COVID was already a thing and CAP hit its highest membership numbers since 20 years ago at 38,718 senior members. (Supposedly at one point in the 1950's we briefly went over 100,000)
Since then there are 5,000 fewer senior members. I can attribute that to COVID, but now I'm really curious as to what was going so RIGHT just before this all hit?
No one seems to know the true numbers. The only one that matters is participation numbers. When you see that "38,718" number, that includes huge numbers of people that stopped attending meetings years ago, but keep paying their dues as a contribution. That number accumulated greatly over the years. A very false sense of growth.
Squadrons that have 75 members, but only 25 show up at meetings, and even less for an actual mission or SAREX.
The 5000 you mention losing since then probably includes a big number that would attend every once in awhile, but with COVID, yes, decided it was time to look elsewhere.
Membership numbers had been slowly rising for years leading up to COVID. There wasn't anything special about June of 2020, it just happened to be the high point before COVID-related attrition began showing up in the numbers.
Quote from: dwb on January 03, 2022, 06:23:39 PMMembership numbers had been slowly rising for years leading up to COVID. There wasn't anything special about June of 2020, it just happened to be the high point before COVID-related attrition began showing up in the numbers.
But the major "COVID shutdowns" began in March 2020. That means that between March and June 2020, there were still new members joining.
So the questions are:
Who, where, and why? I think a lot of the numbers make sense in that the universe was shutdown, and CAP was still actively meeting and engaging with members of their community, albeit virtually. It was a place for people to get involved and remain active in a social network despite everything being closed.
But forward to the time when things started to reopen, and you saw this steep drop-off of participation; and many people stopped renewing. In some cases, it took months for it to show up in eServices, as it really depends on when units signed on their members.
CAP was able to use COVID-19 as an outreach for recruiting, and it worked really well early on. But that was an extreme circumstance that was exceptionally limited and no longer a viable approach once states began to relax their restrictions and returned to a greater sense of normalcy. And, once again, you're seeing some states closing up again, which may drive number spikes in those areas depending on how tight the restrictions get; thus, limiting activities elsewhere. CAP is a reasonable avenue to stay active and get involved in networking again.
But for those states that aren't tightening up, where CAP is, you're going to continue to see the numbers fall in those wings.
Quote from: etodd on January 03, 2022, 06:21:03 PMSquadrons that have 75 members, but only 25 show up at meetings, and even less for an actual mission or SAREX.
Not everybody in CAP does Emergency Services. I would guess maybe 50% of the membership max.
I'm trying to find the memo, but one of you will probably be quicker and post it before I find it. If you remember, in early 2020 NHQ made the decision to push back expiration dates for any members expiring in the first few months of the pandemic. I believe everyone was pushed back until June, but I could be mistaken. If I find the memo I'll post it here.
Here is the thread: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=24990.msg433466#msg433466
90 day extension from March = June, so we were still bringing folks in to some point, but those that would have dropped off over those 3 months stayed on as well, which is why there's a huge drop in July 2020.
Quote from: Capt Thompson on January 03, 2022, 08:39:25 PMHere is the thread: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=24990.msg433466#msg433466
90 day extension from March = June, so we were still bringing folks in to some point, but those that would have dropped off over those 3 months stayed on as well, which is why there's a huge drop in July 2020.
Good find. I definitely forgot about the extension (one of many confusing waivers from the COVID era).
That makes perfect sense as to why we see a major drop over the summer last year. So how are the trends through 2021? Anyone have a graph?
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 03, 2022, 09:00:25 PMAnyone have a graph?
Everyone does, or at least members do - you can see all member numbers for all units and nationally.
Seniors have been flat since the fall-off in June - July 2020, and cadets were as well, with
an uptick of about 2k as things loosened up in April, and then flat the last couple months.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2022, 09:31:37 PMQuote from: TheSkyHornet on January 03, 2022, 09:00:25 PMAnyone have a graph?
Everyone does, or at least members do - you can see all member numbers for all units and nationally.
Seniors have been flat since the fall-off in June - July 2020, and cadets were as well, with
an uptick of about 2k as things loosened up in April, and then flat the last couple months.
Can't tell people about a resource without at least showing where said resource is located:
(http://www.mcchord.org/temp/eServicesStatisticsLink.png)
Quote from: dwb on January 03, 2022, 06:23:39 PMMembership numbers had been slowly rising for years leading up to COVID. There wasn't anything special about June of 2020, it just happened to be the high point before COVID-related attrition began showing up in the numbers.
Look at June of 2020, and for some reason March of 2003, from the graph available in eservices. There are spikes at those two dates, followed by a dropoff.
Quote from: Dwight Dutton on January 03, 2022, 10:20:08 PMQuote from: dwb on January 03, 2022, 06:23:39 PMMembership numbers had been slowly rising for years leading up to COVID. There wasn't anything special about June of 2020, it just happened to be the high point before COVID-related attrition began showing up in the numbers.
Look at June of 2020, and for some reason March of 2003, from the graph available in eservices. There are spikes at those two dates, followed by a dropoff.
I'm going to blame the 2003 dropoff on 9/11.
There was a nation-wide drop-off in adults after Sept 2002 and 2003, which can be attributed to the Post-9/11 membership growth. That growth was extended by the lead-up to passing the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The act made it sound like CAP was going to have an expanded role in the post-9/11 world. When it was realized that CAP wasn't really going to have much in the way of new homeland security roles, many of those who joined in Sept 2001 didn't renew in 2003.
That's my guess.
Yeah, membership numbers don't directly reflect active members, but I'd feel safe that the percentage of active/inactive members has been fairly consistent over time, or at least the last 20-30 years.
Quote from: baronet68 on January 03, 2022, 10:51:51 PMQuote from: Dwight Dutton on January 03, 2022, 10:20:08 PMQuote from: dwb on January 03, 2022, 06:23:39 PMMembership numbers had been slowly rising for years leading up to COVID. There wasn't anything special about June of 2020, it just happened to be the high point before COVID-related attrition began showing up in the numbers.
Look at June of 2020, and for some reason March of 2003, from the graph available in eservices. There are spikes at those two dates, followed by a dropoff.
I'm going to blame the 2003 dropoff on 9/11.
There was a nation-wide drop-off in adults after Sept 2002 and 2003, which can be attributed to the Post-9/11 membership growth. That growth was extended by the lead-up to passing the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The act made it sound like CAP was going to have an expanded role in the post-9/11 world. When it was realized that CAP wasn't really going to have much in the way of new homeland security roles, many of those who joined in Sept 2001 didn't renew in 2003. That's my guess.
My squadron was located in a group of four trailers. One of them, known as "Trailer 3", turned out to be a time capsule. When I went in to do a logistics inventory over a decade later, I found in one case an office with a desk and paperwork dated 2003 half completed still on the desk. I made several comments to many people about the 2003 phenomenon, but nobody had an explanation for it until now.
I often wonder where we would be now if that split between CAP and the USAF had been delayed just one year. We would probably become part of the new DHS and oh how different it would all be now.
Quote from: baronet68 on January 03, 2022, 09:50:13 PMQuote from: Eclipse on January 03, 2022, 09:31:37 PMQuote from: TheSkyHornet on January 03, 2022, 09:00:25 PMAnyone have a graph?
Everyone does, or at least members do - you can see all member numbers for all units and nationally.
Seniors have been flat since the fall-off in June - July 2020, and cadets were as well, with
an uptick of about 2k as things loosened up in April, and then flat the last couple months.
