Unit Membership

[Psicorp]

Something that I noticed while a cadet and I'm starting to hear about again is the over abundance of members in one Squadron/area and a huge lack in another.

When I was a cadet we had a dozen or so Officers on the books but usually only the Squadron Commander (if I was lucky enough to have one who showed up) would be at meetings.  It was a Cadet Squadron and I had great cadets on my staff so we were able to get a lot done.   I heard rumors that there was a Senior Squadron about an hour away but that they weren't interested in participating with cadets.   I can't imagine that was true of them all. 

Now I'm starting to hear stories not quite so nightmarish coming from Cadet and Composite Squadrons from around the Wing.  Due to our recruiting/retention issues??

I realize that our units are usually seperated by fairly large distances, but does someone within your respective Group keep track of unit membership?   Is this kind of information shared?  It seems we should be shuffling people around a bit (within reason and only those who are willing) in order to not just cover needed positions, but also to enhance Officers' experience.

Thoughts? Suggestions?  Anyone?  Bueller??

[Major Carrales]

Something that I noticed while a cadet and I'm starting to hear about again is the over abundance of members in one Squadron/area and a huge lack in another.

When I was a cadet we had a dozen or so Officers on the books but usually only the Squadron Commander (if I was lucky enough to have one who showed up) would be at meetings.  It was a Cadet Squadron and I had great cadets on my staff so we were able to get a lot done.   I heard rumors that there was a Senior Squadron about an hour away but that they weren't interested in participating with cadets.   I can't imagine that was true of them all. 

Now I'm starting to hear stories not quite so nightmarish coming from Cadet and Composite Squadrons from around the Wing.  Due to our recruiting/retention issues??

I realize that our units are usually seperated by fairly large distances, but does someone within your respective Group keep track of unit membership?   Is this kind of information shared?  It seems we should be shuffling people around a bit (within reason and only those who are willing) in order to not just cover needed positions, but also to enhance Officers' experience.

Thoughts? Suggestions?  Anyone?  Bueller??

Mos tunits I have been to and seen...as well as been a member of.  Are made up of this sort of situation...

1) A central core (corps) of the most active.  They are active because they can be...by choice there for the serivce of it.  They drive the direction of the unit and operate its missions.

2) An outer core, those that, due to work or family, are active only when time allows.  May attend SARex and at least one meeting a month.  Good guys and gal chained by circumstance.

3) Inactive Passive:  A varied list of person inactive for various reason.  They were active in the past, maybe uber-active, and got burned out.  They attend unit social functions, but aren't regular enough to have updated GES nor Quals.  Most are ardent supporters but have been out of the loop so long they feel ackward.

4) Inactive Agressive: Those that left the unit due to having had a falling out.  They bad moth the organization and are active in anti-CAP activities just sort of a 2b.  They maintain their membership in hopes that persons in power will fall eventually...horribly, and they can pick up the pieces.  Saddly, this process...unless they come ot a place like here, keeps them frozen in time.

5) People no one has met whose name appears on the roster.

Now, as to the idea of a shuffle.  I think that is great.  We have been doing most of our Work with Brownsville CS and Victoria CS.  Knowing people from aroudn the Wing and working with them is exactly what is needed.

I often intend to visit units when I travel...most times the situation does not allow it.

[mikeylikey]

I would look at the Group and Wing structure if you see this problem.  YOu will usually find that the Squadrons on military installations have more members than a Squadron that may meet in VFW.  You will also find that this has been a problem for a very long time.  I would even go as far as saying that resources and equipment from the Wing (such as laptop computers purchased by NHQ) were allocated first to the larger squadrons and those that have a Squadron Commander that is a freind of either the Group Commander or Wing Commander.  This was one reason that e-services has the CATS system.  NHQ logistics wants to see that assets and non-monetary aid meant for every Squadron is allocated appropriatly. 

Getting back to the original subject (sorry for the rant), I agree completly with shuffling.  It would be dependant on travel time and milage.  If the choice between two squadrons means no more than 5 miles for the member to travel in the opposite direction, transfer that person if it means you can add a quality officer to the other Squadron!  I am sorry to say this but, the attitude in CAP has changed from serving where you are needed to serving where you would like.  We all desire to attend meetings where we want to, but sometimes for the good of the organization members need to make sacrifices.  If a member refuses to transfer to a squadron because that squadron "stinks", this would be a perfect opportunity to tell them go there and make it better, we have already benefited enough from your service here. 

