Membership trends

[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.