Membership decline stopped?

[RiverAux]

According to stats on the CAP home page it appears that our post post-911 membership slide may have finally bottomed out.

2000: 59442
2001: 58090
2002: 62350
2003: 64535
2004: 60201
2005: 56888
2006: 55889
2007 (10/22): 55962

Interestingly,

[Capt Rivera]

where did you find this?

[RiverAux]

The old membership numbers were from annual reports in my possession.  The 2007 number is on the web site. 

[Major Carrales]

The trick to this is to have solid programs running at the local level.  Get new members active and don't let them wallow in in activity.  Keeping the MOMENTUM going WILL keep 'em FLYING and keep them coming.

That requires constant maintenance of your unit...let's keep this going.  CAP works best when there are enough of us to get synergy!!!

[pixelwonk]

Major, we're gonna need to go ahead and move you downstairs into storage B.

so anyway...
As someone whose been in long enough for two clasps on the membership ribbon, it doesn't bother me much.  Heck, I expected it to a degree.

What I'd really like to see is that broken down by SM'officers and cadets to see if the desire to serve was inversely proportional to the complexity of ES Task guides, or something else altogether to lose over 8500 lost since our peak.
I'd be also interested to see that number compared to other volly organizations.

[RiverAux]

ES task guides started being used in 2000 I think, so they aren't going to be relevant.

Almost all volunteer service organizations have been in decline for decades.  A lot saw a bump after 9/11 like we did that has declined some now. 

[RiverAux]

Well, the final numbers from the 2007 annual report show a membership increase from 55889 to 56494 or 1.01%.  Obviously not a huge increase, but its better than a continued slide. 

[Larry Mangum]

I think the rise in membership was probably due to people wanting to serve their country and communities after 911.  A lot of those who wanted to help where to old to serve in the military or unfit for military service so they joined organizations like CAP. 

Unfortunately for them, the primary missions of CAP have nothing to do with homeland security in most cases.  CAP's move into HLS has been slow, because the Air Forces was not sure how it fit into HLS.  So we lost some of those members along with those members who decided CAP was not what they thought it was. 

CAP is also not the only service organization that has faced declining membership, google service organizations and you will see many of them are talking about the decline in membership. If we have indeed seen a turn around in membership, then we are doing something a lot of other organizations have not.

[♠SARKID♠]

I wouldn't get too excited about the numbers.  As much as I want to commit my beliefs to that of CAP increasing in membership, I have to think that its just a minor fluctuation; rises and falls over the short terms, much like a stock on the market.  If we had some numbers for every year going back to 1941 that showed the post 9/11 decline to be significant in comparison to other downward fluctuations, I might consider it to be of greater importance.

Who can possibly know what the cause of the decline is?  Troughing economy, lack of youth to want to volunteer, fluoride in the drinking water, disco...  I'll bet my boots that in a few years we'll be on an upswing, and a few years after that, we'll be having this same conversation wondering why we've passed the crest of the membership wave.

Now, like I said, if you can show me numbers that make this decline significant in comparison to other declines, I'll change my opinion and bow down so low I could chew my boot laces.

[Stonewall]

I posted this last year based on info gathered from a small collection of Annual Reports to Congress I own.

Membership numbers:

As of 31 Dec 81
Cadets: 23,020
Seniors: 37,668
Total: 60, 688

As of 31 Dec 82
Cadets: 24,645
Seniors: 40,024
Total: 64,669

As of 31 Dec 83
Cadets: 26,104
Seniors: 41,669
Total: 67,773

As of 31 Dec 84
Cadets: 24,900
Seniors: 41,605
Total: 66,505

As of 31 Dec 86
Cadets: 25,940
Seniors: 40,991
Total: 66,931

As of 31 Dec 87 (year I joined)
Cadets: 30,500
Seniros: 42,469
Total: 72,969

As of 31 Dec 88
Cadets: 30,505
Seniors: 42,331
Total: 72,836

As of 31 Dec 89
Cadets: 27,188
Seniors: 40,151
Total: 67,339

As of 31 Dec 90
Cadets: 23,780
Seniors: 36,486
Total: 60,266

As of 31 Dec 91
Cadets: 22,509
Seniors: 35,281
Total: 57,790

As of 31 Dec 92
Cadets: 21,128
Seniors: 34,551
Total: 55,679

As of 31 Dec 93
Cadets: 19,607
Seniors: 33,709
Total: 53,316

As of 31 Dec 94
Cadets: 17,688
Seniors: 33,353
Total: 51,041

For 1995, I can't find the number breakdown, but in the letter to Congress, Gen Anderson says "on behalf of our more than 53,000 members". the 1995 RTC was smaller than the others, I mean, physically smaller, as in its measurements were smaller for some reason.

