CAP-Agency vs CAP-Club - the real issue in Iowa

[mikeylikey]

^ Thanks.  Just curious.  I will leave now. 

[isuhawkeye]

No reason to leave.  It is always interesting to see how people review the numbers.  Certainly not high or impressive. 

I'm sure everyone will take sides and fight it out shortly

[cnitas]

from e-services

Org Statistics   
Seniors in this Unit: 26   Seniors in this Wing: 216
Cadets in this Unit: 0   Cadets in this Wing: 103
All Members in this Unit: 26   

Are those really the numbers for Iowa wing?

[CadetProgramGuy]

Yes

[DNall]

Just to back up what Joe was saying (ie get this back to constructive)... my group in Texas (that's GpIV, the small one down there around houston) covers roughly the same geographic size as Iowa, with I think 17 Sqs & about 1,000 members last I checked.

It's not that the Iowa plan is not a workable solution here, just that it needs to be centralized at the Group level rather than statewide. The distributed sarex solution is very far from perfect, but it gets training done. Instead of hauling everyone to one place, you haul the key leaders from Gp staff together & then send them back with commanders intent & instructions to carry out locally. Logistically, that works. Realistically, i don't like it that much. I'd rather see centralized SaRExs in each Gp where quality standardized training can occur on a more consistent basis.

We still do some things at centralized locations. We run cadet competion, 2x CTEPs, & 2x encampments that way on the cadet side. We do a couple ground team competitions at centralized lcoations. Probably a few other things, but really the command level you're thinking of occurs at our Groups, and isn't possible on a wing scale.

[Major Carrales]

Just to back up what Joe was saying (ie get this back to constructive)... my group in Texas (that's GpIV, the small one down there around houston) covers roughly the same geographic size as Iowa, with I think 17 Sqs & about 1,000 members last I checked.

That is also one of Texas Wings most active areas where some of the best units can be found.  Same could be said of GROUP III.  San Antonio is very active and there as been a resurgance of CAP activity down in Southern Group V.

It's not that the Iowa plan is not a workable solution here, just that it needs to be centralized at the Group level rather than statewide. The distributed sarex solution is very far from perfect, but it gets training done. Instead of hauling everyone to one place, you haul the key leaders from Gp staff together & then send them back with commanders intent & instructions to carry out locally. Logistically, that works. Realistically, i don't like it that much. I'd rather see centralized SaRExs in each Gp where quality standardized training can occur on a more consistent basis.

The DSAR model works great and I think the best combination of it would be two DSARs with the GROUP SARex model you speak of.  While you were away, we have seen that.  This stresses my point of more locality.

We still do some things at centralized locations. We run cadet competion, 2x CTEPs, & 2x encampments that way on the cadet side. We do a couple ground team competitions at centralized lcoations. Probably a few other things, but really the command level you're thinking of occurs at our Groups, and isn't possible on a wing scale.

Well, said. 

[BlackKnight]

No reason to leave.  It is always interesting to see how people review the numbers.  Certainly not high or impressive. 

I'm sure everyone will take sides and fight it out shortly

What's scares me is that it appears that my wing is apparently sold on the Iowa centralized command and control model. We have ~900 seniors and ~800 cadets, multiple groups, and it takes nearly 7 hours to drive across the state. Distributed command control at Group level (TXWG style) is really the only model that works for us.  I believe we're already seeing "functional attrition" in ES participation and training that parallels the Iowa data- although the participation statistics are being closely held by wing staff. No AARs are being publicized. We returned ~1/3 of our ES training money allocation last year because the decision to fund only "wing level" training removed training access and incentive to most of our members interested in ES training. It was announced that the only approved training would be conducted by wing. "Amateurs should not be training amateurs." Qualifications earned at NESA were initially rejected by wing until it was suggested that perhaps NHQ might have something to say about the issue. No training was to occur at squadron or group levels. To be honest, the wing training wasn't really that good compared to what we had done before at the squadron/group level. So people quit coming. Effective training did occur, but it was unpublicised and self-funded at squadron level and thus off-the-books per the training budget.  Training mission numbers were hard to come by. Some squadrons even found themselves traveling outside the wing to stay sharp on SAREX training.

Unfortunately, people at the top LIKE centralized command and control.  Once they get that bit in their teeth it's almost impossible to hold them back. They become married to this operational model and they ignore statistics and facts that clearly show it's not working.  It takes someone at Region or NHQ, or an outside agency such as the state EMA to look at the performance data and ask "What the heck did you think you were accomplishing with this?"

I disagree that for CAP as a whole this is a simplistic "CAP Agency vs Club" issue.  Most wings seem to have moved past this discussion.  We're actually both. When we need to act like an agency (ES operations) we act like an agency. When we need to be a club (cadet programs field trips and AE) we act like a disciplined club.  People conveniently forget that we have multiple missions, and a good team can quickly morph themselves into the operational structure needed to support the mission. Play when it's time to play and work when it's time to work. I have a foot in both ES and Cadet Programs and we constantly perform this transformation, sometimes almost immediately when an ES alert comes in during the middle of another activity. It's what we've trained to do and it's no big deal.