[DNall]

I don't know how much shuffling is possible in most cases.

Units vary by location & program of course. Good shape means 35-60 combined adults & cadets. Those units tend to be driven by exceptional leadership from one or two figures with a decent support structure they've inspired around themselves. If one of those key people moves on, a series of senior cadets graduates, etc OR if people get the slightest bit complacent, then they can crumble lightening fast.

The second version is more typical. It's 8-15 cadets & 3-5-8 adults actively participating. That's it. You probably got 50-70 on the rolls though. The ones that aren't active are that way for any number of reasons, but basically don't know & mostly don't care what's going on, and there is no program for them or any type-A person to hold their hand, so it's no suprise they aren't around.

I'm a big believe in tracking metrics to make decisions on reality rather than perception. It's a HUGE problem in CAP that the ONLY thing our higher echelon ever sees of us is an MML number, MAYBE they watch closely enough to track add/drops but probably not cause that'd take a lot of work & wouldn't be reflective of when that person actually went inactive anyway.

I've been thinking about this for a while. I'm thinking about putting together a SMALL simple little web based program to input attendence & spit back out graphs on varrious definitions of active/inactive. I think I can also input some scheduling info so I can track what we were doing each night & see if particular people/percentages are just showing up for certain things. That a very simple application. Obviously I know what's going on locally, but my Gp & Wg have no idea, which has them rewarding people that suck & jumping down the throats of people who are doing great work. If I ever get some time, I can try to get something together, test it locally, and I think I can sell the Gp on giving it a spin. I'm of the VERY strong opinion that our echelon leaders would do a lot more to address problems if they could see what's really going on.  

[DNall]

I would look at the Group and Wing structure if you see this problem.  YOu will usually find that the Squadrons on military installations have more members than a Squadron that may meet in VFW.  You will also find that this has been a problem for a very long time.  I would even go as far as saying that resources and equipment from the Wing (such as laptop computers purchased by NHQ) were allocated first to the larger squadrons and those that have a Squadron Commander that is a freind of either the Group Commander or Wing Commander.  This was one reason that e-services has the CATS system.  NHQ logistics wants to see that assets and non-monetary aid meant for every Squadron is allocated appropriatly. 

Sorry, you posted while I was typing.

That's actually the side effect of what I was saying. If you assign planes, vans, radios, priority on surpluss uniforms, etc based on what the MML says, then that's going to be very badly managed. A unit with 40 actively participating members can VERY easily look  smaller on paper than a unit w/ 10 active members. Buth then you go by the MML when handing out resources & help from above, what you get is rewarding bad leadership/mgmt & punishing good, which in turn produces more of the same. It's fine to pop the dog on the nose for pissing ont he carpet & give him a treat for telling you he needs to go outside, but if you pop him on the nose & random & give him treats at random not based on anything he's actually doing in the real world, then he's never going to do what he's supposed to, will be frustrated with you for not making sense, and you're going to be on your knees cleaning it up wondering why he doesn't understand what you're wanting him to do. It literally is exactly like that, and is easily fixed. National just doesn't want those numbers going public, cause if you admitted how many fully ACTIVE members we have versus the number we claim, we'd end up w/ massively cut budgets & big problems all around.

[RiverAux]

If you take a look at Wing membership numbers and census data on the population of that state you will find a pretty direct relationship.  The Wings with the most people have the largest membership. 

In general that relationship probably holds for squadrons as well, but there are a ton of variables that can affect squadron size at the local level.  For example, a squadron with a very passive commander who doesn't do much recruiting may have a much smaller membership than you would expect based on the size of the town. 

Most squadrons have a general up and down cycle of membership.  When one squadron goes up, another is probably going down.  The 2 squadrons wouldn't actually be causing the change in the other, it just seems to work out that way. 

CAP has created a Recruiting and Retention Specialty but I don't know how well it has been adopted. 

[ELTHunter]

I agree completely with shuffling.  It would be dependant on travel time and milage.  If the choice between two squadrons means no more than 5 miles for the member to travel in the opposite direction, transfer that person if it means you can add a quality officer to the other Squadron!  I am sorry to say this but, the attitude in CAP has changed from serving where you are needed to serving where you would like.  We all desire to attend meetings where we want to, but sometimes for the good of the organization members need to make sacrifices.  If a member refuses to transfer to a squadron because that squadron "stinks", this would be a perfect opportunity to tell them go there and make it better, we have already benefited enough from your service here. 

