Observations from a soon to be ex member.

[Cliff_Chambliss]

Shortly after I rejoined CAP in July of 2009 our squadron underwent an SUI inspection.  As the unit Admin Officer I coordinated with all the functional areas to prepare for the inspection.  At that time I was somewhat amazed at the number of items on the inspection checklists that referred to regulations and/or guidance that no longer existed or applied.  During the inspection these were pointed out, we took our "hits" prepared our responses and went forward.
  Working to develop a training program I started looking at the various pamphlets for operational eras and again amazed at how many were way out of date.  Then I noticed that NHQ seems to be more interested in the creation of new programs and requirements than in the efficient updating and administration of existing programs and policies.
  Subsequent SUI's after 2009 nothing changed, and I began to see that that nothing would change.  So, even though I had the opportunity to meet some really great people in CAP, I am very disappointed and dissatisfied with the organization as a whole and am now just waiting for the current membership year to expire.

This is not only SUI issues, but looking  at the total program.  How many years to prepare a uniform regulation?  Update speciality pamphlets?  Aircraft Stan/eval?  CAP would do far better coordinating with Air Forces Services Aero Clubs for an effective national Stan eval program. 

Privacy issues, no one has really explained why it's necessary to give such personal information as blood type, health insurance provider data, personal healthcare provider data to CAP.  Point blank, it 's not going to happen.  Asked for the information I either leave the data block blank or enter n/a. 

[antdetroitwallyball]

Maybe I should not be saying anything since I have decided to terminate my CAP affiliation when the current membership expires, but this discussion briefly touches part of the reason I am leaving.
It's easy to see where the confusion comes from, there is not a single definitive point of reference.  It seems to be look at this reg, but this other reg contradicts, wait, look at the Air Force  reg, oops, ask NHQ.  This seems to be a very dysfunctional way to run an organization.
  A chart could be prepared to show exactly what is approved for wear on the CAP uniform.  No more checking Army, AF, Navy, etc charts.  A  If it's not here it's not authorized Chart would answer a lot if not almost all these questions. 
Also, CAP needs to clean really clean it's administrative house.  There is no need for so many conflicting regulations, procedures, policies to continue to exist but yet they do.

I completely respect what you are saying. But I think you might have expected too much.

I realize I'm very new to CAP and have a lot to learn, I'm quickly coming to understand that CAP is actually fairly par for the course when it comes to quasi-government response-type organizations. And here, I do speak from experience. I have an EXTENSIVE history with state defense forces, CERT teams, the CGAUX, etc. All of these organizations are trying to exist, operate, & grow.............and at the same time, stay within a long list of regulations and policies.

In my mind, the BIGGEST factor in terms of the sucess of a volunteer organization is: "What activities does it offer its members?" The CGAUX (for example) is one of the most loosely-vaguely organized groups imaginable, and the lack of concrete processes is insane, but the opportunities it offers its members are so satisfying that people tend to be willing to put up with the administrative shortcomings.

CERT Teams and SDFs are organizations that tend to have a lot of potential, but deal with liablity limitations constantly.

From a new member/recruitment standpoint, I've been very satified with my CAP experience. They seem to offer a good selection of activities, and there is fairly clear processes for joining and advancing

I guess my big point is that you may have expected too much. If you want to be a part of any volunteer-based response-ish organization....especially one that works with government..........you are going to have to put up with an enourmous amount of administrative headache. I'm not saying that "its right," I'm just saying that, "its no better elsewhere."

Again, I can't speak so much for CAP. But I can definately speak for every other organization like CAP. Just my humble two cents anyway.

[Panache]

Personally, I think that upon promotion to 2nd Lieutenant, NHQ should send a anonymous questionnaire to that new(ish) member, asking "As a fairly new member to our organization, what do you think?".  The "outside perspective" would do them a world of good.

I think that the decision and policy makers are just too close to some of the problems, and can't really see them for what they are.

[bosshawk]

I certainly concur with Cliff's observations.  I quit over three years ago for similar reasons, plus my extreme distain for a serving Wing CC and Region CC.  Cliff and I come from similar backgrounds: the US Army, so our approach to things is probably somewhat similar.  I came to expect CAP to be a quasi-military organization.  Quasi is correct, military is somewhat off.  I sit here and lurk on CT and laugh at some of the "serious" stuff that gets discussed, ad infinitum.

Tell me that I don't have to read this stuff: I don't most of the time.  Every once in awhile, something comes up that I feel compelled to comment on.

[antdetroitwallyball]

I came to expect CAP to be a quasi-military organization.

As I see it, the entire Coast Guard could be better described as "quasi-military." All of the military traditions/customs; none of the military's weaponry, missions, or force capabilities. It functions entirely like a civilian agency, except with all of the red-tape and hinderences because of the military title.

CAP, on the otherhand, I see as better described as quasi-government. It's not actually part of the air-force, just an officially-sponsered/authorized resource of the air force. Very little of what I see in CAP's response-type missions are actually put at a greater advantage as a result of CAP's para-military organizational setup. Case in point: Camo uniforms are the exact opposite of ideal for a searcher/rescuer.

Another good point: military command structure is inherently at odds with the Incident Command System. And in any real response mission where we have to interface with any other agency, ICS will always supercede rank/grade/etc. Bear in mind, even the *real* military uses the ICS to some degree.

Am I bashing the military-ish-ness of CAP? Absolutely not. It has value. It instills an inherent structured environment for the Cadets. It also serves as a reminder of our organization's history and past contributions. And, when in AUX-ON status, I think the USAF-style uniforms are appropriate when working around active duty airmen.

So, I'm 100% behind the CAP "military-system," but I feel like its a stretch to think of CAP as any more quasi-military than a police/fire station that also has uniformed personnel with titles like "SGT" and "CPT" and "LT."

Just my humble opinions.....

