that squadron that's an hour away? Group nearby or where you can perform "remote" assignments? Maybe attending the new unit once a month and for activities?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

My Squadron (Which was tiny anyway) "took the summer off" and then completely closed up shop recently. I was moved to a Squadron that is an hour away from me, which basically means I'm done with CAP for now. This whole experience has been pretty off putting, as a whole, and that's because of different issues in two different Squadrons. I suppose some of you are just lucky to be in areas with good programs, whereas I have sadly been without that.

Stuff like this really gets my goat. "Took the summer off"? WTH is that?!!? Any chance of getting put into a role that you can telecommute? How about reflagging as a flight under that squadron that's an hour away? Group nearby or where you can perform "remote" assignments? Maybe attending the new unit once a month and for activities?

As some of you know, my offer to my CC to "telecommute" was one of the things he listed in his "10 Things I Hate About You" communique to me.

He called my keeping up Safety qualifications online and taking CAP online courses just basically "self-aggrandisement" and not contributing to the squadron or the mission.  Nor was once-a-month attendance...unless you were dead, he expected almost every week/activity unless you had a hard-and-fast "excuse" for not being there.

I did check with Group...no open slots.

The next squadron (and Wing) were not within realistic driving distance for me.

I hope you have better luck.

[Storm Chaser]

My Squadron (Which was tiny anyway) "took the summer off" and then completely closed up shop recently. I was moved to a Squadron that is an hour away from me, which basically means I'm done with CAP for now. This whole experience has been pretty off putting, as a whole, and that's because of different issues in two different Squadrons. I suppose some of you are just lucky to be in areas with good programs, whereas I have sadly been without that.

Stuff like this really gets my goat. "Took the summer off"? WTH is that?!!? Any chance of getting put into a role that you can telecommute? How about reflagging as a flight under that squadron that's an hour away? Group nearby or where you can perform "remote" assignments? Maybe attending the new unit once a month and for activities?

As some of you know, my offer to my CC to "telecommute" was one of the things he listed in his "10 Things I Hate About You" communique to me.

He called my keeping up Safety qualifications online and taking CAP online courses just basically "self-aggrandisement" and not contributing to the squadron or the mission.  Nor was once-a-month attendance...unless you were dead, he expected almost every week/activity unless you had a hard-and-fast "excuse" for not being there.

I did check with Group...no open slots.

The next squadron (and Wing) were not within realistic driving distance for me.

I hope you have better luck.

That's a shame. I think telecommuting is a reasonable and valid alternative for those members who otherwise can't make meetings periodically. What were you looking on doing?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

That's a shame. I think telecommuting is a reasonable and valid alternative for those members who otherwise can't make meetings periodically. What were you looking on doing?

I have a Masters rating in Admin (going back to the days of the Big Blue Binder and many Saturday mornings sitting on the floor of my apartment organising and re-organising it), and with virtually all the stuff CAP does being online these days...I looked at that as a possible alternative.  CC refused.

I also asked to be enrolled in the CP speciality track (much of which can be done online, initially) because a big reason why I first joined CAP was to help the kids.  CC refused.

I then asked to be enrolled in the AE speciality track (again, much of which can initially be done online).  CC refused.

I should mention that CC's orientation was ES, ES, ES and having enough qualified aircrew to keep the squadron airplane...and scheduling nearly-every-weekend "exercises" to "make sure" we did so.  Even though the unit was a composite squadron, if it didn't fly, well...it didn't fly!