Unlike the military, members are free to leave anytime they wish.  While I agree that it would be nice if everyone's attitude was that they would serve where needed, not where they wished, we all know there is a lot of people that don't always think like that.  Especially when they pay dues and sometimes spend a considerable amount of their own money performing the missions of the organization.  If you started ordering people to units that they did not wish to join, many of them may just exercise their right to quit.  Additionally, many squadrons have built a sense of unit pride and integrity.  You would lose that if you started randomly assigning people to other units.

The better answer is for the Group to train and interact more together so as to build a stronger total Group than to have a bunch or disparate squadons without the number of people needed to fully execute the mission.

[ELTHunter]

It's a HUGE problem in CAP that the ONLY thing our higher echelon ever sees of us is an MML number, MAYBE they watch closely enough to track add/drops but probably not cause that'd take a lot of work & wouldn't be reflective of when that person actually went inactive anyway.

I've been thinking about this for a while. I'm thinking about putting together a SMALL simple little web based program to input attendence & spit back out graphs on varrious definitions of active/inactive. I think I can also input some scheduling info so I can track what we were doing each night & see if particular people/percentages are just showing up for certain things. That a very simple application. Obviously I know what's going on locally, but my Gp & Wg have no idea, which has them rewarding people that suck & jumping down the throats of people who are doing great work. If I ever get some time, I can try to get something together, test it locally, and I think I can sell the Gp on giving it a spin. I'm of the VERY strong opinion that our echelon leaders would do a lot more to address problems if they could see what's really going on. 

If memory serves me correctly, a unit can set up a "ghost" unit of inactive members.  An additional number is usually added to the unit charter number.

[ELTHunter]

If you assign planes, vans, radios, priority on surpluss uniforms, etc based on what the MML says, then that's going to be very badly managed. A unit with 40 actively participating members can VERY easily look  smaller on paper than a unit w/ 10 active members. Buth then you go by the MML when handing out resources & help from above, what you get is rewarding bad leadership/mgmt & punishing good, which in turn produces more of the same.

If the Group or Wing staff is doing their job, they should know by performing unit visits what kind of participation the units have, regardless of what's on the MML.  Besides, planes, radios, and other mission required equipment should be assigned based upon the units number of mission qualified people, not the MML.

[ELTHunter]

Mos tunits I have been to and seen...as well as been a member of.  Are made up of this sort of situation...

1) A central core (corps) of the most active.  They are active because they can be...by choice there for the serivce of it.  They drive the direction of the unit and operate its missions.

2) An outer core, those that, due to work or family, are active only when time allows.  May attend SARex and at least one meeting a month.  Good guys and gal chained by circumstance.

3) Inactive Passive:  A varied list of person inactive for various reason.  They were active in the past, maybe uber-active, and got burned out.  They attend unit social functions, but aren't regular enough to have updated GES nor Quals.  Most are ardent supporters but have been out of the loop so long they feel ackward.

4) Inactive Agressive: Those that left the unit due to having had a falling out.  They bad moth the organization and are active in anti-CAP activities just sort of a 2b.  They maintain their membership in hopes that persons in power will fall eventually...horribly, and they can pick up the pieces.  Saddly, this process...unless they come ot a place like here, keeps them frozen in time.

5) People no one has met whose name appears on the roster.

I expect this is pretty true.  I have either been a member of the local squadron or helped out at the squadron while on Group staff ever since I joined CAP eight years ago.  There are people on the unit roster that were transferred into the unit years ago because another unit was deactivated.  I have never seen these folks and wouldn't know who they were if they showed up at a meeting.  Then there is two or three of us that show up every week, 50 weeks a year, and another three or four who come every other week or so to teach a class or catch up on whats going on.

[DNall]

If you assign planes, vans, radios, priority on surpluss uniforms, etc based on what the MML says, then that's going to be very badly managed. A unit with 40 actively participating members can VERY easily look  smaller on paper than a unit w/ 10 active members. Buth then you go by the MML when handing out resources & help from above, what you get is rewarding bad leadership/mgmt & punishing good, which in turn produces more of the same.

If the Group or Wing staff is doing their job, they should know by performing unit visits what kind of participation the units have, regardless of what's on the MML.  Besides, planes, radios, and other mission required equipment should be assigned based upon the units number of mission qualified people, not the MML.

