Membership trends

[RiverAux]

A certain individual who runs a website critical of CAP (and who has been banned from here before) is claiming that CAP's total membership is now around 22-26K.  While this person has shown some ability to get some good intel every now and again, I find this absurd.  Membership in my wing has basically been stable for 5 years and if overall membership had dropped by half, I would think that trend would show up in my state as well. 

What about you?  For those of you with access to wing level membership data, do you see any evidence of such a massive catastrophe?

[jimmydeanno]

NHQ Reports in the Cadet Program Year in Review that cadet membership stands at 23,800 about a 3% increase from last year.

Certainly the entire membership can not be at that level, considering the younger half makes up that number.

[RiverAux]

Hmm, the report says a 7.8% increase for cadets over 2008 and a 0.3% loss for seniors.  I assume that this will match up with the overall CAP annual report when it comes out.  Not sure how "the individual" is going to spin this.  Thanks. 

That 33% 1st year cadet retention rate is WAY worse than I would have expected.  Something seriously wrong there.  I expect the overall retention rate to not be great since kids grow up and discover other interests, but would hope that we keep a majority for at least 2-3 years.

[BillB]

Cadet retention has always been poor due in part to what RiverAux mentions, outside interests pop up in teen years. But in exit interviews and emails from cadets, it also appears that loack of activities at the Squadron level also comes into play. One example given by a former C/Major was that his Squadron hadn't had a SAREX test or training at the Squadron level for four years. This would seem to indicate a poor Squadron CC, but more a lack of attention paid by Group and Wing to the Squadron.

[davidsinn]

INWG has around a thousand. Since we're one of the wings below the median I'd say 22k is absurd.

[Turk]

Here in the Northeast, NY has surged upward nicely, with several new units.

After holding steady for a long time, NJ has surged upward, too.

CT was 500 a few years ago - now they're over 700.

RI and NH have held very steady for years.

So... where in the country is this so-called "drop" taking place? Not here!   

[AirAux]

River, I find that if I can get a cadet to an encampment within their first six months, I get a much higher retention rate.

[jimmydeanno]

River, I find that if I can get a cadet to an encampment within their first six months, I get a much higher retention rate.

NHQ statistics back that up as well, only expanding that 6 months into "the first year."  I don't have them handy, but have seen many reports citing encampment as one of the best retention tools for first year cadets.

[Eclipse]

River, I find that if I can get a cadet to an encampment within their first six months, I get a much higher retention rate.

NHQ statistics back that up as well, only expanding that 6 months into "the first year."  I don't have them handy, but have seen many reports citing encampment as one of the best retention tools for first year cadets.

+1 - not only have I read the stats repeatedly, I have seen it first-hand.

[swamprat86]

Encampment in a year for Cadets and completion of Level II for Seniors tend to retain members.  I found if I could get them through these hurdles they tend to stay on board for several years after.  Otherwise, they lose interest or focus and drop off.

[Eclipse]

Encampment in a year for Cadets and completion of Level II for Seniors tend to retain members.

Both of those things require participation outside the unit, which opens up the "real" CAP for members who are struggling with poor
local programs.

[ZigZag911]

I think total membership is mid 50Ks...active probably 10-12 K less (just an estimate!)

[sparks]

A real distinction exists between members who are on the rolls and those who actually are qualified and participate. The estimate of 10-15% of the 50,000 total could be accurate but I have no idea how to get at a good number. The web blogger could be correct on active members but not toal enrolled.

It is true, O-rides and activities will keep cadets and seniors active and engaged. Just drilling in uniform and hanger flying won't satisfy those looking for more.

[RiverAux]

In this case he was specifically talking about total membership including those dead people who haven't been taken off the rolls yet.  We've got other threads to discuss "active" vs "inactive" membership....

[Major Carrales]

Now,

In reality there are cadets that join half-halfheartedly (because a friend did) and drop off, and Seniors that join and find they don't have the time, folks going through divorces and folks that move off to tropical Pacific Islands.