[NIN]

Whatever happened to the concept, and I believe it was enumerated in 20-1, that the "squadron is the basic operational unit" in Civil Air Patrol?

Not the group, not the wing.

The "local unit."  The squadron.

Switching to a wing- (or even group-) centric operational model requires a massive paradigm and cultural shift, one that many members may not be willing to make as easily as you'd like to think.

[Whocares]

dont you read the internet. Iowa has lost 70% of its members, and none of those who are active are above 2nd Lt

Since at one point in time we had 400 that means that we have less than 200 members.

from e-services

Org Statistics   
Seniors in this Unit: 26   Seniors in this Wing: 216
Cadets in this Unit: 0   Cadets in this Wing: 103
All Members in this Unit: 26   

Ouch, 70% loss rate.  What is the believed reason for such a great loss in membership?

Of course, what is the wings plan to regain members?  What is the recruiting officer going to do to for recruiting?  What is the DCP going to do about not having any Mitchell cadets or above?  In essence, what is the wing's plan?

After all, what good is money and training when there are not any people to train.  People are your most valuable assest. 

[isuhawkeye]

with our "small" numbers CAP maintains about 90% of the SAR force in the state. 

I know critelli had a strong marketing and recruiting campaign lined up with recruiters, and a major marketing pr campaign. 

If you believe the internet Ron will simply bring all the disgruntled member back making Iowa bigger and stronger than ever

[FW]

Actually, the wing is the operational "unit" in CAP.  It is the Wing/CC who approves all subordinate units to support the wing.  And, it is the wing which handles distribution of assets. and is the "responsible party" for logistics and maint. of "stuff".  

Local squadron activities are great.  It builds cohesion and helps the squadron grow and keep members. (I guess I'm stating the obvious here?)

Anyway, I am enjoying this discussion.  I'm from a large wing with many, many, active members, a large funding base, and a plethora of training options, missions and ongoing ideas.  The current wing/cc is a forward looking member who is not afraid to deligate his authority and responsibility (that's trust) to the members holding subordinate positions; either on staff or in command.  And, for some reason, membership is going up again.  

I know small wings have unique problems.  3-400 members in a wing the size of Iowa is a challenge.  To man a wing staff takes finesse when there are so few around.  I guess I would centralize training also, until I was satisfied the members were qualified to go out and spread the wealth.  It is only then a small wing could grow, live long and prosper

[LittleIronPilot]

No reason to leave.  It is always interesting to see how people review the numbers.  Certainly not high or impressive. 

I'm sure everyone will take sides and fight it out shortly

What's scares me is that it appears that my wing is apparently sold on the Iowa centralized command and control model. We have ~900 seniors and ~800 cadets, multiple groups, and it takes nearly 7 hours to drive across the state. Distributed command control at Group level (TXWG style) is really the only model that works for us.  I believe we're already seeing "functional attrition" in ES participation and training that parallels the Iowa data- although the participation statistics are being closely held by wing staff. No AARs are being publicized. We returned ~1/3 of our ES training money allocation last year because the decision to fund only "wing level" training removed training access and incentive to most of our members interested in ES training. It was announced that the only approved training would be conducted by wing. "Amateurs should not be training amateurs." Qualifications earned at NESA were initially rejected by wing until it was suggested that perhaps NHQ might have something to say about the issue. No training was to occur at squadron or group levels. To be honest, the wing training wasn't really that good compared to what we had done before at the squadron/group level. So people quit coming. Effective training did occur, but it was unpublicised and self-funded at squadron level and thus off-the-books per the training budget.  Training mission numbers were hard to come by. Some squadrons even found themselves traveling outside the wing to stay sharp on SAREX training.

Unfortunately, people at the top LIKE centralized command and control.  Once they get that bit in their teeth it's almost impossible to hold them back. They become married to this operational model and they ignore statistics and facts that clearly show it's not working.  It takes someone at Region or NHQ, or an outside agency such as the state EMA to look at the performance data and ask "What the heck did you think you were accomplishing with this?"

You are not from Georgia are you? 

It seems we are FINALLY getting training money pushed back to the squadron level...and that is a GOOD thing.

[NIN]

Holy cow, guys. Your (Iowa) Wing is 1/3 the size of mine.  Yikes.

(Minor comparison, I realize its not an entirely accurate comparison, but Iowa is 56,272 sq miles versus 9,350 sq miles here in NH, with a population just shy of 3 million, versus 1.2 million here.)

A number of years ago (2003 or 2004), in discussion with a friend who works at NHQ, he threw an interesting little statistic at me that IMHO served as a good generalization about CAP's membership penetration in a particular area.

At the time, CAP had about 60,000 members, and the 2000 US Census pegged the nationwide population at just about 281 million people. (give or take by 2003). 

That led to a membership rate of something like .000213 (equalized across the country). (Mind you, this was about 4-5 years ago, so my memory of the precise numbers is a tad sketchy..)