How do I call up the graph that shows me the number of people qualified in a given specialty that are actively participating? Unit visits are fine, but they aren't reflective of running trends & they don't paint a complete picture. I'm not downing the practice, just saying it's not really adequate for best mgmt practices.

I've never heard of a Sq having a ghost flight, much less with a formal number. That'd be fine though. Set a standard for "active" & anything less equals reserve & formally assigned to that Flight, be it at Sq, Gp, or like Iowa is doing on the Wg level.

[ELTHunter]

If you assign planes, vans, radios, priority on surpluss uniforms, etc based on what the MML says, then that's going to be very badly managed. A unit with 40 actively participating members can VERY easily look  smaller on paper than a unit w/ 10 active members. Buth then you go by the MML when handing out resources & help from above, what you get is rewarding bad leadership/mgmt & punishing good, which in turn produces more of the same.

If the Group or Wing staff is doing their job, they should know by performing unit visits what kind of participation the units have, regardless of what's on the MML.  Besides, planes, radios, and other mission required equipment should be assigned based upon the units number of mission qualified people, not the MML.

How do I call up the graph that shows me the number of people qualified in a given specialty that are actively participating? Unit visits are fine, but they aren't reflective of running trends & they don't paint a complete picture. I'm not downing the practice, just saying it's not really adequate for best mgmt practices.

I've never heard of a Sq having a ghost flight, much less with a formal number. That'd be fine though. Set a standard for "active" & anything less equals reserve & formally assigned to that Flight, be it at Sq, Gp, or like Iowa is doing on the Wg level.

MIMS has several reports that will show members by ES specialty.  You have to have the proper level of authorization to see them though, it depends upon your duty position and unit level (squadron can see only squadron, group can see everyone in the group, etc.).  It isn't particularly user friendly, but can be downloaded in Excel spreadsheet form for sorting and graph making.  It doesn't take a particularly long time.  I did it for the 10 or so units in my group in October for a report on status by unit at a commanders call.  It took me about an hour to download, reformat and sort by unit.  Obviously if a unit has a lot of people as GES qualified only, they might need further scrutiny.

I still fall back on my earlier comment.  I know which units have active ES teams because I see them at least once a quarter at exercises, plus I look at the MIMS reports about that often.  Although I am sure it gets increasingly harder as the Group/Wing increases in size.

[RiverAux]

ELT, if you have any experience with Microsoft Access, it would be quicker to download the CAPWatch database and design some queries rather than work off the MIMS report to do some of that. 

[ELTHunter]

ELT, if you have any experience with Microsoft Access, it would be quicker to download the CAPWatch database and design some queries rather than work off the MIMS report to do some of that. 

Yeah, I figured that would be better.  At one point, I could set up queries, but it's been so long since I've done that it'd take me longer to re-learn it.  Maybe someday I'll sit down and do it.

[RiverAux]

I know how you feel.  If you don't mess with it for a while, its tough to get back together again, especially anything complex. 

[MIKE]

If memory serves me correctly, a unit can set up a "ghost" unit of inactive members.  An additional number is usually added to the unit charter number.

I know about the wing membership units, but this would be the first I've heard of it on a local level.  Anyone got any intel?

I think we should be keeping track of the "Active Members" who aren't exactly active.  Get them off the local unit MML and transfer them to the wing holding unit... Then as a courtesy, transfer them to Patron status so they aren't paying "Active Member" dues for something they aren't gonna be using.

[davedove]

3) Inactive Passive:  A varied list of person inactive for various reason.  They were active in the past, maybe uber-active, and got burned out.  They attend unit social functions, but aren't regular enough to have updated GES nor Quals.  Most are ardent supporters but have been out of the loop so long they feel ackward.

5) People no one has met whose name appears on the roster.

I would say that roughly half the members on our roster fall into one of these two categories.

I understand people maintaining their membership because they want to contribute in the future, but can't currently for whatever reason, and want to keep their membership active.

I also understand the names on the list who are just their until their current membership ends.

What confuses me are those who are on the roster, do not attend any meetings or other functions, yet they keep renewing their membership.  Why don't these folks just become patron members?

As far as shuffling members to maintain squadron membership levels, many members are only able to volunteer their time to the local squadron.  If they had to travel to a more distant squadron, the would be forced to end their membership.