The top two I mentioned are what have curtailed our numbers.  Not much can be done to retain them.  The last mentioned there is one of our number that keeps CAP close to heart...there is nothing that will drive him off.

The point being that the key to keeping people is to have them emotionally invest in the program.  Simple marketing "perks" and the addition or remove of a minor benefit will do nothing to retain.

A trend that need to be looked at are those that join and cannot be retained due to factors that "all the WING King's horses and all the WING King's men could not mitigate."
These people should have been given a realistic view of what they could do prior and, instead, "not enlist" or delay their membership rather than becoming a statistic that Lt Cols Tom, Dick and Harry will later use as an specious indicator of "people are leaving in droves because _(insert agendistic point there)___ made them go."

[RiverAux]

Sure, those are some of the reasons why I don't expect that CAP's first year retention would ever be extremely high for either cadets or seniors, but when you lose 2/3 of cadet recruits in a year, that goes a little bit beyond just overselling the program.  I'm sure that is responsible for some of the losses, but not that much. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Sure, those are some of the reasons why I don't expect that CAP's first year retention would ever be extremely high for either cadets or seniors, but when you lose 2/3 of cadet recruits in a year, that goes a little bit beyond just overselling the program.  I'm sure that is responsible for some of the losses, but not that much. 

From a cadet perspective, and having had almost all cadets that started with me/after me quit at some point, I'd say it is. The program is presented to them wrong (The flying lessons, disaster work, etc, etc), or they find other interests that (at this age is easy) interest them more.

[EMT-83]

To echo comments by Major Carrales, an honest conversation with prospective members before accepting their application could go a long way towards keeping non-renewal numbers down. I've had several folks reconsider joining upon learning that CAP membership is a two-way street – CAP offers a lot to its members, but they also need to bring something to the table. The pilot interested only in "free" flying, the ex-military guy who wants to "straighten out" cadets, the resume-builder who wants to belong but doesn't want to participate. All of them have walked in, and back out of, our door prior to submitting an application.

We did O-flights for 12 new cadets today. Judging by the smiles on their faces, they all had a great day. The challenge is keeping that enthusiasm alive and giving them a reason to stay in the program.

[RiverAux]

This has always been a definite issue with senior members, but the cadet program on the other hand is pretty straight forward. 

I just reviewed the survey of new cadets and I think I see the problem
http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=v_2bzFsXpUeMVr7NIFa2LAJHXOMCJrqyWfvatQnKvS_2bvY_3d
Top reasons for joining CAP:
1.  Interested in military 75%
2.  To learn to fly  69%
3.  Help my community 53%
4.  scholarships 39%

I suspect the "help my community" response is really a stand in for emergency services.  So, if these cadets joined expecting to learn to fly and to do ES, they were going to be extremely disappointed in the fact that almost no cadets learn to fly in CAP.  And quite frankly ES involvement by cadets varies a great deal and the chances of them joining a squadron that doesn't use cadets in this area is high. 

Now, the exit survey NHQ did isn't very enlightening as it mixes together answers from cadets who have been in the program for more than 2 years with those that left before, so I don't think we can tell much from it about why 2/3 of cadets leave in their first year. 

[RADIOMAN015]

According to "State of the Organization: 'Health of CAP'" article in the "Civil Air Patrol, Volunteer" magazine Nov/Dec 2009 edition, it states that CAP membership enjoyed a substantial increase last year (I would assume fiscal year basis?), up 6.5%, just shy of 58K members:  34,736 senior members, & 23, 233 cadets.  It interesting to note that when the article starts off with "Members are CAP's most important assets", "BUT with the economy in trouble, membership is apt to decline as individuals find it harder to pay dues, leave work for CAP assignments or invest in CAP activities".

Now it seemed to me this was kind of a "mixed" message.  Apparently actual membership results were much better than expected.

Since CAP is in "the numbers game" so to speak anyways, whether membership is up or down from a mission capability standpoint has little affect unless you are losing "trained" members.  So it is possible that you are loosing experienced members (via drop out from active participation) and actually gaining a much less qualified senior members.