[SAREXinNY]

I opened this thread expecting everyone to bash Cliff.  I'm quite (pleasantly) surprised at the responses.  I have 1.5 years in CAP so far, and I have experienced the same issues and had the same concerns.

I couldn't agree more with Panache's suggestion.  NHQ, regions, and wings are so far beyond the red-tape that they don't have a clear perspective sometimes.  New members have perspectives that matter.  People either get too frustrated and leave, or they learn to play the game and do what is 'necessary'.  We owe it to our members, and the organization as a whole, to take those opinions into consideration.

[ironputts]

My suggestion to all CAP members is to find a niche and progress at your own speed. My niche is cadet programs and has been for 23 years. I am also from the Army and have learned not to compare the two organizations. I have stayed away from all the standard talk and work on what matters to me. I give 110% to this organization with an occasional break to get my bearing. I have seen many good members leave because they were not happy. I suggest they take a break and look us up down the road. They may find that spirit we all share and why we volunteer for this organization. They return and continue till the next feeling. In the end I am proud of this organization and all those that serve it and our nation. Thank you for your service........

[NIN]

I opened this thread expecting everyone to bash Cliff.  I'm quite (pleasantly) surprised at the responses.  I have 1.5 years in CAP so far, and I have experienced the same issues and had the same concerns.

I couldn't agree more with Panache's suggestion.  NHQ, regions, and wings are so far beyond the red-tape that they don't have a clear perspective sometimes.  New members have perspectives that matter.  People either get too frustrated and leave, or they learn to play the game and do what is 'necessary'.  We owe it to our members, and the organization as a whole, to take those opinions into consideration.

I agree: I kind of expected a little bash fest.  And I'm glad to see there isn't.

CAP is different everywhere and people are different everywhere. What works in Elgin won't play in Poughkeepsie.

When folks run into circumstances as described, I suggest a little bit of retrenchment.  Step back into the shadows a little, and proceed to make your own corner of the CAP universe the best you can in the framework of the program. 

Not happy that CAP asks for too much info? Create a staff study report with alternatives. Basic staff work here.  Buck it up thru your chain.  If need be,  don't fill in blood type. Redact SSNs after they're transmitted to NHQ. Create a squadron operating instruction that suggests better ways to obtain and handle necessary info while managing the "protected" info in a way that makes you feel comfortable. 

But at the end of the day, we either color inside the lines (as drawn by higher HQ), we come up with a better way to color inside the lines that works for everybody, or we decide that we're not coloring yet one more F-104 in "chartreuse" and its time to put our Crayons away.

I get that. Hell, there is a *reason* I retired from CAP in 2009.

[LSThiker]

I understand the frustrations as I have had plenty of them over the years, but I wanted to address a few points:

  Subsequent SUI's after 2009 nothing changed, and I began to see that that nothing would change.

I hear this quiet often.  Nothing is going to change concept.  Sure a lot of things will not change and some things need changing.  However, when I challenge people on this by asking "what have you done to change the system?", the response that I often get back is "no point in trying to change it".  So they have never tried to change it.  With this general mentality (not saying it is you, just speaking in general), nothing will change if nothing is brought up. 

I am in the process of pushing a proposal up right now using a position paper format.  I forget how many pages it is, but IRC I think it is around 7 pages.  Too lazy to look it up.

This is not only SUI issues, but looking  at the total program.  How many years to prepare a uniform regulation?

While I usually like to rag on NHQ about how long it takes to create a uniform manual, let us put this into perspective.  The Army underwent a massive uniform change in the last decade with the addition of the ACUs, Army Service Uniform, changing to black fleece jackets to sage green fleece jackets with rank one side to sage green fleece jackets with rank on the other side, changing of the IPFU, etc.  However, the uniform manual is still from Feb 2005 and does not include any of these changes.  There you have paid staff with excellent benefits and we still do not have an updated uniform manual.

Update speciality pamphlets?

There are a handful of pamphlets that need updating (e.g. ES, personnel, administration, public affairs).  However, in the last few years, I will admit that there have been plenty of updates.  For one, I was beginning to think that the historian pamphlet would never get updated simply because the historians wanted to leave history as is    Get with your Wing counterpart and work on updating a regulation to have it sent forward for consideration.

Privacy issues, no one has really explained why it's necessary to give such personal information as blood type, health insurance provider data, personal healthcare provider data to CAP.  Point blank, it 's not going to happen.  Asked for the information I either leave the data block blank or enter n/a.

If no one has balked at you leaving it blank, then I guess keep doing it.  For years, I would put none as I did not have medical insurance.  No one ever denied my attending an activity.  If no one has really explained why, go up the levels and ask.  Get with your wing command, health services, and legal to see if it is really necessary to fill out or if there can be an exemption due to state privacy laws.  Ask the chief medical officer, ask NHQ legal or your region legal.  There may be a reason for it or it may be a holdover from previous years that no one really questioned.  Frankly, putting your blood type is useless as any hospital is going to type you despite what records say as per CLIA.  My old hospital's policy was any typing at an outside facility or typing outside of 30 days (if in house) warranted a retyping of your blood.  In an emergency, they will push O blood until typing results come back (~1 hour).   

[VNY]

I certainly concur with Cliff's observations.  I quit over three years ago for similar reasons, plus my extreme distain for a serving Wing CC and Region CC.  Cliff and I come from similar backgrounds: the US Army, so our approach to things is probably somewhat similar.

As yet another US Army Retiree who is running out the CAP clock, it seems the culture shock may be too much

[RiverAux]

Okay, I can certainly understand a lot of potential reasons why someone might want to leave CAP, but leaving because a bunch of pamphlets and regulations are a little out of date and being asked for some information that you have obviously been able to get away with not providing, doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  If those are really the only reasons, I'd be surprised.

[MacGruff]

I'm approaching the one year mark of my membership, but I also had about four months of observation of the squadron I am a part of prior to joining. I understand exactly what you are saying and some of the frustrations that you are experiencing. I decided to handle them a bit differently.