It seems like a good idea, and some people would be able to do it, but every member is an unpaid professional doing this during their extra time, so that has to be taken into account.

[Monty]

What confuses me are those who are on the roster, do not attend any meetings or other functions, yet they keep renewing their membership.  Why don't these folks just become patron members?

You probably already can guess the answer.  When was the last time you heard a recruiting sell that went something along the lines of, "join up: you don't have to come, you don't have to even believe you're in CAP - just give us your hard-earned cash and let that be it?!??!"

You'll never hear a real-estate agent sell you on the notion of "get this house!  If you can't afford it, move out but still keep paying for it....."  In reality, you either move in and deal with the payments or move out and sell the house.

Can't sell patron status...so it's off everyone's radar (to say nothing of the negative connotation behind being a patron member.)  Society tends to be a "do it or don't do it" sort of people, so.....folks will either leave themselves as regular senior members ("eh, maybe I'll go back one day") or let their membership lapse.

We don't do such a good job of selling purgatory....but we do a great job about talking about heaven or hell (if you can read between the lines.) 

[Chappie]

What confuses me are those who are on the roster, do not attend any meetings or other functions, yet they keep renewing their membership.  Why don't these folks just become patron members?

You probably already can guess the answer.  When was the last time you heard a recruiting sell that went something along the lines of, "join up: you don't have to come, you don't have to even believe you're in CAP - just give us your hard-earned cash and let that be it?!??!"

You'll never hear a real-estate agent sell you on the notion of "get this house!  If you can't afford it, move out but still keep paying for it....."  In reality, you either move in and deal with the payments or move out and sell the house.

Can't sell patron status...so it's off everyone's radar (to say nothing of the negative connotation behind being a patron member.)  Society tends to be a "do it or don't do it" sort of people, so.....folks will either leave themselves as regular senior members ("eh, maybe I'll go back one day") or let their membership lapse.

We don't do such a good job of selling purgatory....but we do a great job about talking about heaven or hell (if you can read between the lines.) 

My wife is a patron member --- and for the following reasons:

1)  She doesn't have to wear a uniform;
2)  She doesn't need to participate in the professional development program;
3)  She doesn't need to (or want to) salute me as a higher ranking officer  ;
4)  She can participate in CAP events and be listed on the MSA;
5)  She can ride with me in corporate vehicles;
6)  And best of all...she can receive "The Volunteer"

[DNall]

3) Inactive Passive:  A varied list of person inactive for various reason.  They were active in the past, maybe uber-active, and got burned out.  They attend unit social functions, but aren't regular enough to have updated GES nor Quals.  Most are ardent supporters but have been out of the loop so long they feel ackward.

5) People no one has met whose name appears on the roster.

I would say that roughly half the members on our roster fall into one of these two categories.

I understand people maintaining their membership because they want to contribute in the future, but can't currently for whatever reason, and want to keep their membership active.

I also understand the names on the list who are just their until their current membership ends.

This is my point. I appreciate that echelon staffs do the best they can under the circumstances & I appreciate what I can do with the data I can get ahold of, but it's an incomplete data set.

IF you established a definition for active versus "reserve," and moved all the reserve folks to the holding Sq - say follow the Iowa model on this issue as an example. Only now I can actually track attendance because it's input to the same dataset by personnel officers at or after the mtg. You still have the subjective ability to keep people on your roster that are actively contributing but may not be able to make 75%+ of meetings till their shift gets changed again in six months or whatever.

Okay, so with that clearer picture of what's going on, you'd see a bunch of units that are below the mark & GP/WG should be sending in a team - w/ a specialist to help them with recruiting/retention, another to help organize & jump start their programming, etc.

You'd also have to take a hard look at where resources are committed & why. Is that pattern encouraging the behavior in CAP that you want it to, or is it just treading water to meet minimum standards & perhaps working against your objectives for the organization & making everyone's job harder - decent question to ask yourself, and reask on a regular basis, even if you find you're already doing it the best way it's nice to confirm that & support to others why you've done what you have.

By the way, I have right at 1000 people in my Gp, & a Gp staff of 15 people, all of whom are specialists in theri field rather than the highly experienced well rounded officer you'd want to send on unit assessments. Also, you can't always get a complete picture in those vistis, and what you do see will be the surface issues they already know about, not the long term trends they haven't noticed because they have yet to become a problem - that's when you want to catch things.