Can't tell people about a resource without at least showing where said resource is located:
(http://www.mcchord.org/temp/eServicesStatisticsLink.png)
That's incredible, actually. I had zero clue that this existed.
Okay, so here's my wing's stats since January 2019:
(https://i.imgur.com/Q8TATDs.jpg)
- 15 March 2020, Phase 0
- 10 August 2020, Phase 1
- 02 March 2021, Phase 2
- 28 May 2021, Phase 3
- 28 December 2021, Phase 1 (Virtual only)
- 15 January 2021, Phase 1 (10-persons; anticipated)
It should be noted when looking at the member numbers...
NHQ quotes the EOM number from the previous month as the "current" number(s).
There is a precipitous drop off every month of members who "forget" to renew,
which generally normalizes mid-month.
Another point, which I think has been brought up before.
A significant number of the inexplicable increase in senior members between 2018-2020 may
well be AEMs, specifically teachers.
From what I can tell, AEMs and Patrons are still counted in the global numbers reported
to Congress and used for marketing.
Neither of the above explains the bump in cadets during that same time frame, though clearly
whomever was joining did not engage enough to "stick", which may have been the result of
improper expectations.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 04, 2022, 08:02:05 PMNeither of the above explains the bump in cadets during that same time frame, though clearly whomever was joining did not engage enough to "stick", which may have been the result of improper expectations.
I would very much like to know what percent of members renew even the first time. I strongly suspect that number may be as low as 20%, considering how many new member boards I do for a unit who's total membership never seems to change.
Quote from: Dwight Dutton on January 03, 2022, 06:08:57 PMCOVID was already a thing and CAP hit its highest membership numbers since 20 years ago at 38,718 senior members. (Supposedly at one point in the 1950's we briefly went over 100,000)
Since then there are 5,000 fewer senior members. I can attribute that to COVID, but now I'm really curious as to what was going so RIGHT just before this all hit?
Well, there is a graphic that Maj Moore and I joke around about where it shows him taking over from me as the National Recruiting and Retention Manager right about the time where everything goes to heck....
(https://i.imgur.com/B4zIc4J.png)
To be completely fair to him, thats just me joking around.
(someone could take a similar screenshot of my wing's membership and say "We were doing great right up until that Ninness joker took over, and then look what happened!")I think, just speaking as the former Recruiting Manager, that we were in a period of growth due to a host of factors, some of which were obvious and some less so. Speaking strictly for what I was doing:
- From 2015 onward, there was increased National-level emphasis on recruiting directly to commanders and recruiting officers
- From 2015 to 2019, there were recruiting-specific training events (YouTube OnAir, conference presentations, recruiting "boot camp" at the national conference, etc) nationally. Again, "increased emphasis."
- More discussions about TTPs and doctrinal changes like emphasis on "recruiting for fit" and "cohort recruiting" that was more narrowly focused at the squadron level Recruiting officers and commanders.
You also see waxes and wanes in membership, broadly as a lagging indicator, per commander. I think partly (COVID aside) General Smith getting an extra year helped continue on a series of emphasis items in that regard.
I'm not going to tell you that anything I really did had anything to do with that upward trend ... But hey, I'll wink and take a tiny bit of credit. I suspect that the personnel train has up and down swings that we don't really have a correlation to, and its hard to point to ONE THING or "these 5 things" as having much to do with it. Except, of course, the disgusting slip-and-slide that COVID brought to our front lawn.
As an aside, the reason we peaked when we did was that the General extended membership expirations for (I think) 90-ish days at the beginning of the COVID lockdown. Meaning people who would have expired in March, April & May (or April, May and June) didn't actually expire until July, contributing to the upward trajectory for a little while past the onset of the COVID situation.
BTW, this was on track to be a THIRTY YEAR high in membership for cadets and a 29 year high for seniors.
Quote from: Dwight Dutton on January 04, 2022, 09:37:03 PMQuote from: Eclipse on January 04, 2022, 08:02:05 PMNeither of the above explains the bump in cadets during that same time frame, though clearly whomever was joining did not engage enough to "stick", which may have been the result of improper expectations.
I would very much like to know what percent of members renew even the first time. I strongly suspect that number may be as low as 20%, considering how many new member boards I do for a unit who's total membership never seems to change.
I just got the December numbers. Nationally, senior retention was at 74.6% in December. I can tell you from experience without looking at the numbers specifically that senior retention has held steady around that rate for a good long time. Sometimes its in the 73s, sometimes its in the 75s... Even with COVID it hasn't varied much as far as I've noticed. (I have a little project to put the last two years of data into my spreadsheet.. I've been ... slacking)
I suspect, but without the data specifically right in front of me, that part of our member loss is that ~25% attrition but without the new members coming in.
Cadet first term retention was 32.55%, which is a little low (usually around 35, sometimes as high as 40%) and subsequent term retention was 59.3% which again is a bit low.
I really need to get the recruiting and retention numbers that I've missed into my spreadsheet and see how our "new member starts" has graphed out. Since I'm not the Recruiting Manager anymore, I have "fallen off the wagon" doing this. Maj Moore may have picked up that standard, and I know for a fact he has other indicators he's been tracking that are a VERY interesting cut at measuring engagement.
Quote from: NINWell, there is a graphic that Maj Moore and I joke around about where it shows him taking over from me as the National Recruiting and Retention Manager right about the time where everything goes to heck....
Man... I thought we weren't going to show this to anyone?!? :-X 8) ;)
Okay, let's look at retention for the past two years:
Cadet 1st year retention in Blue, multi-year cadets in Yellow, and seniors in Orange.
Retention rates for the past two years show some recognizable trends.
(http://mcchord.org/temp/RetentionRates2020-2021.png)
The pandemic had a pretty similar impact on retention for all groups, but what's really interesting is the significant increase in 1st year cadets beginning in the spring of 2021. These first year renewals are cadets who joined DURING the pandemic and who, after struggling through "virtual CAP", started to see the "Real CAP" with easing of restrictions and reopening. A similar, but delayed, curve can be seen for seniors and multi-year cadets.
Generally speaking, senior member retention has actually been very consistent. Even long-term, less-than-active members (the kind who haven't darkened a squadron's doorstep in years) keep writing that annual dues payment check because a) they believe and support CAP and b) they are among the few people in the world who still write checks.
The cadets on the other hand, is where the challenge has been greatest. That's because cadets are a constantly diminishing resource... they grow up, graduate, get boy/girl/attack-helicopter friends, get married, join the military, go to college, start careers, and generally age-out of the cadet program. The largest issue has been getting new cadets to join (who will, in turn, drag some of their parents into the program, too.)
When the pandemic started, I had people look at me (through their Zoom cameras) as if I had grown three fire-breathing heads when I'd try to explain that recruiting needs to continue during the pandemic. MANY Recruiting & Retention Officers have told me they're not going to "waste their time" with virtual recruiting and they're just going to wait for things to go back to normal.
It seems that pent-up demand is starting to push through as youth are finding their way into our cadet program. While new cadets in 2020 were the lowest in decades (only 6,814 compared to the typical 10,000 to 12,000 range), 2021 jumped back inside the typical range with 10,719 new cadets.
Side note, the second-lowest single year for new cadets (2007) and lowest multi-year downturn for new cadets was 2005-2008 (when
he-who-shall-not-be-named was running things at Hogwarts).
So a question that I have for the group:
How do we think we're doing with overall leadership in CAP? Squadron commanders, wing commanders, national commander? I mean on a general scale...when it comes to recruiting and member outreach specifically?