I started coming to squadron meetings in December of 2012. I joined as an SM in April. When December of 2013 came around I put together my thoughts, impressions and suggestions on how to improve the program in a memo that was sent to the Deputy Commander for Senior Members. I do not know if he passed it on to the Squadron Commander or any other level, but I said my piece and offered my suggestions for improvement. I have also volunteered to take on some of the suggestions and implement them. But, it's a volunteer organization and if the squadron does not want to act on it, that's Ok. (Of course, I would prefer that my wisdom be implemented!!!    )

When I get further along in the program and perhaps in positions of responsibility, I will still have that memo to refer to. In the meantime, I am working on finishing my Level 2, my Senior rating and my Air Crew Qualifications...

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Cliff, I can certainly sympathise.

I first joined CAP in 1993.  I served with my first (and best) squadron until I got married and moved in 1999.

I have left CAP twice -2001, rejoined 2004, left 2006, rejoined 2009.  I almost left in early 2013.  My foothold as of right now is not certain.

All of my departures have had to do with a mixture of personality conflicts and "creative" interpretation of regulations.

I have a Master's in Administration and started out in the days of the big blue binder.  I spent a lot of Saturday mornings sitting on the floor of my apartment switching out old/new regulations.  This may be the Luddite and Malthusian in me, but somehow I think that was more effective (odder still since I have a computer science degree).

I agree with you on the madness of the way regulations are now and how they often contradict each other, especially with Wings issuing "supplements" and almost everything coming down to individual interpretation.  Commander ABC of Silentfart Squadron has one interpretation, but Commander XYZ of Fizzandbelch Squadron can have something almost 180 from Commander ABC.  And then Colonel Chickenfoot, the Wing King, has not only his interpretation of a regulation, but has issued a "Wing Supplement" that can nearly over-ride both of them.

And depending on which Squadron CC is part of the Wing GOBN (something that will never be extinguished in CAP; it's as much a part of this organisation as moaning about uniforms), that Squadron CC will quickly alter his/her interpretation of the regulation in question to mimic Col. Chickenfoot's as closely as possible.  Meanwhile, the other Squadron CC is likely going to be disgruntled about having got a "raw deal."

Something I have said before, but will not happen, is direct oversight by the Air Force, and having them write our regulations.  It won't make things perfect, but at least there would likely be less individual interpretation.

Personality conflicts...I know that any organisation has them.  It's part of human nature.  It's odd, since I don't have a "conflictive" personality.  As I have said before, I am quite shy and reserved and do not put myself forward, which has led me to the painful conclusion that I will never get promoted past Captain.  I have been wrestling with that for over a year.

I am not difficult to get along with.  I have always said that I can get along with anyone who wants to get along with me.  However, the nature of quiet people such as myself often leads other people erroneously to think that they can kick people like me around with no reaction...which is a huge misconception.  I often liken people with my personality type to the Asian Krait.  It is one of the most venomous snakes in the world, but very shy, retiring and nonaggressive...until you poke them one too many times.

Cliff, I personally think that CAP is diminished when people like you go, but I understand, because I've been there before and may well be again.

$.02 over.

[BFreemanMA]

I've certainly seen evidence of a lot of the sentiments expressed here. However, I've been lucky to be an AEO, which appears to be one of the more straightforward specialty tracks in CAP. Granted, each squadron does things differently, but it's not always possible to switch from squadron to squadron, depending on the geography involved. Perhaps looking to change duty assignments might also offer a 'reset' button?

[NIN]

I have a Master's in Administration and started out in the days of the big blue binder.  I spent a lot of Saturday mornings sitting on the floor of my apartment switching out old/new regulations.  This may be the Luddite and Malthusian in me, but somehow I think that was more effective (odder still since I have a computer science degree).

in an odd way, I can't disagree with you here.

(Speaking as a 30-ish year member and IT guy. Sometimes, a paper system is just... well, it works)

I agree with you on the madness of the way regulations are now and how they often contradict each other, especially with Wings issuing "supplements" and almost everything coming down to individual interpretation.  Commander ABC of Silentfart Squadron has one interpretation, but Commander XYZ of Fizzandbelch Squadron can have something almost 180 from Commander ABC.  And then Colonel Chickenfoot, the Wing King, has not only his interpretation of a regulation, but has issued a "Wing Supplement" that can nearly over-ride both of them.

Or, worse yet: The wing has no such supplement but points to the Wing King's interpretation as "the way it needs to be done" and there is zero to back it up. 

I tend to be pretty literal when it comes to the regs, but I also have enough experience when it comes to the "background" of the regs, especially when it comes to discerning what the "commander's intent" might have been for a specific requirement or process.  And I tend to do thing like go "OK, here's point A, the National regulation, and then you have point B, the region supplement to it, which modifies it it this way.  There is no wing supplement, and since we have this physical asset in the unit that pertains to this, we do things, using Points A&B as our guidance, in this way. As documented in our unit operating instruction, Point C. " So you can draw a line from A to B to C and at least be able to back up what your're doing with a rationale.

I took over my squadron here in late 1999. At the time, the wing had this form "Request for Activities Not Sponsored By Wing" or something similarly nebulous.   No prescribing directive or anything, no wing level supplement, OI, memo, policy, nothing. 

Occasionally, during commander's call, I'd mention that we did an activity like, say, went to the local AFB for uniforms.  I'd get the questions: "Did you fill out a Wing Form 4000?"  (not the actual form #)

"No."

"well, you know, you're supposed to request permission to have activities like this using a Form 4000"

"Really? I was unaware of this requirement.  Where does it say this?"

"Well, thats the way its always been done." (emphasis mine)

"Uh huh. OK.  So what kind of activities are we talking about?"

"Anything outside of a squadron meeting."

"Uh huh. Got it. So as a commander I have ask wing for permission to do things at my unit?"

"yes!"

(Me: <George Carlin's Noah Voice> "Rigggghhhht!")