As of 31 Dec 96
Cadets: 19,523
Seniors: 33,350
Total: 52,873

As of 31 Dec 97
Cadets: 23,211
Seniors: 33,478
Total: 56,689

As of 31 Dec 98
Cadets: 25,860
Seniors: 34,508
Total: 60,368

As of 31 Dec 99
Cadets: 26,189
Seniors: 35,027
Total: 61, 216

As of 31 Dec 02
Cadets: 26,937
Seniors: 37,598
Total: 64,535

The reason why I have more statistics than RTCs is because some RTCs list membership numbers for previous years that I didn't snag an RTC.

Note: I wonder how much the membership changed due to the middle school initiative. If you subtract those numbers, what are the true numbers. Of course, they still wouldn't be "true numbers" in the sense that just because we have x number of members doesn't mean we have x number of participating members.

[♠SARKID♠]

Let me hit ya with some chart action there.

Looks to me like membership went up after Sept 11.

[mikeylikey]

^ Dan, we needed a chart to see membership went up after 9-11?  I appreciate the chart none the less!

I would like to see the stats on membership when CAP hired the billboard firm in 2002-2003.  I think that actually increased our numbers, and I wonder why it was not continued................

[RiverAux]

I wonder what was going on in the last half of the 90s that had our numbers growing pretty good? 

[jimmydeanno]

Let me hit ya with some chart action there.

How about expressed in a pie chart because...well I like pie! 

[SAR-EMT1]

why were the numbers so high mid-eighties?

[FW]

The surge in membership may be attributed to the increased patriotism during the Granada conflict and the ending of the cold war.  Unfortunately, the membership decline from 1989-1992 has been attributed to the beginning of fingerprint cards and background checks for senior members.  PAWG lost 1000 members within a 1 year period; 1990-1991.

[Ricochet13]

I have noticed, based on CAPID numbers issued that since June 2007 compared with February 2008, approximately 10,000 new members have joined the organization.  Given the overall membership numbers have remained fairly constant, there is a tremendous attrition rate.

Old news of course, but whether membership numbers end their decline or not, we need to be looking at retention.  A 20-25% turnover of membership in the last year?  Not sure if my numbers are correct, but is certainly and indication of where emphasis should be.

[BillB]

As long as I can remember, fingerprint cards were required for CAP membership. I filled out my first senior member application in 1951 and they were required then. As a Squadron Commander in the 60's they were required, and an ex-wife had to complete one in the 80's. So where ever someone came up with the idea that they were started in the late 1980's has the wrong information. They were not required for cadet protection, but have always been required to check a persons felony record.

[FW]

I have noticed, based on CAPID numbers issued that since June 2007 compared with February 2008, approximately 10,000 new members have joined the organization.  Given the overall membership numbers have remained fairly constant, there is a tremendous attrition rate.

Old news of course, but whether membership numbers end their decline or not, we need to be looking at retention.  A 20-25% turnover of membership in the last year?  Not sure if my numbers are correct, but is certainly and indication of where emphasis should be.

It's been said we lose about 15-20,000 members per year.  If we could just keep 20% of these members, we'd be over 75,000 members again within 6 years.  Any ideas?

[mikeylikey]

Old news of course, but whether membership numbers end their decline or not, we need to be looking at retention.  A 20-25% turnover of membership in the last year?  Not sure if my numbers are correct, but is certainly and indication of where emphasis should be.

It's been said we lose about 15-20,000 members per year.  If we could just keep 20% of these members, we'd be over 75,000 members again within 6 years.  Any ideas?
[/quote]

I suggest NHQ look into this problem.  It is really their problem afterall.