Maj Gen Smith was obviously a very visible National Commander. He was joining squadron meetings. He was posting to Facebook and YouTube. You saw a lot of emails from him with him directly speaking to the fleet.
I'm sure Maj Gen Phelka has a different style. He also has a different schedule of availability. One thing that I know Ed Phelka is big on is in-person appearances. He doesn't do as much virtual, at least from what I've known of him.
I see a lot of unit commanders who just don't do virtual outreach. They don't do Facebook. They don't do Instagram. Heck, during the first wave of the pandemic, I hearing from some units that their commander wouldn't even join the virtual meeting because they didn't have internet at home. You want a bunch of teens and younger adults to go, "What is it with these old guys?" That's exactly how that comes up...
As newer cadets come in, and younger cadets become older cadets, and older cadets become senior members, and younger senior members become older senior members...are we failing at reaching them through modern day technology and social media?
I had a senior officer ask me a couple of weeks ago: "What the heck do cadets use these days to communicate? They're not on Facebook." I said, "Well, a lot of them use Reddit. They're on Discord. They have the attention span of a goldfish. We used to say people couldn't read past the headline. These guys don't read headlines. They look at the meme and that's where they get recruited."
I recently spoke with our local national guard recruiting office to team up on some recruiting strategy. They said, "We have the exact same problem. And less and less schools even want us to have a footprint. We're getting less recruits, and we can't find a way to reach out to that age group any more. And a big problem is that the people who are 25, 30-years-old now; they don't read information anymore either. They're starting to fall away from Facebook and what we used to use to recruit."
My stance is that the data from 2005 and 2015 no longer applies. These kids were born in 2005. They joined in 2017, maybe later. They're nearly grown up now. What do we do with the kids who are born in 2015? What is our plan to shift to a new recruiting strategy to get them excited so that they're joining when they turn 12 or 14?
The military recruiting model was to excite teens so that they were signing up when they could legally enlist; add in some college recruiting as well (ROTC, etc.). How are we going to get the modern kid to be excited to join CAP in 1 year from today? How about in 6 months? How about in 24 months?
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 05, 2022, 03:46:03 PMSo a question that I have for the group:
How do we think we're doing with overall leadership in CAP? Squadron commanders, wing commanders, national commander? I mean on a general scale...when it comes to recruiting and member outreach specifically?
Maj Gen Smith was obviously a very visible National Commander. He was joining squadron meetings. He was posting to Facebook and YouTube. You saw a lot of emails from him with him directly speaking to the fleet.
I'm sure Maj Gen Phelka has a different style. He also has a different schedule of availability. One thing that I know Ed Phelka is big on is in-person appearances. He doesn't do as much virtual, at least from what I've known of him.
I see a lot of unit commanders who just don't do virtual outreach. They don't do Facebook. They don't do Instagram. Heck, during the first wave of the pandemic, I hearing from some units that their commander wouldn't even join the virtual meeting because they didn't have internet at home. You want a bunch of teens and younger adults to go, "What is it with these old guys?" That's exactly how that comes up...
As newer cadets come in, and younger cadets become older cadets, and older cadets become senior members, and younger senior members become older senior members...are we failing at reaching them through modern day technology and social media?
I had a senior officer ask me a couple of weeks ago: "What the heck do cadets use these days to communicate? They're not on Facebook." I said, "Well, a lot of them use Reddit. They're on Discord. They have the attention span of a goldfish. We used to say people couldn't read past the headline. These guys don't read headlines. They look at the meme and that's where they get recruited."
I recently spoke with our local national guard recruiting office to team up on some recruiting strategy. They said, "We have the exact same problem. And less and less schools even want us to have a footprint. We're getting less recruits, and we can't find a way to reach out to that age group any more. And a big problem is that the people who are 25, 30-years-old now; they don't read information anymore either. They're starting to fall away from Facebook and what we used to use to recruit."
My stance is that the data from 2005 and 2015 no longer applies. These kids were born in 2005. They joined in 2017, maybe later. They're nearly grown up now. What do we do with the kids who are born in 2015? What is our plan to shift to a new recruiting strategy to get them excited so that they're joining when they turn 12 or 14?
The military recruiting model was to excite teens so that they were signing up when they could legally enlist; add in some college recruiting as well (ROTC, etc.). How are we going to get the modern kid to be excited to join CAP in 1 year from today? How about in 6 months? How about in 24 months?
The answer is, you don't recruit Cadets on Facebook. When I did PAO Academy 5 years ago this was the message, and it's very true. Tomorrow's Cadets aren't scrolling Facebook today, and the types of social media they are using, they don't want to see sales pitches and ads.
Who do you recruit on Facebook? Moms and dads and grandparents. You post lots of pictures of activities, in hopes that C/Amn Jones' grandparents will see them and share to their friends, who are also grandparents, in hopes one of their friends thinks "wow, I bet my grandchild would like to do that too," and they pass the word along.
If your recruiting on FB is targeted to anyone under 35, you're doing it wrong.
Word of mouth has been the best recruiting tool we have. Having the type of program Cadets want to invite their friends to, and then giving them opportunities to do just that, is how we've grown over the last few years, even through the pandemic. Facebook is a great tool to update the parents and grandparents on the happenings at the Squadron, but the only way to reach the Cadets it seems is through their friends and family.
Quote from: NIN on January 04, 2022, 10:03:27 PMI just got the December numbers. Nationally, senior retention was at 74.6% in December. I can tell you from experience without looking at the numbers specifically that senior retention has held steady around that rate for a good long time.
Every year a number of people drop out of participation but keep paying dues as a contribution. So while that 74% number may be official, there would be a big cumulative effect each year. Seems like that number might be growing each year.
Participation numbers are the only numbers that truly matter. The others are just for the advertising and marketing folks to use in their reports to USAF and Congress.
Quote from: etodd on January 06, 2022, 12:53:39 AMParticipation numbers are the only numbers that truly matter.
Which is why NHQ will not track them, nor define "active".
Quote from: Capt Thompson on January 05, 2022, 11:35:38 PMWho do you recruit on Facebook? Moms and dads and grandparents. You post lots of pictures of activities, in hopes that C/Amn Jones' grandparents will see them and share to their friends, who are also grandparents, in hopes one of their friends thinks "wow, I bet my grandchild would like to do that too," and they pass the word along.
If your recruiting on FB is targeted to anyone under 35, you're doing it wrong.
Facebook is definitely not the hottest spot for finding potential cadets but there are still about 30% of teens and preteens who claim in surveys to use Facebook (likely because it's a familiar platform for parents so they feel comfortable letting little Jane and Johnny explore FB under their watchful eye). Other media like YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Instagram, etc. are popular with teens... and then there's that "dark corner of the internet" known as TikTok which continues to grow. As much as people disdain TikTok, there are actually a lot of potential cadets there however, others above my paygrade aren't the least bit interested in even glancing in that direction right now.
Quote from: Capt Thompson on January 05, 2022, 11:35:38 PMWord of mouth has been the best recruiting tool we have. Having the type of program Cadets want to invite their friends to, and then giving them opportunities to do just that, is how we've grown over the last few years, even through the pandemic. Facebook is a great tool to update the parents and grandparents on the happenings at the Squadron, but the only way to reach the Cadets it seems is through their friends and family.
Word of mouth can be a powerful recruiting medium but you have to keep two things in mind:
1) In order for word of mouth to be most successful, your squadron needs to have an ACTIVE and ENGAGING program where members are regularly DOING FUN STUFF. A schedule consisting of nothing but and endless loop of Drill, PT, Aerospace, Character Development... rinse, repeat... rinse, repeat... won't inspire current members to tell others about all the fun and awesome things they're doing. With strong leadership and a dedicated team driving all aspects of the program at the local level, squadrons can (and have) been able to rely solely on WoM for recruiting.