From a cadet membership standpoint, frankly I can't recall very many cadets attending EVERY CAP squadron meeting for a 1 year period in my squadron.   Senior membership wise it is even worse as far as actively attending squadron meeting.   I think our squadron commander is going to be doing some follouwp with senior members early in 2010.

Again, I just don't think that overall membership stats really are a good indicator of the health of the organization, without further analysis.
RM

[Eclipse]

With all that said, its been the same 150-to-200 people doing everything in my wing for about 10 years, both figuratively, and in some cases literally.

People float in and out of some activities and ES response, but 25%(ish) fully-engaged members has been the same since I joined, and appeared to be typical before that.

And in many cases far too few people are holding up more than one corner.  This is why I believe it is critical to normalize the membership rolls and properly categorize everyone.  Its far easier to rest on your laurels when you have 50 members on the books, then when you have 20, even if your operational ability is effectively the same.

It's difficult to make good resource management decisions when your baseline numbers show useless information.

[flyguy06]

This has always been a definite issue with senior members, but the cadet program on the other hand is pretty straight forward. 

I just reviewed the survey of new cadets and I think I see the problem
http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=v_2bzFsXpUeMVr7NIFa2LAJHXOMCJrqyWfvatQnKvS_2bvY_3d
Top reasons for joining CAP:
1.  Interested in military 75%
2.  To learn to fly  69%
3.  Help my community 53%
4.  scholarships 39%

I suspect the "help my community" response is really a stand in for emergency services.  So, if these cadets joined expecting to learn to fly and to do ES, they were going to be extremely disappointed in the fact that almost no cadets learn to fly in CAP.  And quite frankly ES involvement by cadets varies a great deal and the chances of them joining a squadron that doesn't use cadets in this area is high. 

Now, the exit survey NHQ did isn't very enlightening as it mixes together answers from cadets who have been in the program for more than 2 years with those that left before, so I don't think we can tell much from it about why 2/3 of cadets leave in their first year.

I agree. A lot of cadets I talk to join because of the military aspect of it and they want to learn to fly. I have known cadets that have been in for years and never had one O ride. I think a cadets needs to have an  O ride within 60 days of him joining. And as I said in another thread, the ones interested in the military well when they find CAP is watered down, they usually don't re join.

[RADIOMAN015]

Regarding membership statistics and issues that can come up with this see what happend to the Boy Scouts in AL:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45573-2005Jan28.html
Also notice it appeared to be the "well" paid professional staff that lead to these problems.

Boy Scout stats for CY 2008 vs 2007:
http://www.scouting.org/About/AnnualReports/11memsummary.aspx

Perhaps we in CAP need to be especially careful on how we define our membership, and commanders at all levels need to move those no longer in active membership to a new status called inactive/reserve membership (as opposed to patron membership) both cadets as well as senior members.

Also it's interesting to look at the challenges that the Boy Scouts face in membership.  Take a look at this webpage:
http://www.troop97.net/bsahist3.htm  -- Is this crystal ball outlook similiar to CAP? 
RM

[RiverAux]

So, you're saying that because the Boy Scouts had some problems that CAP has rigged our system to lie about our membership numbers?  To what end?  General membership numbers have absolutely no direct impact on CAP in any way.  On a national scale it makes no difference to our Congressional benefactors whether we have 50K or 100K, its still not a lot of votes.  Now, if we had 5 million members that might be something else.

[RADIOMAN015]

So, you're saying that because the Boy Scouts had some problems that CAP has rigged our system to lie about our membership numbers?  To what end?  General membership numbers have absolutely no direct impact on CAP in any way.  On a national scale it makes no difference to our Congressional benefactors whether we have 50K or 100K, its still not a lot of votes.  Now, if we had 5 million members that might be something else.