So I started filling these forms out for every single thing we did that wasn't on a Thursday night: ("Unit color guard practice," "Senior member meeting," "Trip to AFB for uniforms," or "finance committee meeting").  Literally 5-6 forms a month. 

But since the form was "Request for activity..." I started sending them to wing asking wing for activities.

"UH-60 Flights"
"Color Guard Training Weekend."
"Model Rocket weekend"
"ES Training Bivouac"

And then I'd complain that Wing wasn't taking my requests for activities seriously.

"But Major Ninness, thats not what the form is for."

"Not what the form is for?  Really?  Can you show me some written information on how this form gets used, time frames, situations, who signs off on it, etc???"

"Well, that doesn't exist."

"Then how, exactly, can you tell me that I'm using the form wrong?  BTW, why do I have to ask wing for permission to run unit-level activities? Does wing have to ask region for permission to conduct wing-level activities."

"No, not really."

The form disappeared from common usage right after that.

sometimes a little civil disobedience within the confines of the regulations is a good thing

[Brit_in_CAP]

Shortly after I rejoined CAP in July of 2009 our squadron underwent an SUI inspection.  As the unit Admin Officer I coordinated with all the functional areas to prepare for the inspection.  At that time I was somewhat amazed at the number of items on the inspection checklists that referred to regulations and/or guidance that no longer existed or applied.  During the inspection these were pointed out, we took our "hits" prepared our responses and went forward.
  Working to develop a training program I started looking at the various pamphlets for operational eras and again amazed at how many were way out of date.  Then I noticed that NHQ seems to be more interested in the creation of new programs and requirements than in the efficient updating and administration of existing programs and policies.
  Subsequent SUI's after 2009 nothing changed, and I began to see that that nothing would change.  So, even though I had the opportunity to meet some really great people in CAP, I am very disappointed and dissatisfied with the organization as a whole and am now just waiting for the current membership year to expire.

This is not only SUI issues, but looking  at the total program.  How many years to prepare a uniform regulation?  Update speciality pamphlets?  Aircraft Stan/eval?  CAP would do far better coordinating with Air Forces Services Aero Clubs for an effective national Stan eval program. 

Privacy issues, no one has really explained why it's necessary to give such personal information as blood type, health insurance provider data, personal healthcare provider data to CAP.  Point blank, it 's not going to happen.  Asked for the information I either leave the data block blank or enter n/a.

The whole thread impressed me - lots of empathy and no criticism. 

I agree about the privacy issues - I had to supply a copy of my I551 to NHQ as I wasn't a citizen when I joined; no problem as the request was quite reasonable and I was able to send it via USPS to the right person.  That said, I have no idea what NHQ did with the copy....More seriously, I flat down refused to give a copy to my local command when the CDC demanded it for his poorly secured files in an open building with no controlled access.....

Like NIN said, don't supply what you don't want to supply.

I 'feel you' about the SUI but I let it ride because I find that all organizations have a level which, if you dig below it, you find chaos.  CAP's is a little higher than most, I agree, and the Army's may be deeper than some, but in the end it's true for all, although YMMV as always.

I jokingly told my son when he joined the USMC that when it all started to make sense it was probably time to leave – and I was only half joking.

I'm sorry you feel you have to leave but thanks for being part of CAP and for doing your part to fix what looked broken.   

Try not to have bad memories of us, and don't forget that we'll always welcome you back if you change your mind.

[Storm Chaser]

I have a Master's in Administration and started out in the days of the big blue binder.  I spent a lot of Saturday mornings sitting on the floor of my apartment switching out old/new regulations.  This may be the Luddite and Malthusian in me, but somehow I think that was more effective (odder still since I have a computer science degree).

I remember the blue binders. I wouldn't necessarily say that paper regs are better, but they do have one advantage. It was easier to keep up with changes because you had to manually update the regs every time they changed.

The problem with that old system is that not everyone stayed on top of the changes and updated them regularly, which meant that your copy of the regs could be outdated. You also had to wait for the changes to arrive by mail.

I like that the regs are online and the latest versions are available to anyone, anywhere, at anytime. That, itself, is a huge advantage of electronic regs. If we could improve the frequency in which they're updated/corrected, I think we would get close to a perfect great system.

[Storm Chaser]

Most of us who have been around for a while know of CAP's shortcomings. But CAP, as an organization, still have a lot to offer its members, especially as a venue for meaningful volunteer service. If that wasn't the case, then all of us would be gone.

While some challenges are unique to CAP, every non-profit, volunteer organization (especially one with such complex structure, focus and status) is bound to have issues. CAP needs members willing to step up to the plate to contribute and make things better. Just recently, an old time member was complaining of all the things that weren't being done at higher headquarters until I pointed out that they needed volunteers to help out in those areas.

I won't deny that many things could be better or that it can be challenging and frustrating at times. But as long as I'm part of this organization, I will do my best to contribute at every level I'm involved in to help make things better for everyone.

Unfortunately, we need more people. And not only that, we need people willing to "roll up their sleeves" and get to work for everyone's benefit. Sometimes our expectations of CAP exceed our own availability or willingness to do the things that need to be done. Of course, that's easier said than done. But if everyone does their part, the organization WILL get better, although not perfect (that doesn't exist).

To the OP, good luck and I hope you find something that's a better "fit" for your needs and contributions.

[SunDog]

You might try stepping away for a while, get some distance? although it didn't work for me, it might for you, and only cost you $60?

I've been back a couple of years, after about 18 months on "sabbatical". My plan this time was to stick to mission flying and ignore the nonsense. It hasn't really worked, to be frank. . .one more check ride, then I'll let the nembership expire this fall.

I'm ex-USAF, vice Army, but our CAP experience is similiar, unfortunately. Maybe it'd help to put your attention on the positive aspects? If you guys run a good Cadet program, that sort of transcends the rest of the cluster stumble, maybe?