2) One potential drawback of word of mouth is from a diversity perspective. Word of mouth will get more of what you already have. If your squadron doesn't reflect the demographics of your local community (race, gender, education, income, political or religious affiliation, etc.) then word of mouth recruiting won't do much to change that and more deliberate and directed recruiting efforts will be needed.
Quote from: baronet68 on January 06, 2022, 07:59:31 AM1) In order for word of mouth to be most successful, your squadron needs to have an ACTIVE and ENGAGING program where members are regularly DOING FUN STUFF.
This goes back to having the type of program Cadets will want to invite their friends to.
Another thing I forgot to mention is Facebook Groups. Finding groups dedicated to the local area, and posting there has been very helpful. Again, most of the Cadets aren't in these groups, but their parents and grandparents are. Posting about our recent O-Flights along with plenty of pictures of smiling Cadets at 3000 AGL in the local "Monroe County and Friends" Facebook group got us a handful of messages on our page about the program, which allowed us to get contact info and invite them to the next open house in March. About a month before the open house, I'll start posting in the same group, plus a few more, in addition to the local paper, local cable access TV, and a whole lot of word of mouth advertising, and that will pretty much fill the seats and get us 7-10 new Cadets for the Spring Great Start Cohort. The PAO and R&R Officer should be searching for, and joining as many local groups as possible for just this purpose.
Quote from: baronet68 on January 06, 2022, 07:59:31 AM2) One potential drawback of word of mouth is from a diversity perspective.
Not such a drawback if the Squadron already reflects the demographics of the local community, but I could see where this could be an issue if the Squadron didn't.
One other avenue to explore, homeschool co-ops. A few years ago our Squadron R&R Officer tapped into a local homeschool group and brought in 6 new Cadets, and they have continually brought in others to open houses. For many of them, we are their extra curricular activity, so they not only look forward to coming each week, but don't usually have conflicts with other sports and activities, and were already used to doing school at home so when we went to virtual in 2020 and again in 2021 it didn't really phase them as much.
Quote from: Capt Thompson on January 06, 2022, 01:29:27 PMOne other avenue to explore, homeschool co-ops. A few years ago our Squadron R&R Officer tapped into a local homeschool group and brought in 6 new Cadets, and they have continually brought in others to open houses...
(emphasis added)
This demonstrates the point that word of mouth will get more of what you already have.
Quote from: baronet68 on January 05, 2022, 07:21:08 AMGenerally speaking, senior member retention has actually been very consistent. Even long-term, less-than-active members (the kind who haven't darkened a squadron's doorstep in years) keep writing that annual dues payment check because a) they believe and support CAP and b) they are among the few people in the world who still write checks.
Guilty! Thanks for giving me a smile to start my day!
Quote from: baronet68 on January 07, 2022, 06:04:00 AMQuote from: Capt Thompson on January 06, 2022, 01:29:27 PMOne other avenue to explore, homeschool co-ops. A few years ago our Squadron R&R Officer tapped into a local homeschool group and brought in 6 new Cadets, and they have continually brought in others to open houses...
(emphasis added)
This demonstrates the point that word of mouth will get more of what you already have.
Not going to argue there, in this case the homeschool kids are more dedicated, have better attendance, sign up for every activity and volunteer opportunity, work harder, listen better and are better leaders than most other Cadets we've had in the past, so more of them wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Plus, if the homeschool coop matches the diversity of the surrounding community, or in our case, is slightly more diverse than the surrounding community, I have no issues with growing our Squadron with their help.
At this point, I think most Squadrons would be happy to take in any new Cadets they can, through whatever avenue they can. Word of mouth has worked better for us than any of the other avenues, so whatever Cadets come in that way, we're going to welcome them in. If they bring their friends a few months later to the next open house, I'm not exactly going to say no to them either. If we're going to survive as an organization after all of this is over, each Squadron needs to find something that works for them and run with it, even if diversity metrics or whatever else NHQ tracks is thrown off for a few years while we rebuild the program.
Ah, yes, that awkward moment when I need to ask for a check or money order to include with a paper application...
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 07, 2022, 09:20:46 PMAh, yes, that awkward moment when I need to ask for a check or money order to include with a paper application...
Online app: https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.MembershipSystem.Web/CadetOnlineApp.aspx (https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.MembershipSystem.Web/CadetOnlineApp.aspx)
Quote from: etodd on January 07, 2022, 10:32:48 PMQuote from: TheSkyHornet on January 07, 2022, 09:20:46 PMAh, yes, that awkward moment when I need to ask for a check or money order to include with a paper application...
Online app: https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.MembershipSystem.Web/CadetOnlineApp.aspx (https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.MembershipSystem.Web/CadetOnlineApp.aspx)
Uh...thanks? I'm familiar with it.
That still doesn't change the fact that we have a paper form for senior members.
Quote from: NIN on January 04, 2022, 10:03:27 PMQuote from: Dwight Dutton on January 04, 2022, 09:37:03 PMQuote from: Eclipse on January 04, 2022, 08:02:05 PMNeither of the above explains the bump in cadets during that same time frame, though clearly whomever was joining did not engage enough to "stick", which may have been the result of improper expectations.
I would very much like to know what percent of members renew even the first time. I strongly suspect that number may be as low as 20%, considering how many new member boards I do for a unit who's total membership never seems to change.
I just got the December numbers. Nationally, senior retention was at 74.6% in December. I can tell you from experience without looking at the numbers specifically that senior retention has held steady around that rate for a good long time. Sometimes its in the 73s, sometimes its in the 75s... Even with COVID it hasn't varied much as far as I've noticed. (I have a little project to put the last two years of data into my spreadsheet.. I've been ... slacking)
Its been my observation that if someone renews at all, they are probably going to stay long term. So say 20% of them renew after the first year, but 85% renew every year after that - you could get the 74.6% you see.
Where I am at least, CAP does not recruit based on what we actually do. People join on that mistaken belief and after about half a year see the organization for what it really is. Far less than half like what they actually see. But obviously some do, and those stick around for decades.
In that latter category you then have to make the distinction between those who like it enough to stick around on paper and keep that door open if they ever want to get active again (usually not) and those who remain active productive members - and unless your personnel officer is typing in the attendance rosters after every meeting National does not have that information.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 08, 2022, 10:50:31 PMQuote from: etodd on January 07, 2022, 10:32:48 PMQuote from: TheSkyHornet on January 07, 2022, 09:20:46 PMAh, yes, that awkward moment when I need to ask for a check or money order to include with a paper application...
Online app: https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.MembershipSystem.Web/CadetOnlineApp.aspx (https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP.MembershipSystem.Web/CadetOnlineApp.aspx)
Uh...thanks? I'm familiar with it.
That still doesn't change the fact that we have a paper form for senior members.
Well the fingerprints are paper anyway so I guess they do not want online app and then have to wait for fingerprints separate. This way, HDS gets them together.
And card payments are fine. You don't have to ask for a check:QuoteSubmit your application, fingerprint card and dues through one of the following ways:
Mail
Checks (made payable to Civil Air Patrol) or money orders are accepted for dues payment.
If paying by credit card, include the information listed below to process the application. The required information includes:
Type of Card - Visa, MasterCard or Discover
Card Number
Expiration Date
3 Digit Security Code on the Back of the Card
Name on Card
Mail your completed application, fingerprint card and dues payment to:
Civil Air Patrol/DP
105 S. Hansell St. Bldg 714
Maxwell AFB, AL 36112
You do if you want to collect squadron dues, don't you?