Hmm, if members are CAP's most important asset, and it was stressed in the article that membership was up - I think that it is very important to CAP  -- and to be more "transparent" shouldn't we be listing the various membership classes and indicating the percent changes in each?  (and don't think for one minute it doesn't influence National Headquarters professional staffing pay and even total staffing requirements/authorizations, and is something the BOG would have in their minds when reviewing CAP's operations?).  Others on this board have already stated that in there many years of CAP volunteer service there's ONLY a core of about 25% of their specific organization membership that actually does all of the work, doesn't that seem to indicate a problem?  And basically I'm seeing about the same "active" members in my squadron.
I wouldn't say CAP is rigging the total numbers, BUT on the other hand there just might not be enough active volunteers to handle CAP's multitude of never ending "paper chase" requirements.  So maybe that former member might not be that far off in the 'reality" of the CAP organization status & health.    Better yet perhaps Vanguard can stock mirrors that will show 3 members instead of one when we stand in front of the mirror saluting ourselves   -- add some signal smoke and you've got what it take for the typical "smoke & mirrors game"      
RM

[Short Field]

I wouldn't say CAP is rigging the total numbers, BUT on the other hand there just might not be enough active volunteers to handle CAP's multitude of never ending "paper chase" requirements. 

CAP training requirments are really not that hard.  The hardest part is getting into a IC 300 or IC 400 class.  They are almost all a one-time requirement to meet FEMA standards for ICS professionals.   

[RiverAux]

Others on this board have already stated that in there many years ofCAP volunteer service there's ONLY a core of about 25% of theirspecific organization membership that actually does all of the work,doesn't that seem to indicate a problem?

No, it is typical of ALL volunteer organizations.  It is ALWAYS a small minority of the members that do most of the work in a volunteer organization. 

Now, people outside of CAP probably have some interest, and rightfully so, in the number of ES-qualified members that CAP has (which is a fraction of our general membership), since that is what they use CAP for, but that isn't the topic of this discussion, which is general membership trends. 

[RADIOMAN015]

Others on this board have already stated that in there many years ofCAP volunteer service there's ONLY a core of about 25% of theirspecific organization membership that actually does all of the work,doesn't that seem to indicate a problem?

No, it is typical of ALL volunteer organizations.  It is ALWAYS a small minority of the members that do most of the work in a volunteer organization. 

Now, people outside of CAP probably have some interest, and rightfully so, in the number of ES-qualified members that CAP has (which is a fraction of our general membership), since that is what they use CAP for, but that isn't the topic of this discussion, which is general membership trends.

So I guess the minority of hard working "active" volunteer, trying to help his/her unit the best they can (and many areas besides ES), shouldn't really care about statistics that in reality are useless indicators anyways of the real health of the CAP organization?
RM

[RiverAux]

You're the one who brought up the totally useless "active" vs "inactive" topic.  I personally find that there is some value associated with almost all members even that teeny tiny percentage who do absolutely nothing other than pay dues.

But, even if we play your little game and assume that only "active" members are worth having, the more total members you have, the more "active" members you will have, assuming the percentage of active vs inactive stays about the same. 

[ZigZag911]

Having some idea of the number of personnel "assets" (members trained and available for service in one or more of CAP's missions) is really important for effective planning.

[RiverAux]

Very true, but our overall membership numbers have never been directly useful from that point of view since only a fraction of our members hold any ES specialty.  I personally don't like our national occasionally uses our overall membership numbers when advertising our ES capabilities. 

But, again, this thread is focused on whether allegations of a decline of over 50% in CAP's total membership has occurred, and word from the field apparently supports statistics put out by CAP that this is actually not the case.

[RADIOMAN015]

But, again, this thread is focused on whether allegations of a decline of over 50% in CAP's total membership has occurred, and word from the field apparently supports statistics put out by CAP that this is actually not the case.

