Recent membership trends

[Holding Pattern]

I ask that because unlike say the USAF where force strength is driven my mission needs......CAP has not done a very good job defining what our force strength needs to be.

Just throwing this out there, but since CAP hasn't defined what our force strength needs to be, it is up to the Wings to do so. If the Wings don't, then it falls to the Groups. If the Groups don't, then each Squadron needs to.

If enough squadrons start defining what they want their force strength to be, they can then task their recruitment officer with that plan.

In short: Until we get top-down directives, we get to solve this problem from the bottom-up.

[RiverAux]

One part of the decline in Senior membership can be attributed to the removal of private own aircraft on missions and exercises.

Once we closed off the tap to free flying....a lot o members left.

Very doubtful.  We may have lost some pilots over that, but pilots only constitute a tiny percentage of CAP members.  We could lose half of them and it would barely budge the senior membership numbers. 

And in any case, the chart SARDAK posted doesn't really support that sort of linkage to a specific policy.  Basically it shows a 2 year bump in membership after 9/11 and then a basically flat senior membership up until fairly recently (long after the restrictions on private aircraft went into real effect in the mid2000s.

[SarDragon]

One part of the decline in Senior membership can be attributed to the removal of private own aircraft on missions and exercises.

Once we closed off the tap to free flying....a lot o members left.

Very doubtful.  We may have lost some pilots over that, but pilots only constitute a tiny percentage of CAP members.  We could lose half of them and it would barely budge the senior membership numbers. 

And in any case, the chart SARDAK posted doesn't really support that sort of linkage to a specific policy.  Basically it shows a 2 year bump in membership after 9/11 and then a basically flat senior membership up until fairly recently (long after the restrictions on private aircraft went into real effect in the mid2000s.

I think that depends on the type of squadron. My unit is about 75% pilots, so losing half of them would make a serious dent in our membership numbers (18/48).

[RiverAux]

Was referring to senior membership at the national level. 

[lordmonar]

Was referring to senior membership at the national level.

Which show the problem with that sort of thinking and number crunching.

But what ever the causes......bottom line is that with out meaning manning tables, trends up or down are meaningless at the grass roots level.

I got a minim of 3 seniors and 7 cadets I'm in business.  I got enough pilots to put 200 hours on my plane...I'm good.   Pass my SUI every other year and everything else is just gravy.

And this is not really something that can be fixed at the squadron level.

[SarDragon]

Was referring to senior membership at the national level.

But the squadron is where "the rubber meets the road". Lose half of our pilots, and that airplane fleet will sit idle far more that desired. We have enough trouble getting hours on planes as it is.

And, I believe there are a lot more pilots than you think.

[RRLE]

I know we have always operated under the "State=Wing" formula...I just question whether "that's the way we've always done it" remains sufficient justification for the way we carry out our missions/

"That's the way we've always done it" isn't the justification. The differences, sometimes significant, in state laws is, from what I've been told, the primary driving force behind State=Wing. Not to mention the funding some wings get from their states.

Some how the Coast Guard Auxiliary makes it work...their methods, particularly in view of their very close wrking relationship with active duty USCG, might mean that what they do couldn't work for us...but I think it's worth a look.

The USCG Auxiliary somewhat follows the USCG districts. I write "somewhat" since half the USCG Aux districts match one-for-one with USCG districts. However, in the other half, the Aux has two or three Aux districts to one USCG district. That happened when the USCG consolidated its districts and the Aux did not. And some have argued that the Aux could have some significant savings if it consolidated its districts to match the USCG.

If CAP were to follow the USCG Aux model, it would have to organize wings to follow whatever first level sub-national organization the USAF has, if such a thing even exists.

[FW]

I don't really equate organizational structure with membership recruitment and retention trends.  Leadership, training, and mission opportunities do.

CAP is a non profit beneficial organization which serves local communities, as well as a national interest.   The state/wing model fits us well; not only for funding purposes, but for mission coordination; as many wings are integrated with state government EMAs. That being said, squadrons need to figure out what works best for them within the CAP "framework".  Members need to work together and develop a meaningful/productive program and structure which encourages retention and recruitment of new blood for continuity. How this happens depends on the ability of the leadership and a level of commitment which insures success.  Groups/Wings; etc.  just need to coordinate when necessary, provide the strategic, tactical plans, and tools to help make it all work. 