Quote from: etodd on January 09, 2022, 10:15:31 PMType of Card - Visa, MasterCard or Discover
Card Number
Expiration Date
3 Digit Security Code on the Back of the Card
Name on Card
This sounds like a great way to get your CC stolen.
PCI is apparently a 4-letter word at NHQ.
Why on earth doesn't NHQ provide have a secure payment gateway for adult memberships?
A non-trivial number of people these days don't even
have traditional checking accounts.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2022, 11:20:33 PMWhy on earth doesn't NHQ provide have a secure payment gateway for adult memberships?
I suppose they don't want to lose the 3-4% in card fees. And if they raised the membership fee to cover it, so many would complain.
Quote from: etodd on January 09, 2022, 11:41:02 PMQuote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2022, 11:20:33 PMWhy on earth doesn't NHQ provide have a secure payment gateway for adult memberships?
I suppose they don't want to lose the 3-4% in card fees. And if they raised the membership fee to cover it, so many would complain.
If they accept the card, there are still fees.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 10, 2022, 01:18:52 AMQuote from: etodd on January 09, 2022, 11:41:02 PMQuote from: Eclipse on January 09, 2022, 11:20:33 PMWhy on earth doesn't NHQ provide have a secure payment gateway for adult memberships?
I suppose they don't want to lose the 3-4% in card fees. And if they raised the membership fee to cover it, so many would complain.
If they accept the card, there are still fees.
Thats was my point. If Hdqs gets paid via credit card, VISA or whoever gets a cut. Less revenue than with a check or money order.
Quote from: etodd on January 10, 2022, 03:21:00 AMThats was my point. If Hdqs gets paid via credit card, VISA or whoever gets a cut. Less revenue than with a check or money order.
True, and not related to my point.
NHQ has apparently allowed for payment by credit in the worst possible way from both a PPI
and cost perspective.
A national organizaiton that counts itself as part of a military force should be able to
negotiate NFP rates along with a secure method of payment, yet most wings are still force to
use PayPal or Stripe as the merchant, and NHQ apparently expects people to provide CC info
in the worst possible way for membership.
For that matter why can't the same system used for renewals be used for new adult members?
Quote from: undefinedIf paying by credit card, include the information listed below to process the application. The required information includes:
Type of Card - Visa, MasterCard or Discover
Card Number
Expiration Date
3 Digit Security Code on the Back of the Card
Name on Card
That's an exceptionally awful idea.
You couldn't dare me to write that down by telling me that I'll get a 30% investment return on that.
Quote from: baronet68 on January 07, 2022, 06:04:00 AMQuote from: Capt Thompson on January 06, 2022, 01:29:27 PMOne other avenue to explore, homeschool co-ops. A few years ago our Squadron R&R Officer tapped into a local homeschool group and brought in 6 new Cadets, and they have continually brought in others to open houses...
(emphasis added)
This demonstrates the point that word of mouth will get more of what you already have.
Which is not actually what we want.
Here is a quote from an active duty F15 pilot I was at an event with over the weekend. This is as close to an actual quote as I can remember
Civil Air Patrol is our Volkssturm:
1. They are all civilians
2. They are really young or really old
3. Their training is all over the place
4. Their uniforms consist of whatever they can find and nobody ever matches anything
5. They wear rank but nobody takes orders from anybody else
6. Its all chaos and anarchy driven by egoes
I was a this event as a DHS employee. This particular Major was unaware I did volunteer activity.
Quote from: Dwight Dutton on January 10, 2022, 04:44:32 PMQuote from: baronet68 on January 07, 2022, 06:04:00 AMQuote from: Capt Thompson on January 06, 2022, 01:29:27 PMOne other avenue to explore, homeschool co-ops. A few years ago our Squadron R&R Officer tapped into a local homeschool group and brought in 6 new Cadets, and they have continually brought in others to open houses...
(emphasis added)
This demonstrates the point that word of mouth will get more of what you already have.
Which is not actually what we want.
Here is a quote from an active duty F15 pilot I was at an event with over the weekend. This is as close to an actual quote as I can remember
Civil Air Patrol is our Volkssturm:
1. They are all civilians
2. They are really young or really old
3. Their training is all over the place
4. Their uniforms consist of whatever they can find and nobody ever matches anything
5. They wear rank but nobody takes orders from anybody else
6. Its all chaos and anarchy driven by egoes
I was a this event as a DHS employee. This particular Major was unaware I did volunteer activity.
You left off the collective who are the Doomsdayers who believe that they're the small few to make it through the next Cold War because they know how to use a radio when the entire grid shuts down. Those are usually the ones who DHS starts to watch because they're driving around in camo with a bunch of radio equipment in their car talking about how they can tap into military communications lines...no, I'm serious. That's a thing.
Quote from: Dwight Dutton on January 10, 2022, 04:44:32 PMQuote from: baronet68 on January 07, 2022, 06:04:00 AMQuote from: Capt Thompson on January 06, 2022, 01:29:27 PMOne other avenue to explore, homeschool co-ops. A few years ago our Squadron R&R Officer tapped into a local homeschool group and brought in 6 new Cadets, and they have continually brought in others to open houses...
(emphasis added)
This demonstrates the point that word of mouth will get more of what you already have.
Which is not actually what we want.
Here is a quote from an active duty F15 pilot I was at an event with over the weekend. This is as close to an actual quote as I can remember
Civil Air Patrol is our Volkssturm:
1. They are all civilians
2. They are really young or really old
3. Their training is all over the place
4. Their uniforms consist of whatever they can find and nobody ever matches anything
5. They wear rank but nobody takes orders from anybody else
6. Its all chaos and anarchy driven by egoes
I was a this event as a DHS employee. This particular Major was unaware I did volunteer activity.
The sad part is he's not wrong, and any attempt to fix any of those issues leads to absolutely nothing. Makes it hard to stick around, honestly.
Wasn't there a rumor BITD that Sen John McCain wanted to do away with CAP?
The F15 pilot wasn't far off the mark but then some AF officers come to CAP not RTFM, either and try toAF the the CAP
If rank went away, how many would stay?
Quote from: heliodoc on January 10, 2022, 06:45:38 PMWasn't there a rumor BITD that Sen John McCain wanted to do away with CAP?
Yes, as far back as 95-96.
He characterized is issue as being one of the principle that DOD
budgets should be for defense only, and programs like CAP should be funded elsewhere,
tweeting as recently as 2014 that CAP was getting a ~$7MM dollar bump while the USAF
budgets were being cut.
While probably not fair, many view(ed) the good Senator as "anti-CAP" because of
that, while the truth, as it generally is, is more complicated.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 10, 2022, 06:59:18 PMQuote from: heliodoc on January 10, 2022, 06:45:38 PMWasn't there a rumor BITD that Sen John McCain wanted to do away with CAP?
Yes, as far back as 95-96.
He characterized is issue as being one of the principle that DOD
budgets should be for defense only, and programs like CAP should be funded elsewhere,
tweeting as recently as 2014 that CAP was getting a ~$7MM dollar bump while the USAF
budgets were being cut.
While probably not fair, many view(ed) the good Senator as "anti-CAP" because of
that, while the truth, as it generally is, is more complicated.
One of Senator McCain's "things" was waste in the DoD budget. Stuff like the $500 hammers and such.
