Membership decline stopped?

[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.