CAP is kinda fading, I think - 1960s management, crushing bureacracy, phony saftey, feeding NHQ  constantly, etc. It'll take a lot of energy and leadership to turn it around; not sure the organization will tolerate that coming from the bottom up.

Maybe a nice break, and you can roar back and take some of that on? Or not, and that's legit, too. I didn't see that ambition in the mirror when I shaved today, either. But you did serve, and that counts!

[Storm Chaser]

It'll take a lot of energy and leadership to turn it around; not sure the organization will tolerate that coming from the bottom up.

Making things better is not always easy and requires effort on all parts. Every level of the organization is important and plays a part on improving the organization as a whole.

We can't forget that those in positions of leadership also came from the bottom. And that those opportunities may also one day be available to the rest of us if we do our part on improving the organization at whatever level we find ourselves today.

[Brit_in_CAP]

You might try stepping away for a while, get some distance? although it didn't work for me, it might for you, and only cost you $60?

Great idea, to be honest.

CAP is kinda fading, I think - 1960s management, crushing bureacracy, phony saftey, feeding NHQ  constantly, etc. It'll take a lot of energy and leadership to turn it around; not sure the organization will tolerate that coming from the bottom up.

SunDoG: you struck the nail squarely on the head!  I think we are fading somewhat BUT that doesn''t mean the organization can't be renewed, from the bottom, from within or from outside.

Personally, I'm optimistic but I do feel the need for change.

[JayT]

CAP, on the otherhand, I see as better described as quasi-government. It's not actually part of the air-force, just an officially-sponsered/authorized resource of the air force. Very little of what I see in CAP's response-type missions are
So, I'm 100% behind the CAP "military-system," but I feel like its a stretch to think of CAP as any more quasi-military than a police/fire station that also has uniformed personnel with titles like "SGT" and "CPT" and "LT."

Just my humble opinions.....

Those aren't titles, they're rank with a legal backing.

[SarDragon]

FWIW, Carlin didn't do Noah. That came from Bill Cosby.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Nin-

:clap: :clap: :clap:

In a sense your story reminded me of what I had to do for my passport.

I requested my passport when I was 29 years, living in Indiana. I was going to work in a summer camp and there was a possibility of taking a trip to Canada.

So I include my birth certificate. I had kept it inside a plastic document protector and some of the lines bled slightly. So I get a letter stating I "had to submit additional proof of citizenship."

So I called my parents and requested all my old school reports, baptism certificate, University of Puerto Rico diplomas. Anything. I sent them 24 different papers. Some were when I was in my elementary school, some high school, others UPR. Got the passport without any hassle.

No need to argue with them. Just give them what they want...

Bureaucrat, you want to create redtape? Drown in your redtape!



Flyer

[SunDog]

Making things better is not always easy and requires effort on all parts. Every level of the organization is important and plays a part on improving the organization as a whole.

We can't forget that those in positions of leadership also came from the bottom. And that those opportunities may also one day be available to the rest of us if we do our part on improving the organization at whatever level we find ourselves today.
[/quote]

True words, and I can't dispute the point. . .for me, it's having to judge the scale of the change needed against the obstacles - entrenched culture, NHQ rice bowls, GOBN at Wing levels;  The OP likely has to budget his time, as do most of the volunteers. It's a bigger lift than many of us are willing to attempt, when it's clear no one is listening. 

For anyone trying to scale this hill, you have my respect. Not sure the leadership being displayed is worthy of the membership, no matter the route they took to the top.

[Panache]

CAP is kinda fading, I think - 1960s management, crushing bureacracy, phony saftey, feeding NHQ  constantly, etc. It'll take a lot of energy and leadership to turn it around; not sure the organization will tolerate that coming from the bottom up.

This is exactly why I think they should actively solicit the input from new members.  Personally, I think a lot of the challenges that CAP faces, at least from a recruit-and-retention standpoint, comes from the fact that our leadership, who did come work their way up from the bottom, did so a long time ago.  The world has changed.  The make-up of the person who is able and willing to volunteer their precious free time has changed.  CAP has to adapt or die.

Will all the input be worthwhile or realistic?  Of course not.  But at least then they'll have an idea of what direction they need to go in.

I love being a member of CAP.  But at times it's amazingly frustrating and I have to wonder what The Powers That Be are thinking.  Sure, I also have to face similar frustration at my actual job, but at least there I'm compensated for my frustration in the form of a paycheck.

[NIN]

FWIW, Carlin didn't do Noah. That came from Bill Cosby.

Thanks to Dave and the 2-3 of my fellow olde guys who emailed/PM'd me to say "Dude, Cosby, not Carlin!"

[RiverAux]

This is exactly why I think they should actively solicit the input from new members.  Personally, I think a lot of the challenges that CAP faces, at least from a recruit-and-retention standpoint, comes from the fact that our leadership, who did come work their way up from the bottom, did so a long time ago.  The world has changed.  The make-up of the person who is able and willing to volunteer their precious free time has changed. 

Well, I'm not sure that is a major problem, but for those who think it is, the consolidation of all real CAP power in the BoG, which only has minimal representation by actual CAP volunteers might be a concern.  At least under the past system those making the decisions also had some responsibility for carrying them out and would hopefully take that into consideration. 

So far the BoG hasn't done anything that I consider to have added undue burdens upon the actual volunteers. 

[NIN]

So far the BoG hasn't done anything that I consider to have added undue burdens upon the actual volunteers.

One of the many reasons that potential at-large CAP members of the BoG should not necessarily be a former Wing Commander colonel, etc.

The BoG needs to keep "Tuesday Night" in focus as well as the "echelons above reality."

[FW]

I always feel a little disapointed when I hear of another member with 5 or more years of service leaving CAP for the reasons stated.  With a net membership loss of over 3,000 in the last three years (8,000 members since 2003), maybe we really should rethink our strategy on retention. 

