The Ideal Wing.

[Chappie]

Since we are taking the CAWG as an example....back in the day when I was Group 4 chaplain...we had (and currently have) 6 squadrons meeting from Paso Robles to Simi Valley (3 counties: San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura) -- 187 mi one way.   Close to a 3 hour drive.  No way I could just "drop in" for a visit on one of their meeting nights.   

[Eclipse]

Same issue I had - 90-120 minute drive each way, depending on traffic.  That required getting out of work early, getting back at O-Dark, etc., all just to
say "hi" - we tried video links, etc. but at the time ubiquitous decent connectivity was not the norm (still isn't 100%).

I seriously like the model, but in my state, there are oodles of counties that do not have the demos to support or be interested in even a flight, let alone a
"real" unit.  A lot of the most rural areas don't show a lot of interest in youth programs, and/or have their kids fully engaged in the family business, 4H, Young Farmers, etc.

The flip side is that we have 3 counties in the NE part of the state that account for probably 2/3'rd the population, is heavily urban, and offers the opposite problem in that there are not enough youth programs, but also no one interested in starting them, at least not the CAP model.  Light up a rec center, no problem, but anything with objective standards and real discipline tends to fail, either because of logistics, economics, or related factors.

As to specialized unit, that's just not going to happen.  We don't have the people, the resources, the meeting locations, etc., etc.,   I'd hazard just about
anyone worth 1/2 a darn in my wing would need to become a unit CC.  That doesn't leave anyone left to actually to the "work".

This requires a massive infusion of membership.

But that doesn't mean we should not be trying for this.  Even if it doubled the number of units we'd be way ahead of the game.

[a2capt]

The Ideal Wing .. is one that induces perfect Laminar Flow.

[ZigZag911]

One squadron per middle/high school would make for wing-sized groups, at least here in NER!

For instance, in the County of New York alone (Borough of Manhattan, NYC) there are over 150 public and private high schools...which does not even account for all the middle schools!

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

To the other end of the spectrum from CAWG. Rhode Island has 5 counties (no county level government, just lines on a map). and 4 squadrons, excluding the Wing HQ. By no intended design 4 of the 5 counties have 1 squadron each.

The counties range from Providence (16 cities / towns, 626,667 people) to Bristol (3 towns, 49,875 people) and Bristol has a squadron!

As long as wings are state based, no ideal can exist.

[Walkman]

As long as wings are state based, no ideal can exist.

That's the crux of it right there. The demographics in each state vary so much.

I've pondered what would happen if we moved away from the State=Wing idea. On paper, the idea of organizing by state seems simple and obvious. I wonder if there was a more "operational" way to organize units that goes beyond geography?

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

As I understand it wings that get funding from their state (not RI  ) would be concerned those payments would stop if the checks went to Tri-State Wing.

[Storm Chaser]

As long as wings are state based, no ideal can exist.

Using the Air Force as an example, a wing is usually within a single installation and has a minimum of four groups. Think of the wing as a "city". Within this "city" wing, you have functional groups and squadrons, just as Lordmonar was suggesting. A given state may have one or more installations and/or wings, but there's no organization at the state level. For the most part, that setup works well for the Air Force.

Because of CAP's missions, especially with emergency services, it makes sense for CAP to have a state level organization. For decades, that's been the wing. But that doesn't mean that that's the only way CAP could organized itself. There's nothing to say that within smaller states (e.g. Rhode Island), there could be a single wing. And within larger states (e.g. Texas), there could be multiple wings.

We could have another level of organization above wings to cover the state, similar to the way the U.S. Air Force has Numbered Air Forces (NAF) above wings. It's also not uncommon in the Air Force for certain commanders to wear more than one hat (e.g. the commander of 1st Air Force also commands Air Forces Northern). The same could be done for smaller states (i.e. the single wing commander would also be the state level commander). For larger states, the state level commander would command over multiple wings.

This proposed organization would maintain a state level command and HQ, while balancing the span of control and resources of each subordinate wing.

[Eclipse]

Honestly, it only makes sense if we have wing-level relationships that work, and many wings don't.

It might well be better to operate on a more Federal level, but as mentioned, some states might yank funding if
their name isn't on the Wing's flag.

The interesting take-away from this is that not only is CAP not organized around operational need, its administrative organization
is also pretty much "broken".

That's what happens when a national organization tries to act like a local one and also allows its strategic planning to
be done on the basis of random chance and personality-based programs.

i.e.

"Why is this unit/group/wing HQ here?"

"Because it is."

[Ricochet13]

Honestly, it only makes sense if we have wing-level relationships that work, and many wings don't.

The interesting take-away from this is that not only is CAP not organization around operational need, its administrative organization
is also pretty much "broken".

That's what happens when a national organization tries to act like a local one and also allows its strategic planning to
be done on the basis of random chance and personality-based programs.

+!00 :clap:

[A.Member]

Honestly, it only makes sense if we have wing-level relationships that work, and many wings don't.

It might well be better to operate on a more Federal level, but as mentioned, some states might yank funding if
their name isn't on the Wing's flag.

