Wings that don't have Groups

[sardak]

COWG has four groups.

Mike

[crisptheyounger]

ILWG, WIWG, & INWG have groups.

You need to add INWG to "have" - I don't know about Idaho.

Idaho doesn't have groups anymore. The only wing I know of in RMR that uses groups in COWG.

[lordmonar]

Here is the count so far:

With Groups(18):

MOWG
NCWG
VAWG
COWG
CAWG
FLWG
TXWG
NJWG
NYWG
PAWG
ILWG
WIWG
INWG
TNWG
GAWG
PRWG
OHWG
MIWG

With out groups (23):

MNWG
IAWG
Nat CAP WG
WVWG
AKWG
MAWG
RIWG
CTWG
VTWG
NHWG
MEWG
NVWG
OKWG
MSWG
KSWG
ORWG
NEWG
HIWG
ALWG
IDWG
UTWG
MTWG
WYWG

Who's missing(10):
NDWG
SDWG
ARWG
KYWG
WAWG
NMWG
LAWG
SCWG
DEWG
AZWG

Did I miss any?

[SarDragon]

All you seek is in here.

[mdickinson]

Lordmonar: what the heck are IOWG and DLWG, and WOWG? 
Do you mean Iowa (IA) Delaware (DE) and WOyoming (WY)?

You've listed Michigan twice. Remove it from the unknown list; it already appears on the list of "haves."

Move Missouri from the unknown list to the list of "haves."

Move Delaware, Iowa, Montana, and National Capitol to the list of "have nots"

And alphabetize them!

JeffDG says Alabama has groups, but the list provided by SarDragon shows he's wrong.

In SER, all the wings, except for MS, have groups, so that's TN,GA,FL,AL,and PR

[JeffDG]

Alrighty, I've been wrong once or twice before...

I was going off this:

[lordmonar]

Here is the updated an alphabitized list

Have Groups (24):

AZWG
CAWG
COWG
FLWG
GAWG
ILWG
INWG
LAWG
MDWG
MIWG
MNWG
MOWG
NCWG
NJWG
NMWG
NYWG
OHWG
PAWG
PRWG
SCWG
TNWG
TXWG
VAWG
WIWG

Don't Have Groups (28):

AKWG
ALWG
ARWG
CTWG
DEWG
HIWG
IAWG
IDWG
KSWG
KYWG
MAWG
MEWG
MSWG
MTWG
Nat CAP WG
NDWG
NEWG
NHWG
NVWG
OKWG
ORWG
RIWG
SDWG
UTWG
VTWG
WAWG
WVWG
WYWG

[Eclipse]

Have Groups:

AZWG
SCWG
WAWG

Do not:
KYWG

[SARDOC]

I'm really surprised how many wings don't have groups.

[lordmonar]

Have Groups:

AZWG Got it
SCWG Got it
WAWG Not according to the unit Directory

Do not:
KYWG Got it

[SarDragon]

Well, it depends a lot on the numbers. My group has about 700 members. That's more than 16 wings, according to the latest figures I have available. Just because a wing is geographically large, like Montana, doesn't mean that there are enough members to need a groups structure. The population density is a big factor.

Re: WAWG - no groups, but there are area commanders. From the wing web page: NE Area Vice Commander, SE Area Vice Commander, NW Area Vice Commander, SW Area Vice Commander.

[lordmonar]

Well, it depends a lot on the numbers. My group has about 700 members. That's more than 16 wings, according to the latest figures I have available. Just because a wing is geographically large, like Montana, doesn't mean that there are enough members to need a groups structure. The population density is a big factor.

Re: WAWG - no groups, but there are area commanders. From the wing web page: NE Area Vice Commander, SE Area Vice Commander, NW Area Vice Commander, SW Area Vice Commander.

+1

The two reasons to form a group would be.....population density and Geograpical seperation.