So if you took your local population (my town is about 35,000) and multiplied it by this number, here is how big your unit should be compared to the "nationwide norm."  In my case, it was something like 7 1/2 members or some ungodly tiny number like that.   Then I realized that my true "recruiting area" was essentially the entire county, population 136,000.  So that worked out to close to 30 members my unit *should* have to be "on" the national number based on population. 

(I just found the original formula, and it was more like this:


     60,000                       x             (expected normative wing population)
----------------       =   -------------
300,000,000                 1,200,000    (population of my state)

so that's 60,000 * 1,200,000 = 300,000,000x     Crikey, I knew this 9th grade algebra crap would some day come in handy!   Solving for x gives 240, the expected Civil Air Patrol membership in my wing if we're keeping to the national ratio of 60,000 members per 300,000,000 population.  My wing's actual member population is closer to 600, so we're beating the National average by a fair margin. According to this formula, using my county's population of 136,000, my unit should have 27.5 members..)

At the time my unit had over 100 members (and we have about 98 members still). We were exceeding the membership ratio by a FACTOR OF THREE.

So to apply this to Iowa's figures, 60,000 * 2,900,000 = 300,000,000x and solve for x you're looking at 580.  And Iowa has less than 200 members presently?

Yikes, folks. That's not a statistical anomaly. Thats not even accountable for the distance between units and how spread out Iowa is.  No, folks, that's a PROBLEM.

(break it down by metropolitan or geographic area, if you want, to see if the numbers hold.  Find some historical numbers of members in, say, Des Moines from 4-5 years ago, prior to the Iowa Experiment.  Was there just one squadron there?  How big is the area it logically recruits from? A county? Several counties?  Count the entire population of the area covered by the unit and crank it into that formula. That's how big the unit should be / should have been.  See how that number compares to the unit today to sort of "cross-check" the logic here. Even if there was more than one unit, you should be able to figure their combined geographical reach and the population under their "footprint" and then see if the expected number equals the total membership of the combined units..)

It would be interesting to see if the "Iowa of old" had numbers closer to the national ratio or if the numbers are not substantially different from what they are today. This would be far more telling as to whether the "Iowa Experiment" had that big of an effect on membership.

[isuhawkeye]

ok gang.  add this to your equation.  in the past 10 years (5 wing commanders) we have had 2 units west of ineterstate 35.  neither sucesful.  with traditionally no support.

also nebraska has 1 unit in Iowa (sioux falls).  and 4 units in amaha which draw from council bluffs.
2 major metropolitine areas covered by different states (traditionally)

[mikeylikey]

also nebraska has 1 unit in Iowa (sioux falls). 

Is that legal?!?

[PHall]

also nebraska has 1 unit in Iowa (sioux falls). 

Is that legal?!?

Apparently it is. We have the same deal in California Wing. The Truckee-Tahoe Composite Squadron is part of Nevada Wing.
But they're in a special situation. Top of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the closest "big" city is Reno Nevada. Otherwise they have to go 80 miles down I-80 to Sacramento California.
This deal was made about 20 plus years ago and everybody still seems happy.

[RiverAux]

A long time ago I did some stats and there is an incredibly strong correlation (statistically significant) between CAP Wing membership and state population size.  I doubt it holds up quite as well at the squadron level due to a variety of factors. 

Iowa Wing membership -according to annual reports
2000: 347
2001: 369
2002: 464
2003: 454
2004: 410
2005: 387
2006: 390
2007 (from CAPTalk): 319

So, looks sort of typical in that they saw a good membership bump after 9/11 which then dropped down back to where they were, more or less.  However, the big drop this year (almost 20%) is something to be concerned about since it has happened since the new concept has become well established and is well beyond the membership loss seen by CAP as a whole. 

I know everybody will say quality, not quantity, and there is some truth to that, but you need a minimum number of people just to make things viable and Iowa, especially given its relatively large size (not compared to TX Carrales  ) might find itself in serious trouble. 

[SAR-EMT1]

I am strongly in the Agency Camp and am all for having a central wing HQ.
Right now its in Chicago which totally sucks. But then again, until a recent shift in the wing 'Group' structure, there were hardly any training programs set up South of Chicago. I cannot express how glad I am to be part of a group in which training is offered here in Central Illinois.

I further feel that if there is any possibility that the Wing, ANY WING, could offer monthly meetings similar to the WTA or any NG units "drill weekend" that it couldnt be better.

Iowa has it right ( and no I have not been there)
I can say this for the simple fact that they have: daily missions, travel reimnbursment for POVs, a central meeting location, a closer relationship to the military then any other wing I know of, and finally job protection.

Any step back to " the club" is a step to failure.
I joined the USAF Auxiliary, whose purpose I see as being an unpaid version of the USAF Reserve, I did NOT join CAP Inc.

[SAR-EMT1]

I do want to mention, upon reflection, that any mass exoudus in membership is bad. No matter where you are.

[NIN]

I joined the USAF Auxiliary, whose purpose I see as being an unpaid version of the USAF Reserve, I did NOT join CAP Inc.

Yeah, but no matter what: You're still a member of Civil Air Patrol, Inc, the United States Air Force Auxiliary.  And NOT an unpaid reservist.

And there is a difference.