The interesting take-away from this is that not only is CAP not organized around operational need, its administrative organization
is also pretty much "broken".

That's what happens when a national organization tries to act like a local one and also allows its strategic planning to
be done on the basis of random chance and personality-based programs.

i.e.

"Why is this unit/group/wing HQ here?"

"Because it is."

Disagree.   

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying but this concept, and the one proposed by the OP, is truly based on the premise of fulfilling only one mission - ES.  Guess what?  We have 2 others.

Units exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit.  It's that simple. 

While it might be someone's pipe dream to have 150+ units in each state/Wing, the reality is there is not enough interest to support that model; and it's doubtful there will ever be such interest.   There are many other programs/activities vying for members.   We cannot and should not try to be all things to all people or we lose our sense of purpose.   Rather, we should be structured in a way that best allows us to successfully fulfill all 3 core missions. 

Does the National Guard have units in every community of every state?  No.  Why?  Because they don't need to in  order to fulfill their mission and they don't have the resources to do so.   Same holds true for us. 

[RogueLeader]

Span of control issues?  We would definitely need to add multiple echelons to our COC.

Also, if we went to the ES specialized units, as only GT or Aircrew, how would you deal with those  like me that are dual rated?

[RiverAux]

Units exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit.  It's that simple. 

Any town of at least 10,000 people has the potential to support a CAP squadron (and many do).

The problem is that there is apparently zero interest in CAP in growing back into communities where we almost certainly had units in the WWII era.   

The model posted by the OP is certainly appropriate for meeting our AE goals but would certainly be extreme overkill for ES needs (without dramatic changes in CAP's typical ES duties). 

[A.Member]

Units exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit.  It's that simple. 

Any town of at least 10,000 people has the potential to support a CAP squadron (and many do).

Potential?  Some do...most don't/won't.  Squadrons need to draw regionally because they can't sustain without doing so.

The problem is that there is apparently zero interest in CAP in growing back into communities where we almost certainly had units in the WWII era.

Again, non-concur.  The world has changed significantly over the past 75 years.  We need to continue to evolve with it.

[LCG8928]

Some additional factoids for the Ideal California Wing:

The least populous county in the United States is Alpine County in Northern California with no incorporated cities and a county-wide population of just 1,175 folks.  It does have a GA airport, however.

Similarly, the most populous county in the US is Los Angeles County, with a little over 9 million folks, more than three dozen cities with over 10,000 population, four large commercial airports, and about 10 other public airports.

Finally, California is also home to the largest geographic county in the US, San Bernadino County, which, with are area of over 20,000 square miles, is larger than 9 US states and 71 foreign countries.  As you might expect, it is primarily rural, but still has over 2 million folks living in 24 incorporated cities and the great desert beyond.

It will be hard to align groups with counties here in the Golden State.

To make a correction Alpine County is only the least populous county in California. The least populous county in the United States is Loving County, Texas with a mere 82 people and one community.

[Eclipse]

Units exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit.  It's that simple. 

I would say that at least 50%, maybe 75% or the units in CAP meet where they do based solely on some random factor outside CAP's control (and/or attention span).  Where the CC live(ed 10 years ago),
where they moved the plane, where they landed when they got kicked off the airport, because Jimmy was touching my stuff, etc., etc.   Need / want to move them? Generally no one cares, other then the direct membership, and around here, 30 mins to an hour commute, 1-way to meetings is pretty much the norm.

They have nothing to do with whether the area can support them, and everything to do with "Well, this is the only place we can find."

Real common?

"Why do we meet here? It's so far away from everything."

"Well, twenty years ago, there used to be an airport over there, and the owner let us park our plane on the ramp and drill in the hangars."

"Um, that whole field has been a shopping center for 15 years, and we've been in this church basement for 10."

"Yep."

"Want to go for pizza after the meeting?"

Does the National Guard have units in every community of every state?  No.  Why?  Because they don't need to in  order to fulfill their mission and they don't have the resources to do so.   Same holds true for us.

Not even close to the same paradigm - the Guard, and military in general, can pay / force people to go where they are told.  They have centralized facilities where it is (or was) convenient at the
time (or politically expedient) to build them.  Further, they have plenty of local armories, administrative offices, and satellite locations.  They also don't meet weekly, and the service, especially these
days, isn't remotely "local".

The Guard sends the members away for the same BMT and tech schools that the military does, we don't - we meet locally and training is supposed to mostly happen on weekends at the unit or in the general area.  We are also supposed to (mostly) serve the local community where the unit is located.  Lastly, in the CP part of the program, the member is being served, not serving.

Wings should be doing demographic studies and seeding units where the potential membership lives.

[lordmonar]

Span of control issues?  We would definitely need to add multiple echelons to our COC.

Also, if we went to the ES specialized units, as only GT or Aircrew, how would you deal with those  like me that are dual rated?

Some squadrons/flights would be really specilaised....i.e. only Aircrew and AOBD or GT/GLT/GBD types.  Larger units might be tasked for both.

One of the points I am trying to make here is that we build CAP based on the needs of our ES OPLAN and we equip/train/man our units based on those needs......not the other way around.