Some wings just don't need them.  RI, DE, VT because they are too small both in number of squadrons and distance.
Some wings could not operate with out them...TX, FL, CA.
Some wings it could go both ways.  NVWG could benifit from a group or two...just to consolidate operations and to control shared assets (We have 10 squadrons within 20 miles of each other,  three squadrons that meet in the same facility, nine sqadrons that use the same ES facility.)....and we are all in the same county and support the same AOR.

But we have been groupless for so long it would not matter either way.

[Eclipse]

Why do you have more than one unit in the same place?

[lordmonar]

Why do you have more than one unit in the same place?

Well....
They had two squadrons at Nellis AFB (cadet and senior squadron).
The senior squadon moved their meeting place to the local airport where they flew out of.
There was a composite squadron that already met there....then they split off into a senior and cadet squadron.
The cadet squadron on Nellis converted to a composit squadron and the cadet squadron at the airport converted to a composite squadron.

There is another squadron standing up at the airport as well....but they meet in another facility....and are not part of the wing...so they are a special case.

And yes...I have had a discussion with the last three wing commanders about why there are three squadrons at one airport.....but you know how kids can be.

The seniors can't get along with each other and none of them want to work with cadets.....so I just ignored them and did my thing with the Nellis Composite squadron.

[Tim Medeiros]

AZWG does and doesn't have groups

There ARE units with the type of GROUP, but, if you look in the Organization table of CAPWATCH (entire nation is available to everyone) you will see that all squadrons in AZWG report to AZ001, which apparently happened 1 Feb 11.

[stillamarine]

In SER, all the wings, except for MS, have groups, so that's TN,GA,FL,AL,and PR

AL does not have groups. Which was already stated.

[sardak]

Using 2010 CAP membership data and US census data, a couple of correlations can be seen:

1. CAP wings with membership of over 1000 have groups with the exception of AKWG (1003) and ALWG (1027). CAP wings with less than 1000 members which have groups are NMWG (943) and LAWG (585).

2. CAP wings in states with a population of 4 million or greater have groups, with three exceptions: KYWG (4.3 mil), ALWG (4.8 mil) and MAWG (6.6 mil). Wings with groups in states/territories with less than 4 million residents are PRWG (3.7 mil) and NMWG (2.1 mil).

As for defining groups, I searched the membership directory for "group" and checked the websites of wings where group status was unclear. I included WAWG with its area commands, AZWG since it has four regional HQs which contain squadrons and "provide oversight" and NMWG which has Group 800 consisting of school chartered units. There are a total of 25 wings with groups by these definitions.

The membership and census data were readily available since we recently had a discussion on "market penetration" of CAP comparing wing membership to state/territory population. The trend was that the larger the population, the lower the ratio of membership to population. That discussion and a chart are at:  http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=14191.msg257181#msg257181

Mike

[mdickinson]

Lordmonar, you left out DE WG (no groups).

[mdickinson]

Using 2010 CAP membership data and US census data, a couple of correlations can be seen:

1. CAP wings with membership of over 1000 have groups with the exception of AKWG (1003) and ALWG (1027). CAP wings with less than 1000 members which have groups are NMWG (943) and LAWG (585).

2. CAP wings in states with a population of 4 million or greater have groups, with three exceptions: KYWG (4.3 mil), ALWG (4.8 mil) and MAWG (6.6 mil). Wings with groups in states/territories with less than 4 million residents are PRWG (3.7 mil) and NMWG (2.1 mil).

Brilliant. Nice job taking the numbers and finding the tipping point (1000 members and/or 4 million population). Thanks Mike!

[RiverAux]

1. CAP wings with membership of over 1000 have groups with the exception of AKWG (1003) and ALWG (1027). CAP wings with less than 1000 members which have groups are NMWG (943) and LAWG (585).

Well, I think CAP membership in this context is really a stand in for the number of units.  If a wing had 1000 members in 10 squadrons of 100 each, I bet it wouldn't have groups.  But, spread that same 1000 members across 20 50-member squadrons then they probably make sense.