Perhaps IF National Headquarters was more forthcoming with statistical analysis, posting to the website in an internal press release the total membership to include separate stats for school program cadets, regular program cadets, senior members (subcategories: active, retired, patron, etc.), cadet sponsor, Aerospace Education members.  Basically reporting those categories listed in CAPR 39-2, para 1-2) on a monthly basis, and than a comparative Fiscal Year basis analysis for a 5 to 10 year basis, one could better judge the components of the reported membership gain (or loss).  Of course unless CAP has something to hide? (or we just aren't computer savy enough to find it on the CAP website )

Perhaps the interpretation of an "active" member is really defined by individual commanders (See CAPR39-2, para 3-1a), so IF a senior member shows up once a month to give a class to the cadets, or flies cadets when requested, than they would be considered an active member and we should be thankful for their time, because those of us attending/administering the unit on a weekly basis might also have to do the training and flying IF they dropped out .

Of course with the Wing Bankes program and the unqualified audit, we can surely expect more donations in the future -- don't you think that the donors would really want a good understanding of what our membership consists of?
RM

[Short Field]

Having some idea of the number of personnel "assets" (members trained and available for service in one or more of CAP's missions) is really important for effective planning.

There are reports that do just that in Ops Quals for Emergency Services.   The reports are just not available to every SM walking around with a GES rating.  I don't know what type of "trained and available" reporting you would need for Aerospace Education or Cadet Programs.

[Eclipse]

Having some idea of the number of personnel "assets" (members trained and available for service in one or more of CAP's missions) is really important for effective planning.

There are reports that do just that in Ops Quals for Emergency Services.   The reports are just not available to every SM walking around with a GES rating.  I don't know what type of "trained and available" reporting you would need for Aerospace Education or Cadet Programs.

Its simple.

A unit of 50 members has higher expectations for performance than one of 20, if for no other reason than they have more hands to pull the rope.

Higher HQs, all the way up to NHQ, should not have to wade through a bunch of caveats and asterisks to see how many members they actually have.

[RADIOMAN015]

Having some idea of the number of personnel "assets" (members trained and available for service in one or more of CAP's missions) is really important for effective planning.

There are reports that do just that in Ops Quals for Emergency Services.   The reports are just not available to every SM walking around with a GES rating.  I don't know what type of "trained and available" reporting you would need for Aerospace Education or Cadet Programs.

Its simple.

A unit of 50 members has higher expectations for performance than one of 20, if for no other reason than they have more hands to pull the rope.

Higher HQs, all the way up to NHQ, should not have to wade through a bunch of caveats and asterisks to see how many members they actually have.

Well lets face it for ES planning purposes total membership is useless (We really need to be looking at total regular/"active" members to total number ES qualified (in various specialities) . For public relations purpose and ego building at the highest command level (the total membership figure) it serves it's purpose well.
RM

[FW]

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

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

[lordmonar]

My vis on Nevada is that we are mostly holding our own or slightly growing.

My unit has grown a lot in the last year and one or two nearby units have gotten a little smaller.

I can say that the growth and shrinkage has nothing to do with National Politics.....but does have to do with local policies and to an extent local/wing politics.

The major reason why members are leaveing is that they are no longer able to fly for free as much as they used to.

[FW]

Ok, these figures are 9 months old however, they represent actual dues paying (national dues) members:

Seniors     33,270    (Actual as of 3/31/09)
Cadets     19,377     (Actual as of 3/31/09)

Total       52,647

[Fubar]

Holy crap, we have 2,500 people assigned to NHQ?

[SarDragon]

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

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

[davidsinn]

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

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

Link is broke.

[Eclipse]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is what it is.

[Hoorah]

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

[Майор Хаткевич]

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

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

[Eclipse]

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

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

[FW]

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

[Eclipse]

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

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

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

Also, we need more people.

[RiverAux]

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

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

[Eebdog]

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

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

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

[Hoorah]

Yep.

[FW]

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

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

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

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

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

[SarDragon]

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

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

Link is broke.

Sorry about that. Try this one:

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

[RiverAux]

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

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

Senior Member Nationwide: 62%
Cadet Member:  46.9%

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

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

[PHall]

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

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

Senior Member Nationwide: 62%
Cadet Member:  46.9%

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

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

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

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

[lordmonar]

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

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

[RADIOMAN015]

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

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

[FW]

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

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