At the recent Command Council meeting, I listened in on the Strategic Planning session.  Growth was one of the major priorities, however no objectives were offered to obtain it.  Exit surveys have been taken over and over.  Reasons for membership loss are well known.  Is it that difficult for us to reverse the trend?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

True words, and I can't dispute the point. . .for me, it's having to judge the scale of the change needed against the obstacles - entrenched culture, NHQ rice bowls, GOBN at Wing levels;  The OP likely has to budget his time, as do most of the volunteers. It's a bigger lift than many of us are willing to attempt, when it's clear no one is listening. 

It is a "lift" many in CAP do not have the strength to do, and all too often when someone tries they find an "exit" sign waiting for them, either chosen out of frustration and stress, or from having brassed the "wrong" people off and finding themselves on the wrong end of a 2B (seen it).

The "entrenched culture" you mention has a vested interest in making sure that culture STAYS "entrenched."

For that reason I have serious doubts about "bottom up" reform...to me, the entire organisation needs to be completely restructured "top-to-bottom."

However, that would inevitably involve the AF, and I don't think they're that interested in comparison with their other taskings, so they leave us to do (largely) what we will, as long as it doesn't involve uniforms.

[SunDog]

I always feel a little disapointed when I hear of another member with 5 or more years of service leaving CAP for the reasons stated.  With a net membership loss of over 3,000 in the last three years (8,000 members since 2003), maybe we really should rethink our strategy on retention. 

At the recent Command Council meeting, I listened in on the Strategic Planning session.  Growth was one of the major priorities, however no objectives were offered to obtain it.  Exit surveys have been taken over and over.  Reasons for membership loss are well known.  Is it that difficult for us to reverse the trend?

Gad, that's even more depressing. . .management knows the "whys" of poor retention, yet takes no corrective action?  That's just discouraging as all get out. Or, maybe CAP accepts that a much smaller organization is the way to go? Fewer people, fewer aircraft?  Maybe that's the unspoken management strategy? 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I always feel a little disapointed when I hear of another member with 5 or more years of service leaving CAP for the reasons stated.  With a net membership loss of over 3,000 in the last three years (8,000 members since 2003), maybe we really should rethink our strategy on retention. 

At the recent Command Council meeting, I listened in on the Strategic Planning session.  Growth was one of the major priorities, however no objectives were offered to obtain it.  Exit surveys have been taken over and over.  Reasons for membership loss are well known.  Is it that difficult for us to reverse the trend?

Gad, that's even more depressing. . .management knows the "whys" of poor retention, yet takes no corrective action?  That's just discouraging as all get out. Or, maybe CAP accepts that a much smaller organization is the way to go? Fewer people, fewer aircraft?  Maybe that's the unspoken management strategy?

I just think that the "routine" of "that's the way it has always been done" has hardened to the point of calcification (apologies to my geology professor).

Change is often difficult for human beings in general to accept, but I think even moreso the older one gets and the more experience in an organisation...any organisation.

[Walkman]

I've read over and over these kinds of threads and comments about the GOBN, poor leadership, etc. I've been in 6.5 years now, and honestly, I haven't seen any of it in the places I've served. It could be that I'm oblivious and have drunk too much Kool-Aid. I love CAP, it means a ton to me and I'm extremely grateful that I haven't experienced any of the leadership failures some of you have.

My condolences to all those who have been on the receiving end of the crap discussed here. You volunteered to serve your community, state & nation and got a raw deal, and that sucks.

[VNY]

Gad, that's even more depressing. . .management knows the "whys" of poor retention, yet takes no corrective action?  That's just discouraging as all get out. Or, maybe CAP accepts that a much smaller organization is the way to go? Fewer people, fewer aircraft?  Maybe that's the unspoken management strategy?

Organizations that deliberately bleed members die quickly.  I think the problem here is that there is no SPOKEN membership strategy.

[Panache]

I've read over and over these kinds of threads and comments about the GOBN, poor leadership, etc. I've been in 6.5 years now, and honestly, I haven't seen any of it in the places I've served.

Most of my experience at the Squadron and Group level has been nothing but great.  I love the people in my Squadron and Group, they're committed and I think everybody gets along pretty well.  With the occasional exception (which I credit to the person being just plain busy as opposed to malice or neglect) all of my concerns have been answered and addressed.  If there's a GOBN or clique, they're pretty subtle about it.

Now, that being said, my frustration can be directed higher up.  Perfect example:  My Wing just announced, in March, our annual Wing conference in May. So, we got a two-month advance notice.  I don't know about you, but I have professional obligations which require me a little bit more lead time than two months to attend a multi-day affair on the other side of the Commonwealth.  Argh!

[Майор Хаткевич]

I think the issue with the wing level+ command is that a lot of times people get there without serving at lower echelons, clicking their boxes up top, and then thinking those below are somehow less worthy because they aren't "managing" the whole wing. This is usually the crowd that has their oak leaves, but think anyone not at that level isn't worthy of the same.

[MisterCD]

I always feel a little disapointed when I hear of another member with 5 or more years of service leaving CAP for the reasons stated.  With a net membership loss of over 3,000 in the last three years (8,000 members since 2003), maybe we really should rethink our strategy on retention. 

At the recent Command Council meeting, I listened in on the Strategic Planning session.  Growth was one of the major priorities, however no objectives were offered to obtain it.  Exit surveys have been taken over and over.  Reasons for membership loss are well known.  Is it that difficult for us to reverse the trend?

The attached datasheet is something I've compiled since I began my current position. I think folks will find it of interest.
EDIT: Judged by the number of downloads, I take it folks are interested.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^^^A very good (and troubling) analysis, which should alarm the heck out of anyone who cares about this organisation.

I reiterate what I said before: CAP needs a drastic shakedown/restructuring from top to bottom, with the Air Force doing it.

We've tried it ourselves, and only gone two steps forward and ten steps back much of the time, because of the calcified framework that remains in place.