[jayleswo]

As long as I can remember, fingerprint cards were required for CAP membership. I filled out my first senior member application in 1951 and they were required then. As a Squadron Commander in the 60's they were required, and an ex-wife had to complete one in the 80's. So where ever someone came up with the idea that they were started in the late 1980's has the wrong information. They were not required for cadet protection, but have always been required to check a persons felony record.

I joined as a Cadet in 1979 and transitioned to the Senior program in 1982. Fingerprint card were not required until ~1988 or so. They may  have been required before I joined.

[Gunner C]

As long as I can remember, fingerprint cards were required for CAP membership. I filled out my first senior member application in 1951 and they were required then. As a Squadron Commander in the 60's they were required, and an ex-wife had to complete one in the 80's. So where ever someone came up with the idea that they were started in the late 1980's has the wrong information. They were not required for cadet protection, but have always been required to check a persons felony record.

I joined as a Cadet in 1979 and transitioned to the Senior program in 1982. Fingerprint card were not required until ~1988 or so. They may  have been required before I joined.

They were required in the late 60s.

[FW]

As long as I can remember, fingerprint cards were required for CAP membership. I filled out my first senior member application in 1951 and they were required then. As a Squadron Commander in the 60's they were required, and an ex-wife had to complete one in the 80's. So where ever someone came up with the idea that they were started in the late 1980's has the wrong information. They were not required for cadet protection, but have always been required to check a persons felony record.

I joined as a Cadet in 1979 and transitioned to the Senior program in 1982. Fingerprint card were not required until ~1988 or so. They may  have been required before I joined.

Ok, I actually went back into the cobwebs of my mind and remembered another incident which occured around 1990-91:  CPPT.    Every current senior member had to be fingerprinted or REfingerprinted and have an FBI background check by, I thnk, Jan 91 or else lose their membership.  

Man, sometimes this CRS desease really stinks.  

[FW]

It's been said we lose about 15-20,000 members per year.  If we could just keep 20% of these members, we'd be over 75,000 members again within 6 years.  Any ideas?
I suggest NHQ look into this problem.  It is really their problem afterall.

Bwa hahaha haha ha haha ha hahahaha ha bwa ha ha.

Sorry. Everyone at NHQ is either an administrator, educator, technogeek, accountant or lawyer.  They are  about 96 staffers that collect data, put stuff together, buy stuff and publish stuff.  They send us our membership cards and remind us to renew.  And, they do what the BOG, and NB/NEC tells them to do.

I think a better solution may rest with the BOG.  We have 11 fine individuals who have a broad collective knowledge of the military and business world; as well as CAP affairs.  Maybe they can give us some direction to change our retention rate.

[mikeylikey]

^ Actually I have seen the Automation system in membership services.  It is very impressive and very costly.  Everything (to include opening letters) is done by machine and or computer.  The only time someone physically does something in mem services, it is either replying to a phone call, replying to a letter, walking the faxes to the right department, or making corrections to something that was messed up when it went into the computer.  Everyone here would be very surprised at the amount of work done by things that are not human there.

What is also interesting is NHQ employs almost 65 work-study student coeds.  They are paid by the FED Govt to work at NHQ, and NHQ does not have to pay them.  They really are the backbone of what is accomplished on a daily basis there.  Trust me, if we were to loose 15 to 20 more paid staffers, not a huge effect.  More work-study slaves would be gathered and worked harder!

If anyone every gets the chance, stop by Maxwell, and ask for a tour, that is what I did, and met a few top-players that way.  (Note, this was 5 almost 6 years ago, I could be off base on the number of work-study peeps, I am sure it has gone up!!)

[jimmydeanno]

What is also interesting is NHQ employs almost 65 work-study student coeds.  They are paid by the FED Govt to work at NHQ, and NHQ does not have to pay them.  They really are the backbone of what is accomplished on a daily basis there. 

Mikey, I have it on pretty good authority that that's within 65 of the real number of work-study students that work at NHQ.

[SamFranklin]

I suggest NHQ look into this problem.  It is really their problem afterall.

