Does CAP need to expand the number of squadrons we have?

[RiverAux]

Assuming that CAP continues to have approximately the same overall budget and numbers of aircraft and vans should we and can we expand the total number of CAP squadrons? 

I would say the need for squadrons is almost unlimited in terms of cadet programs and aerospace education and while there may be a need for more ES in some areas lacking squadrons now, I don't think we can expand our infrastructure to support it.  There are only so many planes to go around though ground SAR can be handled using member-owned vehicles and additional units can be prepped for ES with much less overall cost. 

While I think we can put a cadet squadron in many towns over 20,000 (yes, you can have a cadet unit in a smaller town but tend to only have a few seniors and limited cadet programs from what I've seen) the liklihood of getting a senior unit without easy access to a corporate airplane is much, much tougher.  It can be done, but it is difficult. 

I think CAP has pretty much reached a plateau (and has dropped slightly below it) in terms of the membership we are likely to see with our current units.  Lets face it, if they were going to drastically expand they would have.  So, the only real way to grow CAP's membership is to start new units. 

Many of the problems we have in starting new units are highlighted in the various Iowa-related threads and I would direct comments about that aspect of the question to those threads.

So, should we and can we expand the number of CAP units?

[MIKE]

So, should we and can we expand the number of CAP units?

From what I have seen happen in this wing, it would be ill-advised.  I've seen a number of units fold over the years... Some that had been around for a while, and some that only lasted a few years.

[Major Carrales]

The future of CAP squadron expansion lies in flying units with satellite units.

For example, my goal for my area is to have the main urban squadron (we are a primarily rural area) develop satellite units that have CADET, AE and ES but work as an uber-unit for training and activities.

Thus, one aircraft servicing up to 4 unit's pilots and maybe two vans.

Share and share alike...end the "this is our aircraft" mentality.  There will be accountability and assignment, but it will serve a greater number. 

[JC004]

So, should we and can we expand the number of CAP units?

I would say we should do some housekeeping first...get some training in order, make sure we can retain 'em.  Is it possible to maintain more units?  I'm sure, but we have to be able to get our retention problem under control.

[mikeylikey]

I actually think there should be some closing of units.  Say the units that have had the same number of members for 10 years.  Any unit that has fewer than 10 individuals should either revert back into a flight or close and its members reassigned.  Part of keeping a Squadron going is recruiting.  NHQ had a huge opportunity the few years after 9/11 and they blew it.  They put up 100 billboards, when they should have put up 1,000.  They did radio adverts in 15 cities, when they should have done it in 100 cities.  They expanded the school program too late.  Granted the school program is flourishing great in some cities, but it could have been presented differently. 

I have to agree with Colgan above, lets do some cleaning up in terms of training and development.  Give people a reason to stay. 

Finally a huge issue with me is Aricraft.  If the plane sits on the ground for an entire month when the weather is nice and cadets are available to fly, take it away.  Reasign it to an area that never had a plane, and the cosest was over an hours drive.  I bet you see that plane fly more then!  If a pilot has not flown in over two months, take him out of the picture.  Reward those that want to do, and punish those that don't want to do!  If we loose a few members, who cares!  We have already reached a level in membership that is embarrassing.

[MIKE]

I actually think there should be some closing of units.  Say the units that have had the same number of members for 10 years.  Any unit that has fewer than 10 individuals should either revert back into a flight or close and its members reassigned.

10 participating members, or 10 members on the MML?  If there aren't 15 members on the MML, then the unit is under strength and should be re-designated, but having a flight for 8 or so people seems like a waste.

[JC004]

I actually think there should be some closing of units.  Say the units that have had the same number of members for 10 years.  Any unit that has fewer than 10 individuals should either revert back into a flight or close and its members reassigned.

10 participating members, or 10 members on the MML?  If there aren't 15 members on the MML, then the unit is under strength and should be re-designated, but having a flight for 8 or so people seems like a waste.

Yup, yup.  That's a waste unless you've got a new unit commander and are rebuilding a unit.  There are few places in a state of 12 million people that requires just a flight.  I don't think there's any reason why most of our squadrons couldn't double in size if we paid more attention to the recruiting and retention process.

[DNall]

YES, but cautiously....