CAP got a bump in their authorization because of some good old politicking. CAP didn't like having their budget cut so they went to their friends in congress and got the money added back in.
CAP not too far behind in wild spending or "beta testing" the different application for aerial photography
ARCHER PHYLLIS ARGUS VIRB and now Aero something
There's a reason for contract aerial photography...
We haven't controlled either ...the $500 dollar hammer nor the next great thing to hang on a CAP airframe
Quote from: Eclipse on January 10, 2022, 06:59:18 PMQuote from: heliodoc on January 10, 2022, 06:45:38 PMWasn't there a rumor BITD that Sen John McCain wanted to do away with CAP?
Yes, as far back as 95-96.
He characterized is issue as being one of the principle that DOD
budgets should be for defense only, and programs like CAP should be funded elsewhere,
tweeting as recently as 2014 that CAP was getting a ~$7MM dollar bump while the USAF
budgets were being cut.
While probably not fair, many view(ed) the good Senator as "anti-CAP" because of
that, while the truth, as it generally is, is more complicated.
So is CAP better served being a part of the Homeland Security budget?
That's just a really general question, and I'm not expecting any logical/rational response. Merely a thought point.
I think a question that stands here—when it comes to discussion about military budgeting—is how wide roles have become across a number of government programs, to include CAP's.
First off, the Department of Defense is the Constitutionally prescribed and afforded executive military organization. We can term "War Department," or "Defense," or whatever. Let's just go with military as that distinction.
The Department of Homeland Security can also be regarded, in some capacities, as a defense organization as well in regard to domestic security versus the DOD's "abroad" security (military).
Now, CAP is clearly not a "military" arm of the U.S. government, not even as a #TotalForce auxiliary to the military. It's a domestic organization that conducts humanitarian operations, assists in search and rescue, and only in some instances performs national security support.
Our military's missions have greatly expanded over time, to include broadening the "security" and war nature of the Armed Forces to include much the same: humanitarian, SAR, and domestic security (repel insurrection, etc.). We see this most often through state national guards and instances of federal activation of guards and reserves components.
So CAP is much more like a national guard domestic services element than it is an active duty "military" element. And it really acts more as a DHS auxiliary than it does a USAF auxiliary, albeit through Air Force funding and
some operational support that DHS couldn't as easily provide, if at all, without going through other federal channels and outside of the DHS network (i.e., DOD facility usage).
One of the areas where, I think, we get ourselves wrapped around is trying to separate our differentiation between what the "Air Force does" versus what "CAP does." So to be clear: The Air Force extends its non-combat missions through non-combatant forces who are "trained to fight" but serve a primary role (in their assignment) to conduct humanitarian, SAR, etc. operations. But CAP has an identity crisis in that many members continue to believe that CAP is anything less than the #TotalForce in its entirety, which is globally untrue. CAP was
briefly a combatant force, but that was before any official establishment of the U.S. Air Force and its combatant and non-combatant arms.
So what's left for CAP in its image? Well, for one, CAP has been much behind the modern military, and DHS alike, its in acquiring and application of technology, training programs, and mission outreach. Due to funding and manpower/resourcing constraints, CAP has always been well behind the curve of development and adaptation to an ever-evolving "modern world of things" and continues to seek dated methods to teach, train, and deploy. Look at the aspect of our member corps: We continue to talk about how 90% of the finds/saves are the result of a team of individuals using cellphone triangulation to identify where a missing person was last positioned, whilst we have a number of members who don't even use cellular-based email on a smartphone let alone have WiFi at home.
We're faced with a member recruitment and retention issue where, we as leaders, are faced with the policy of
inclusivity of all creatures/beings, which results in needing to expand our local activities to include severely outdated resources and practices so that everyone can be included and that they can contribute is whatever way
they see fit and not
what I need them to be capable of. We're hyper-focused on making sure that we have
this option for that group, and for people who can't do
this then they should be able to login instead using
that, and when they can't do
that, I've got another system over here...
It's chaos, and it's nonsense.
I can't even believe that, in an organization of 60,000 members, we don't have a common email address. We've got people who have three different types of emails depending on how many roles they have in CAP and at what echelon. It's madness.
We're beyond disorganized in our administrative programs. We have no clear vision on
what it is that we do as an organization. And I'll guess that at least 25% of our member roster doesn't actually participate or contribute on any basis, let alone "actively" (which we have been trying to define over the past how many comments/threads)?
^^^
Agree with everything here, sadly it's too verbose for a t-shirt.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 11, 2022, 06:08:25 PMSo is CAP better served being a part of the Homeland Security budget?
This was, of course, a big conversation in the immediate Post-911 government shuffle.
Many people believed (some still do) that moving CAP to HLS would mean an increased visibility
and posture, along with more operational activity.
I argued at the time the proposal was prevalent, and still do, that an HLS move would
be the end of CAP.
The cadet program still exists as a "wink and nod" recruiting arm of the military, especially
the Air Force. NHQ been working hard the last 5-10 years to demilitarize itself in favor
of whatever way the wind is blowing, but no one can argue that this is still the case.
The CP would have zero place in HLS, which would could mean that the choice would be shut it down,
radically change it, or split the org to leave the CP as the USAF auxiliary. None of those
choices are workable, and would result in nearly immediate attrition as people either
quit altogether, or are forced to decide between the new organizations, knowing full well
that the majority of the actual membership is dual-hatted (if not worse).
You can't have ES without the CP people, and you can't have CP without the ES people.
But worse, if CAP were forced to become a performing partner in an actual HLS role, without the CP as a
"well we do this too" backup, the lack of clothes on the emperor would be obvious day 1.
Topic detour...
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 11, 2022, 06:08:25 PMI can't even believe that, in an organization of 60,000 members, we don't have a common email address. We've got people who have three different types of emails depending on how many roles they have in CAP and at what echelon. It's madness.
I agree that CAP's variety of "official" email domains is excessive. But you wouldn't believe the amount of outcry and pushback I've personally seen at squadron and wing levels whenever someone raises the issue of using "official" email accounts for CAP business.
If you're doing business working for the American Red Cross, Microsoft, or the USAF you're required to use an @redcross.org, @microsoft.com, or @us.af.mil email account.
However, when the idea is floated that CAP members should use an official CAP email address for CAP business... people seriously lose their $h!t. I've personally heard people scream, "No!!! I will only use my personal
AwesomeVFRPilot1955(at)aol(dot)com address!!!"
My brain nearly exploded a few years ago when a cadet emailed several people in their squadron asking about an upcoming color guard event at a Triple-A baseball game.
Her email address was simply vulgar and involved velvet, a feline household pet, and her year of birth.
Neither her, nor her parents, seemed to understand why that wasn't the best email address to use (at all, never mind for CAP business).
QuoteFrom Eclipse:
The CP would have zero place in HLS, which would... mean that the choice would be shut it down, radically change it, or split the org to leave the CP as the USAF auxiliary. None of those choices are workable, and would result in nearly immediate attrition...
If this happens, I do not think that CP would be shut down. I think it would continue, in a similar way to the Explorer Law Enforcement. This would imperil the viability of our current CP. I do think it would severely impact our Aerospace Education program, reducing funds to acquiring the airplanes currently given by the USAF, impacting our access to airports for Orientation Flights by reducing or curtailing access.
I do agree with Eclipse that moving to DHS oversight will severely cripple CAP, or change it in such a way that may be as of itself a threat to CAP survival.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on January 11, 2022, 10:11:50 PMIf this happens, I do not think that CP would be shut down. I think it would continue, in a similar way to the Explorer Law Enforcement. This would imperil the viability of our current CP. I do think it would severely impact our Aerospace Education program, reducing funds to acquiring the airplanes currently given by the USAF, impacting our access to airports for Orientation Flights by reducing or curtailing access.