The solution to recruiting and retention is obvious. It comes down to fundamentals. Put 3 or 4 dedicated, outstanding leaders in every SQUADRON.  They'll deliver a good program and recruiting and retention will take care of itself. How do we get there though? That's the tough issue... people are busy and can't serve as much as they'd like, people don't join organizations like they used to, the flying club units actively turn people away, and weak local leaders too often feel threatened by promising newcomers. 

Sure, NHQ has a part to play in this, but the problem will not be solved without good leadership at the local level.

Instead of saying it's not your problem, you could take steps to be part of the solution.

[Ricochet13]

I have noticed, based on CAPID numbers issued that since June 2007 compared with February 2008, approximately 10,000 new members have joined the organization.  Given the overall membership numbers have remained fairly constant, there is a tremendous attrition rate.

Old news of course, but whether membership numbers end their decline or not, we need to be looking at retention.  A 20-25% turnover of membership in the last year?  Not sure if my numbers are correct, but is certainly and indication of where emphasis should be.

It's been said we lose about 15-20,000 members per year.  If we could just keep 20% of these members, we'd be over 75,000 members again within 6 years.  Any ideas?

Ideas?  Actually, yes, I do have some ideas.  As a commander rebuilding a somewhat dormant squadron, we've (and that means the members of the squadron) decided to focus on ES and become active in training with an emphasis on participation.  Every meeting is a training session of one sort or another, and we've also conducted two training missions on our regular meeting nights.  (That's in addition to two AFRCC missions in the last 8 months)  We have a third one planned next month.  In addition to our own training, we conduct joint training with two neighboring squadrons, one of which was just recently chartered.  (The training missions have also included these squadrons.) 

One key idea when the squadron began the reorganization process was the concept of "active" membership.  We, and again I mean the members of the squadron, don't want "empty shirts" filling out our roster.  It's not just a matter of paying dues and calling yourself a member of Civil Air Patrol.  Expectations include ES training with minimum certifications as MRO, UDF, MSA, and MS.  Communications BCUT and ACUT are standard for new members.  Additionally, IS-100, IS-200, IS-700, and IS-800 training from FEMA is completed as part of normal new member preparation and training.  About 2/3's of our squadron have those courses completed and we're aiming for 100% by the end of the year.  Incidentally, when completed by one more member, the squadron will be 100% Yeager. 

The point I'm making is that we try to have meaningful activities which involve the entire squadron and that includes missions.  Individuals don't deploy for missions, the squadron does.  So far feedback from those in the squadron is very positive.  That is also reflected in two additional things:  1) Members of the squadron have requested copies of the CAP Recruiting brochure to hand out to those they meet on a day-to-day basis, and, 2) squadron expectations are first introduced to prospective members by those doing the recruiting so no one is surprised that they are expected to be active and train.

So far it seems to be working.  Will keep constant watch on what we do and will look again in six months and especially when renewal time comes around.

[flyboy]

I agree that a unit must have a direction, such as ES.  However, the problem I've encountered with this approach is when the unit trains, becomes qualified, but doesn't have enough mission activity to keep the members motivated about continuing to train. 

[RiverAux]

Thats where the external outreach to your local police, sheriff, etc. comes in.  Put the time and work in and you can get enough missions (most of the time).

[Stonewall]

I agree that a unit must have a direction, such as ES.  However, the problem I've encountered with this approach is when the unit trains, becomes qualified, but doesn't have enough mission activity to keep the members motivated about continuing to train. 

Sure, everyone wants to put their skills to the test during a real mission, but I've found 95% of all real missions are a lot easier and less interesting than training.  Unless you're in one of those areas where people are getting lost all the time or planes are falling out of the sky, I think most folks find themselves tracking down non-distress ELTs.  With a great training plan, your monthly SAR-CAPs can often be much more rewarding than real-deal missions.

YMMV.

[Ricochet13]

We're also fortunate to have an Air NG and Army NG base nearby, both of which have training missions associated with them.  Looking to generate missions in support of these facilities and their commanders.
Have also established an outreach function with county ES managers and have already acted in support of their training.