Most of the units we have now should be legitimately described as flights if not detachments. 20-30 people are not capable of doing the same administrative load as an AD AF Sq of a 100. We're so undermanned & overloaded that all we can do is struggle to keep or heads above water & maybe shine in one or two little areas. That's not enough. We have to get our local units re-focused on the three missions, and lift the administrative load off them to a support echeolon. It's not necessarily a good idea to spread a broke system on the strategic scale. I'd rather spend a couple years fixing that first, then go into a new phase of expansion.

Also, you need to be careful where you put new units. I've seen several cases where they overlapped the other's territory a bit too much & ended iup with oe or both going down the drain because of it.

I'm particularly interested though in setting up units in the large geographic holes we have in our coverage. Beyond that I'd just like to see the org grow through sustainable strength. I'd prefer to see it back at the cold war era 80k mark & a lot higher active percentage than we have now (reserve option to distinguish between the two).

[mikeylikey]

I think within the next five years, CAP will reach at least 65,000 or higher.  The School program cadets outnumber or soon will outnumber regular Composite Squadron Cadets in some Wings.  If I am not mistaken isn't Florida one such wing?  I know PA is one.  There are many that would like to see the future of the cadet program not in Composite Squadrons but based entirely in the Schools.  That can be good or bad depending on how you look at it.  PAWG has a great program in Philly and has begun spreading it westward throughout the State. 

I also am one of those people that believe when you join a CAP SQD, you should be issued all the equipment you need while you are there.  Some of us, and possibly those that are reading this get frustrated at the amount of $$ we have to drop on equipping ourselves. 

It would also be nice to offer CAP members just a little more benefits.  SAY 1950's style, when you could purchase whatever you wanted at an AAFES store, use military billeting if you were traveling.  But then again, that was when we were the "Official" Auxiliary.

[ZigZag911]

We ought to consider some form of restructuring:

1) local community units become flights  of 10-20 members("where the rubber meets the road", as everyone keeps saying...tactical/operational units for the 3 missions)....don't need, nor are expected to have, all the training/admin/support functions (personnel, admin, PAO, etc)....these would be at the squadron level

2) squadrons as training & administrative staffs, meeting the needs of 3 to 5 flights
    (30-100 members)

3) groups as supervisory units, almost field extensions of the wing, similar to old 'sectors':  small staff, CC. CV, Safety, IG, Ops, CP, AE, maybe 2 or 3 support people....10-12 tops, overseeing 5 'new' squadrons (same number as present) = 150-500 members

4) wings and regions remain untouched, current structure

I'm not sure, but I think I've reinvented USAF in CAP form!

[RiverAux]

I think you'd be nuts to take out a unit just because it hadn't seen any growth in a certain period of time.  Growth does not equal a quality unit.  It also doesn't recognize the fact that CAP membership is linked to the size of the town.  You're not going to see a unit in a small town expand continuously forever. 

[brasda91]

No.  It seems like the common thread on this board, is that their unit is understaffed as it is.  Adding more squadrons spreads the availability of prospective cadets and seniors even thinner.  The closest squadron to my squadron is 1 hour away.  I know it's struggling.  Putting a squadron in between us would limit the number of cadets and seniors that may potentially join my squadron.  I believe we need to work on recruiting. 

I noticed on my local news last night that a local boys and girls club received a $75,000 grant  to implement a new youth program for boys and girls 10-18 yrs old.  Pi$$es me off that our TV station is promoting a "new" youth program, when my CAP unit has been active in the community for 50+ years.  Yes, I know it's our responsibility to be proactive in Public Affairs.  Yes, we have had coverage from the local TV station, but I guess if we don't stay on them, we get forgotten about.

[MIKE]

Mind not subverting the curse filter?  Rather you just type it and let the curse filter catch it or not.

[RiverAux]

It seems like the common thread on this board, is that their unit is understaffed as it is.  Adding more squadrons spreads the availability of prospective cadets and seniors even thinner.

In some places that very well could be an issue, however I think most of us could probably think of a number of towns in our state that could at least support a cadet unit without getting in anyone else's way. 

[Flying Pig]

brasda91.....

A side note on being forgotten by the media in your area.  Id stay on them, as you said you were. However you may want to consider the other possible reason.  Given that CAP is para-military, the media may be choosing to "forget" about you.

[RiverAux]

I don't think that anti-military factor is a major concern, especially with the local media and especially in the smaller cities in which you find most CAP units.  I'm sure if the CAP unit managed to get a $75,000 grant they could probably get on tv as well.   

[MattPHS2002]

But if your squadron got that grant, wing would procure it and you'd never see it:)

[RiverAux]

You know thats not how it works and you shouldn't say so.