[NIN]

I'd be curious to compare those numbers / lines to other youth-serving membership organizations and also to other organizations like, say, the Elks or something.

The United States has move away from being a nation of "joiners" since WWII.  The 1950s was the hey day.

Ask any bowling alley about how popular leagues are.

[RiverAux]

^^^A very good (and troubling) analysis, which should alarm the heck out of anyone who cares about this organisation.

Why?  It shows that basically CAP membership numbers have stayed the same for about the last 40 years at the same time that participation in most other nationwide membership organizations has fallen dramatically.  Senior membership is even better as it has stayed the same since 1950.  The only real significant drop has been with cadet membership which has never really recovered from losses during Vietnam, but is essentially flat, with a few small dips and bumps since the early 1970s.

CAP should be singing halleluiah about a membership number report like that.   

[FW]

A fast look at BSA and GSA membership numbers for the last 3 years show about a 3% drop for the BSA, and a 1% drop for the GSA.  CAP cadet numbers have dropped a little more. I understand the times, however the number drop shouldn't be marginalized. We should be able to generate enough interest for real retention and growth.

[SunDog]

My sqdn has 35 or so senior members. I 've been around about 12 or 13 years, and haven't met most of them. Someting like less than a third of those, maybe even a fourth, are "curent'. They renew each year, so they are on the rolls. Just not playing. Can't see too much positive in that.

I do think the number of active senior members in my sqdn has dropped some - we keep losing and replacing, giving a little ground each year. Not always a bad thing, but the churn in this case is unhealthy; they/we are leaving for reasons such as those mentioned by the OP. The nonsense level is way too high, and that is something CAP could manage, do something about.

If Americans in general aren't as prone to joining, maybe volunteer orgs should adapt - like actualy DO  something based on the exit interview data. Clean up the bureacratic silliness, look at some BPR, get some focus and vision going, do some real communication, vice propoganda.

Someone said earler that CAP has a lot to offer - true enough, at least for me. Probably why some of us that stepped away, came back. But man! It is a difficult, frustrating, and significantly dysfunctional organization to work within.  I understand you may not agree, and the nonsense may not be an issue for you. It does seem to be for many of us, though. Maybe even most?

[Ned]

A fast look at BSA and GSA membership numbers for the last 3 years show about a 3% drop for the BSA, and a 1% drop for the GSA.  CAP cadet numbers have dropped a little more. I understand the times, however the number drop shouldn't be marginalized. We should be able to generate enough interest for real retention and growth.

We've done a lot of exit interview interations for cadets, and the answers are not very surprising.

Basically, if you have dynamic and challenging meetings every week, you will retain cadets.  The reverse is also true:  if you have dull and repetitive meetings ("the AE instructor forgot she had a class, so drill around the parking lot until we tell you to come in"), your retention will suffer.

For CP, at least, retention is almost completely in the hands of local leadership.

[MisterCD]

Plenty of factors play into the membership numbers, be they economic, social, cultural, geographic, etc. There is no one solution but I personally am of the mindset that we need to examine recruiting and recognition, retention, and senior professional development perhaps with approaches akin to the more diverse advancement program of cadets. Talk, however, is cheap, but at least raises food for thought and development.

[FW]

A fast look at BSA and GSA membership numbers for the last 3 years show about a 3% drop for the BSA, and a 1% drop for the GSA.  CAP cadet numbers have dropped a little more. I understand the times, however the number drop shouldn't be marginalized. We should be able to generate enough interest for real retention and growth.

We've done a lot of exit interview interations for cadets, and the answers are not very surprising.

Basically, if you have dynamic and challenging meetings every week, you will retain cadets.  The reverse is also true:  if you have dull and repetitive meetings ("the AE instructor forgot she had a class, so drill around the parking lot until we tell you to come in"), your retention will suffer.

For CP, at least, retention is almost completely in the hands of local leadership.

Ned, thank you for all you've done for CAP, and the Cadet Program in particular. I agree with you, however it may be a good idea to help units, by creating a better "tool kit" to have those "dynamic and challenging meetings". There does seem to be a need.  I understand 75 units were closed in the last few months due to a lack of leadership and/or personnel.  I think this may be something to address.  Curt Lefond and Susan Mallet have done great jobs at NHq, however we also have many dedicated volunteers who make CP a true personal calling... We can think of a few ways to work together and create that better tool kit. 

Making it easier for senior members to get the training needed to use the tool kit would help as well.  It's still a common complaint; poor leadership/poor planning/poor meeting activities/nothing worthwhile to do.  We have heard this for years.  With the proper direction and motivation, I know we can be successful. 

Just my $.02 :angel:

Plenty of factors play into the membership numbers, be they economic, social, cultural, geographic, etc. There is no one solution but I personally am of the mindset that we need to examine recruiting and recognition, retention, and senior professional development perhaps with approaches akin to the more diverse advancement program of cadets. Talk, however, is cheap, but at least raises food for thought and development.

Senior member exit "interactions" also show a problem with good leadership/programs/training opportunities.  Mission participation is another factor in SM retention.  Economics, social, cultural factors are important, however they can be overcome with a productive/worthwhile program.  It is kind of amazing when things come together.  There are some fantastic units in CAP.  Some are not in the "perfect" location.  We should be able to capitalize on these "best practices" and spread the "wealth".

There was a time when squadrons were pretty much on their own.  That isn't the case today.  We have a fleet of great aircraft, about 1000 vehicles for units, Wing Banker, Consolidated Maintanence, online reporting, mass electronic distribution of information, a viable web presence, and an established grape vine (CAPTalk!)  Our infrastructure is sound. It's now time to turn some dreams into reality.  With precise stated goals, and a motivated membership to accomlish them, we will succeed.

[Panache]

I see membership (both cadet and senior) took a big hit in 1994.  Correct me if I'm wrong, as I wasn't around at that point, but isn't that when the maroon shoulder marks were forced upon CAP?

