Recent membership trends

[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!