So...to be blunt....if you wanted to be duel rated...you would have to move units or find a unit willing to add you to their training rotation.

[lordmonar]

To the other end of the spectrum from CAWG. Rhode Island has 5 counties (no county level government, just lines on a map). and 4 squadrons, excluding the Wing HQ. By no intended design 4 of the 5 counties have 1 squadron each.

The counties range from Providence (16 cities / towns, 626,667 people) to Bristol (3 towns, 49,875 people) and Bristol has a squadron!

As long as wings are state based, no ideal can exist.

The point of the "ideal wing" concept is starting point middle of the road concept that works for most areas. 
If we keep the "One State, One Wing" concept.....then we have to come up with "other subdivisions" of the wing beside just groups and squadrons.

One point I am trying to get to is a division of labor.  "Wing's" job is to coordinate with the state level government.   "Group" coordinates with the County level government.  Squadron at City level.

Of course that may not work everywhere....such as RIWG with not county government.

The other aim of my idea is to force CAP into expanding.
We should have a cadet presence at each middle school/high school.
We should have an ES presence at each GA air port.
We should have an ES presence at each county seat.

[lordmonar]

Disagree.   

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying but this concept, and the one proposed by the OP, is truly based on the premise of fulfilling only one mission - ES.  Guess what?  We have 2 others.

I am not forgetting the other two.  CP is to have presence in each and every middle school/high school.  With a CP staff at all higher echelons.


And let's not play lip service to AE.......in my experience external AE is next to dead.....here and there....once in a while....we actually do some good work.....but really.  But okay I'll play along.  Each Group will be mandated to have one AE squadron who's sole mission is to do CAP's External AE program.

Units exist where they can exist...where there is enough interest to sustain the unit.  It's that simple.

Yes that is true....because there nothing pushing wings/groups to do anything about it.  A unit folds.....it folds....no one is tasked to rebuild it.  The "Ideal Wing" model gives higher HQ to grade each wing/group base objective critera....."You have 20 schools in your group....but only have 15 cadet squadrons.....what is your plan to fix this?"   "Your cadet squadron only has 10 cadets...but your "school" has 300 students....you need recruit more cadets."  Now units don't exist because the members want them to exist....but because CAP wants them to exist and where they want them to exist. 

While it might be someone's pipe dream to have 150+ units in each state/Wing, the reality is there is not enough interest to support that model;

That is a recruiting/marketing problem. 

and it's doubtful there will ever be such interest.   There are many other programs/activities vying for members.   We cannot and should not try to be all things to all people or we lose our sense of purpose.   Rather, we should be structured in a way that best allows us to successfully fulfill all 3 core missions.

Not trying to be all things to all people.  Trying to be an Emergency Services and youth development organization to our community, state and nation. 

So CP in each and every school that has our target audience....and enough ES squadrons to support county and state level ES operations.

Does the National Guard have units in every community of every state?  No.  Why?  Because they don't need to in  order to fulfill their mission and they don't have the resources to do so.   Same holds true for us.

No.....it is not the same.   In Nevada Wing we have NO.....NO.....viable Ground Team Support.  There are a few of us....we can field maybe 3-4 teams state wide......and they are located around just two cities.   The rest of the state has almost NO CAP presence.  AND there is no plan/desire to fix it.  Because higher HQ has no mandate to do anything about it.

We should not just "wait" until some daring sole in a far away town thinks to himself "I wish there was CAP here so I can help my community, state or nation" or "I wish there was a Cadet Squadron in this town so my kid could learn leadership".  CAP IMHO should be of the "if you build it they will come" mentality.

And once again we are a volunteer organization.....and as Eclipse has pointed out....more people means we become more effective in getting our missions done.

[lordmonar]

Any town of at least 10,000 people has the potential to support a CAP squadron (and many do).

The problem is that there is apparently zero interest in CAP in growing back into communities where we almost certainly had units in the WWII era.   

The model posted by the OP is certainly appropriate for meeting our AE goals but would certainly be extreme overkill for ES needs (without dramatic changes in CAP's typical ES duties).

+1 on the idea that a 10K town should be able to support at least 3 typical cadet squadrons and an ES squadron.

I got to throw the BS flag on the ES overkill....because another pet peeve of mine.....we have NO IDEA WHAT ARE ES NEEDS ARE.....no one has any real OPLAN that spells out what each squadron is supposed to produce.  My plan would help that along.....and would tie in with each wing and group coming up with detailed OPLANS that would spell out what each squadron would produce.

Squadron A in a largish city may have an airplane and be tasked with 9 aircrews, 3 AOBDs, 2 PSC, 10 MRO, an IC and one FSC.  Squadron B in a small time with a air port may only be tasked to maintain a mission base and have 5 MRO's and 2 CULs, 6 FLMs and 2 FLS's.
Another squadron with no airport may be tasked to produce  a single ground team or 3 ground teams and a GBD and some MRO's.

We build our organization to handle WORST CASE scenarios....not typical scenarios.

That is one of our problems on the ES side of things......."Ground teams never get called out" so GT training falls off....then when they do call us no one is trained or available.