If so, that has some interesting implications.  I know some here will say "if you're in it for the uniform, we don't need you" but this makes it pretty apparent that the uniforms DOES have a pretty big impact on our membership numbers.  NHQ might want to take note of that.

[RiverAux]

I know some here will say "if you're in it for the uniform, we don't need you"

If there was a relationship it was probably more like, "Why are you punishing me for what some stupid CAP leader did?  If you all don't want to be associated with us, I don't want to be associated with you." 

Many people join CAP as a way to provide assistance to the Air Force and if the AF does things that show that our help isn't really appreciated, they walk.  There are a myriad of ways that the AF could do this, uniforms being only one. 

[jeders]

I understand 75 units were closed in the last few months due to a lack of leadership and/or personnel. 

This right here is why I left, though my old unit hasn't been closed...yet. I was in a unit that was circling the drain due to a commander, an AF NCO with no CAP experience, that thought CAP was his own personal playground. He had left the AF and was no longer living in the state for a couple of months when I volunteered fought and begged to take command. This unit is the one I joined as a cadet 13 years ago and I have always fought for its survival. First I was told by group to shut and go away because there was already a commander assigned. Then when group asked for volunteers to take command I was again told to shut up and go away; apparently the group commander would rather appoint a new member who has never been to an actual meeting and had not started Level 1. When I went to the wing commander I was told to trust that the group commander because, "he has a plan." Now, 6 months later, the appointed commander still hasn't shown up to any meetings and is being replaced by another member from the squadron who happened to corner the group commander at a recent SAREX. At every point that I tried to volunteer for command, I was not the only experienced member stepping up.

This sounds like grumbling and sour grapes, I know; but as much as I and the others who stepped up love CAP, we have all left now and have no desire to return because of the back-room politics being carried out by group. It's not the conflicting regs or the bureaucratic encumbrances, it's the politics. The first two can be worked around by commanders who have half a clue, the latter cannot.

It should be noted that this level of politics is fairly new to our squadron. We've always had to deal with a normal level of politics from wing, but when the new wing commander took command a few years ago we were ripped from our home group and put in a new group with a new commander that does not like us (his words). This commander also does not care about the regs or those who try to enforce them (again, his words), which causes a lot of the conflict.

I know some here will say "if you're in it for the uniform, we don't need you"

If there was a relationship it was probably more like, "Why are you punishing me for what some stupid CAP leader did?  If you all don't want to be associated with us, I don't want to be associated with you." 

Many people join CAP as a way to provide assistance to the Air Force and if the AF does things that show that our help isn't really appreciated, they walk.  There are a myriad of ways that the AF could do this, uniforms being only one. 

If you are truly in it just for the uniform, then we don't want you. But River hit the nail squarely on the head, those who left after that incident did so largely due to a massive drop in morale, not because they want to be posers in a air force uniform.

[SunDog]

It's not the conflicting regs or the bureaucratic encumbrances, it's the politics. The first two can be worked around by commanders who have half a clue, the latter cannot.
[/quote]

Back up at 20,00 feet,  in varying degrees of individual importance, it's all these things - we have lost people due to bureaucratic encumbrances, for sure. Working around the nonsense became too much aggravation. Ditto silly, conflicting, badly conceived regs. And normal human politics, certainly.

Recent poster mentioned the solid infrastructure, and with the exception of the truly wretched web services, he's essentially correct. It's likely Border's Books and Blockbuster Video had decent infrastructures, as well.  You gotta DO something that makes sense with the sound infrastructure, right?

I doubt we lose someone just because eServcies bites. Or the flight release procedures are gacked. Or the GOBN jobs the aircraft locations. Or the abcd/1234 form instructions conflict with a reg. But we do lose them because of the preponderance of these things, because we've wasted their time and energy.  We just aggravate people out the door!

I think there is a hard core of folks who are willing to work around the nonsense, willing to spend more time feeding NHQ than doing the mission, willing to press on through it all. I respect them, but I think we wear them out, too. People are frustrated because they aren't hearing the issues being acknowledged.

Hey, we could be wrong about the impact - enough folks willing to do soldier on in the current environment may stick around, get the job done.  CAP won't miss what it never knew it could have,. . .

[Private Investigator]

I see membership (both cadet and senior) took a big hit in 1994.  Correct me if I'm wrong, as I wasn't around at that point, but isn't that when the maroon shoulder marks were forced upon CAP?

If so, that has some interesting implications.  I know some here will say "if you're in it for the uniform, we don't need you" but this makes it pretty apparent that the uniforms DOES have a pretty big impact on our membership numbers.  NHQ might want to take note of that.

That would be true if CAP Talk has a say. But some Squadrons do not know what is happening in CAP. i.e., If it is outside of Petticoat Junction Squadron who cares? 

[NIN]

That would be true if CAP Talk has a say. But some Squadrons do not know what is happening in CAP. i.e., If it is outside of Petticoat Junction Squadron who cares? 

There was a lot of turbulence in 1994. Remember, thats when we went from the EX being dual-hatted as the commander of CAP-USAF and NHQ staff being a blend of CAP-USAF and civilians to an all civilian CAP, Inc NHQ with the Executive Director (later COO) being a CAP-only person and not the Commander, CAP-USAF.

I'm sure it contributed to the membership hiccups.

[m981]

Does anyone else notice that none of this crap happened when our boss was a real AF O7? I know, it's not about to revert. Just sayin'.

[NIN]

Does anyone else notice that none of this crap happened when our boss was a real AF O7? I know, it's not about to revert. Just sayin'.

There was different crap, I'm sure.

[m981]

Maybe, but it never rose (sank?) to the scandalous levels repeatedly seen at National since then. Was  it better conduct or better damage control back then? I was not addressing anything at mid to lower levels. These have been covered elsewhere.

[Private Investigator]

When it comes to scandals at the NHQ level you will have 60,000 +/- POVs. I think 50% is totally clueless and/or do not care.