I'm meh on this. I think we need to have some consideration here that the majority of CAP Aerospace does not come through the Air Force, nor does it come through actual aircraft flight.
The majority of any cadet's aerospace exposure occurs on a weekly meeting night from whatever lesson plan the squadron AEO devised. Sure, there are options to include funded STEM kits, but many units don't even use them, or at least not recycle their use once the associated lessons are completed. Most units find an interesting topic (at least to someone, usually the AEO) and present it without any involvement outside of the unit.
O-Flights for that matter have a great value in recruiting. I wouldn't say that they're going to preserve retention. A cadet who joins at 12-years-old may "use up" their O-Flights by the time they're 13 or 14. So what retains them for the remainder if it isn't airplane rides?
I think you'd see an impact to members if a MEMO went out tomorrow and said, "No more cadet O-Flights, ever." But go forward another 5 years (as I always throw that out there). Nobody is the wiser. The Cadet Program would not disappear just because there aren't any airplane rides anymore.
QuoteI do agree with Eclipse that moving to DHS oversight will severely cripple CAP, or change it in such a way that may be as of itself a threat to CAP survival.
I agree as well. It's especially not something that should ever be considered as a flip-of-the-switch, either. I think this is just a case where we need to understand what the role of the Cadet Program is and what it isn't, and consider the changes that we should continue to make to it over a long duration.
At the end of the day, the Cadet Program is a leadership program, nothing more or less. Every else is extracurricular to it. The one thing that the program should
never lose is the emphasis of develop youth as leaders. If you lose that, you lose the value of the program and the buy-in from every parent who signs their kid up.
Retention requires fun, exciting, challenging, and
purposeful activities.
If ES is "extracurricular" then maybe it ought find a home in a true SAR organization or be blended under the FEMA 508 program if CAP is truly payin attention with established standards for Type I-IV organizations with real Position Taskbooks that align with everything else. Hard to explain CAPs SQTR system because previous ES Directors prior to me failed to explain the program at the Wing level.....I had to do it at my place of employment cuz some CAPers were trying to use SQTRs as PTB items...indicating many in CAP still don't understand the ICS system for whatever reason(s).
BTW CAP is not the only game in town when it come to AE
Despite the rhetoric, I've never considered AE to be a separate mission in the way
it is marketed.
It can't stand on its own, and it has always struck me as someone's cool
idea that CAP has three missions based on the CAP prop having 3 blades.
It just smacks of a committee decision.
In a related piece of data, it's remarkable, actually how many members,
cadets especially, join the Civil Air Patrol and have zero interest in flying,
and tangential to that, the far too many members, especially cadets, who join,
succeed, and leave CAP never having even seen a CAP aircraft in person.
I think this is less of an issue today, but it's non-zero.
Quote from: baronet68 on January 11, 2022, 07:57:20 PMTopic detour...
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 11, 2022, 06:08:25 PMI can't even believe that, in an organization of 60,000 members, we don't have a common email address. We've got people who have three different types of emails depending on how many roles they have in CAP and at what echelon. It's madness.
I agree that CAP's variety of "official" email domains is excessive. But you wouldn't believe the amount of outcry and pushback I've personally seen at squadron and wing levels whenever someone raises the issue of using "official" email accounts for CAP business.
California did that, everybody got a @cawgcap.org email address. You got a @cawg.cap.gov address if you were involved in upper level stuff, but it was actually just an alias to the same mailbox. I think whatever system we have has expanded to all of Pacific Region at this point, as the CAWG IT guy moved up to PCR.
As much as we do with FEMA, I would think it would be a better option for us to move into than HLS.
Quote from: etodd on January 12, 2022, 02:20:19 AMAs much as we do with FEMA, I would think it would be a better option for us to move into than HLS.
FEMA and the Cadet Program are probably not a match made in heaven.
Quote from: Dwight Dutton on January 11, 2022, 11:22:11 PMQuote from: baronet68 on January 11, 2022, 07:57:20 PMTopic detour...
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 11, 2022, 06:08:25 PMI can't even believe that, in an organization of 60,000 members, we don't have a common email address. We've got people who have three different types of emails depending on how many roles they have in CAP and at what echelon. It's madness.
I agree that CAP's variety of "official" email domains is excessive. But you wouldn't believe the amount of outcry and pushback I've personally seen at squadron and wing levels whenever someone raises the issue of using "official" email accounts for CAP business.
California did that, everybody got a @cawgcap.org email address. You got a @cawg.cap.gov address if you were involved in upper level stuff, but it was actually just an alias to the same mailbox. I think whatever system we have has expanded to all of Pacific Region at this point, as the CAWG IT guy moved up to PCR.
The alias thing is gone. CAWG put out an email a couple of months ago about that.
Quote from: Pacific Region Director of Information Technology; California Wing Directory of Information Technology"This email is to simply serve as a reminder that Auto-Forwarding of your email to an OUTSIDE EMAIL ADDRESS in Office 365 will be disabled and all current email forwarding will be removed at midnight [11/5/2021]."
The AF used to have base-specific emails and it was always a hassle when you would PCS or deploy. Around the time I got out they made a good move and have general-AF email accounts. No more switching.
We need to do the same thing. Whatever@cap.gov would be fine. I have a wing email from my home wing, an email from a neighboring wing I do a lot of work with, and am going into a region spot but will be keeping my wing email.
Makes zero sense, but then again, we can't even standardize using Google or Microsoft from wing to wing.
Just a reminder that the cadet program itself is not one of the missions assigned to us by Congress. It is only a subsidiary of our task of providing aviation education and training.
As a side note, I just realized that the way that B(2) is written it leaves the door open to CAP providing aviation training to non-members as well.
QuoteThe purposes of the corporation are as follows:
(1) To provide an organization to—
(A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and
(B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.
(2) To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.
(3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.
(4) To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.
(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its noncombat programs and missions.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 12, 2022, 09:19:47 AMThe alias thing is gone. CAWG put out an email a couple of months ago about that.Quote from: Pacific Region Director of Information Technology; California Wing Directory of Information Technology"This email is to simply serve as a reminder that Auto-Forwarding of your email to an OUTSIDE EMAIL ADDRESS in Office 365 will be disabled and all current email forwarding will be removed at midnight [11/5/2021]."
That quote has nothing to do with email aliases. That was email FORWARDING, which they did indeed turn off.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 13, 2022, 01:24:19 PMJust a reminder that the cadet program itself is not one of the missions assigned to us by Congress. It is only a subsidiary of our task of providing aviation education and training.
As a side note, I just realized that the way that B(2) is written it leaves the door open to CAP providing aviation training to non-members as well.
Quote from: undefinedThe purposes of the corporation are as follows:
(1) To provide an organization to—
(A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and
(B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.
(2) To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.
(3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.
(4) To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.
(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its noncombat programs and missions.
It's really more so the
aviation education aspect, not so much training (for the purpose of certification). It ties in with (B)(3) to conduct community aviation outreach (which we refer to as "aerospace" these days).
Let's also be clear that the Cadet Program, as you said, is not a Congressional charter mission and does not fall under the Auxiliary aspect in our Air Force relationship. Today, it really isn't a sub-tasking of our mission to educate and train in aviation; only in its extracurricular nature of flight training programs (i.e., WINGS) which are part of the Congressional mission.
The majority of Cadet Program falls under the 501(c)(3) status of CAP. There is
some Congressional tie-in, but not so much these days.
We really need to make the distinction that the "three missions of CAP" in the sense of the triangle thing—which is predominately for expression of organizational vision and marketing—is more of a categorization of "where do people fall within the scope of CAP" and not "what are we tasked to do Congressionally, and what does the Air Force ask of us."
Really, when you break down
What is it that CAP does?, you're looking at a lot of intermixed, nonlinear components. It's much more like a spaghetti diagram than it is a very compartmentalized organization. The problem that a lot of us face is, depending on where you fall within that org chart (command hierarchy), we lack in cooperative efforts to apply resourcing and oversight to common activities because they are treated as compartmental missions (like the triangle thing) and not interfaced missions (where the entire organization has a role).
This is precisely where CAP fails to mimic and mirror military organizations and operations. I've brought this point up numerous times. Let's look at what it is that a wing or battalion does. Call it whatever you want. Let's skip the "well, technically..." Look at how they fit together—
You have a battalion headquarters which includes the headquarters elements: Personnel shop (S1), Operations (S3), Supply (S4), and so forth. Within that battalion are four subordinate companies: medical, transportation, and two infantries—and I'm just simplifying. Each company has two platoons.
The platoons have people who need to be taken care of; they have needs for medical care, financial care, equipment (supply), and especially training as well as work detail rotations (duty). It's the battalion's and subordinate company's headquarters responsibility to make sure that services and administrative programs are being utilized, and that they are effective at supporting the overall mission and the care of the personnel within the battalion, all the way down to the newest grunt who was assigned to the unit last week. If the platoon needs training gear, or chairs for the office, or the building is in need of maintenance...whatever, you go to the S4 shop. The S3 is providing training schedules and event cycles, etc.
In CAP, we don't have that structure nor that relationship. We have a wing office that kinda sorta not really does those things, but squadrons...psh...squadrons are grassroots and have to defend for themselves. Every shred of finance, every uniform, everything beyond maybe a laptop or radio...the squadron has to figure all of that out. They don't go to Wing Logistics and say "Hey, can we get x-number uniforms?" Units don't have a budget; not a real one. There's no unit spending allowance. If your unit didn't raise the money, then you don't have it to spend.
Once you've been in a squadron long enough, you get it. But go up to the higher echelon. How about the group? Literally the same ordeal. The group has less assets than the squadron has.
Go to the wing level. Here's where it all is, right? Nope. If one department needs equipment...if they need pens, notepads, tables, chairs, a meeting space...that's all coordinated by them. If Air Operations is going to hold a training weekend with their pilots and aircrew, they go and get all of that on their own. They go find a place, they make all of the arrangements, they set it all up and manage it. Wings are extremely compartmentalized even more than squadrons. In fact, some wing directorates are set up like squadrons because everything is internal to that office.
You want a big attrition cause: many members feel abandoned and simply feel like they just can't do this stuff on their own. It's exceptionally difficult to plan, coordinate, and execute activities, let alone manage squadrons in CAP. It all has to be done on your own, and some people just don't have that ability to figure it out and make it happen. Others have that ability but feel completely frustrated by the lack of involvement from others, even when soliciting help. They're burned out.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 13, 2022, 04:36:39 PMIn CAP, we don't have that structure....
And never will. At least in a form I can imagine. That kind of structure requires very dedicated people at all levels that can perform the jobs any time needed. We are volunteers that are able to work when its convenient to our already busy lives. I may be very active this month, but then all heck breaks out with my business and/or family stuff next month, and so when the phone rings I have to say call the next member on the list.
Quote from: etodd on January 13, 2022, 05:40:12 PMQuote from: TheSkyHornet on January 13, 2022, 04:36:39 PMIn CAP, we don't have that structure....
And never will. At least in a form I can imagine. That kind of structure requires very dedicated people at all levels that can perform the jobs any time needed. We are volunteers that are able to work when its convenient to our already busy lives. I may be very active this month, but then all heck breaks out with my business and/or family stuff next month, and so when the phone rings I have to say call the next member on the list.
This isn't only a member issue, it's a CAP structure issue.
There are plenty of members who are, or were historically, more then willing to make CAP
a "top-5" life issue and drop everything when the call comes / came, but CAP is unable to
put resources where they are actually needed, in proximity to the responding resources,
or often the need.
Planes are at airports, assigned with the happenstance of availability of "free or cheap".
Every tech toy is a 1-off, usually in the trunk of the person who went to the training seminar.
BITD, it was not uncommon for members in my wing to have to drive 1-2 hours+ just to get to a plane
to start the mission, at 2AM. That's ridiculous.
The other piece is the lack of manpower. Properly manned, the ROI with CAP is having enough
people so that no one, or few, people being occasionally on vacation grinds the response capability
to a halt.
In most wings that notion died more then a decade ago.
Quote from: etodd on January 13, 2022, 05:40:12 PMQuote from: TheSkyHornet on January 13, 2022, 04:36:39 PMIn CAP, we don't have that structure....
And never will. At least in a form I can imagine. That kind of structure requires very dedicated people at all levels that can perform the jobs any time needed. We are volunteers that are able to work when its convenient to our already busy lives. I may be very active this month, but then all heck breaks out with my business and/or family stuff next month, and so when the phone rings I have to say call the next member on the list.
Zero disagreement from me. To have that structure would mean a fleet of full-time workers, or multi-times as many part-time workers.
But there are several parts to that:
- There are a lot of people who volunteer and offer their commitment with no intent to actually commit (i.e., they're that person who offers up their help but doesn't actually do anything)
- There are a lot of people who volunteer and offer their commitment with no real understanding of what they committed to (honestly, due to a lack of experience in how awful it can get to manage even a single project...and that's not a bad thing; just not something they're ready for)
- People have a limit on how much they are willing to (or can) contribute to a job that has no monetary pay
And this is where I think we spawned a conversation about what is "active" versus "inactive." So for the sake of discussion, let's leave someone being busy for a couple of months, away from CAP, as a non-matter.
Where I think we run into some really big difficulties in coordinating a large event is that there is often nowhere to turn to other than the project committee. Projects are often treated as if it's a school prom where there's a student government or court of some kind building out this event, not a designated "team of things" like a permanently affixed staff structure.
Each project team is struggling because they have a major undertaking on their own. And, as said above, if the wing staff was to have a role in every project, there would probably be non-stop tasks needing to be accomplished because there are 15 or 30 things going on at any time that requires everybody's input/support.
Heck, in my role, I have 6 ongoing projects right now with my team plus whatever else I'm being asked to help with (from up or down) that comes in addition to the items I created/initiated. It's not exactly convenient, but I have a staff network to really help support it.
But the difference is a lot of us here on CAP Talk are those who are also frequently engaged in the world of "most things." We're always working on something and surround ourselves with people who always crave a project to stay busy and sane, and it's often a great distraction from the dull days of our paying jobs. The majority of people who join CAP and "want to help" don't do that. They fall back into those two or three list items above.
CAP's staff structure isn't designed to not support the other echelons. I don't think that's true. I think it's under the shadow of a largely inexperienced or noncommittal membership roster (for whatever reason each person has...see list above again), and a lack of resourcing for lower echelons to assist them beyond their local grassroots programming. Now is that NHQ's problem, or the wing's problem, to finance or equip a squadron? I didn't say that at all. But it's still a contributing aspect to how tough it can be at that lowest level in the organization and how it's a frequent driver to why people feel that this just isn't the place they want to be anymore. And that's true for seniors and especially more experienced cadets.