[TheSkyHornet]

I know we have always operated under the "State=Wing" formula...I just question whether "that's the way we've always done it" remains sufficient justification for the way we carry out our missions/

"That's the way we've always done it" isn't the justification. The differences, sometimes significant, in state laws is, from what I've been told, the primary driving force behind State=Wing. Not to mention the funding some wings get from their states.

Some how the Coast Guard Auxiliary makes it work...their methods, particularly in view of their very close wrking relationship with active duty USCG, might mean that what they do couldn't work for us...but I think it's worth a look.

The USCG Auxiliary somewhat follows the USCG districts. I write "somewhat" since half the USCG Aux districts match one-for-one with USCG districts. However, in the other half, the Aux has two or three Aux districts to one USCG district. That happened when the USCG consolidated its districts and the Aux did not. And some have argued that the Aux could have some significant savings if it consolidated its districts to match the USCG.

If CAP were to follow the USCG Aux model, it would have to organize wings to follow whatever first level sub-national organization the USAF has, if such a thing even exists.

Plus, CAP squadrons are really "all-inclusive" when it comes to the mission. Aside from getting an aircraft, pretty much every squadron can offer every duty position if the roster filled up.

Coast Guard Aux can also go out to patrol coastal and inland waterways. It's part of keeping their currency and being available to provide assistance. CAP doesn't really have that patrol aspect, but sometimes the activity can be a constant exercise/alert mode. Still, it doesn't necessarily make people outside of the mission scope feel like they have a role, especially smaller units.

Unlike the Air Force, CAP isn't split into targeted squadrons with a specific responsibility. We don't have the 1st Emergency Service Operations Squadron, 2d Airborne Reconnaissance, Photography, and Surveillance Squadron, and 3d Mobile Logistics & Support Squadron. This is purely example of course, but you see my point.

Squadron recruiting and retention is only as good as the activities that squadron can offer its members. You cannot build up a new training program to cover every aspect of CAP in the course of a year for all members, or specifically those that want to engage in that specialty. It just isn't feasible. Most squadrons don't have the resources. But you get squadrons that have a lot of turnover of leadership, and the subject matter experts go away and we lose the training opportunities in-house.

In another thread regarding cadet physical fitness, Col Lee said he would like to see at least 3 master-rated CP officers in each cadet/composite squadron. It's not feasible. And I don't say that to insult him, but we just don't have the manpower to do that. It's going to make it even more difficult for the volunteer side to stay involved if we start requiring even more training and consolidating units that don't have the staff. Imagine requiring 3 master-rated CP officers, 2 master-rated ES officers, and 2 master-rated AE officers in a composite squadron.

I'm not advocating consolidating units or splitting them off to be specific to a role, but it's something to discuss when we're considering trying to figure out how to resolve this one-size-fits-all mentality in a volunteer organization. It's a very complex issue.

I don't really equate organizational structure with membership recruitment and retention trends.  Leadership, training, and mission opportunities do.

CAP is a non profit beneficial organization which serves local communities, as well as a national interest.   The state/wing model fits us well; not only for funding purposes, but for mission coordination; as many wings are integrated with state government EMAs. That being said, squadrons need to figure out what works best for them within the CAP "framework".  Members need to work together and develop a meaningful/productive program and structure which encourages retention and recruitment of new blood for continuity. How this happens depends on the ability of the leadership and a level of commitment which insures success.  Groups/Wings; etc.  just need to coordinate when necessary, provide the strategic, tactical plans, and tools to help make it all work. 

Organizational structure plays a huge factor in retention. That's where the line of leadership is established. From a standpoint as to "Who should be above the squadron," I don't think that's necessarily the problem at the squadron level regarding retention of senior members. But the squadron structure does play a role in that retention. It determines who is supposed to be responsible for a particular task or area, and how that plays into the responsibilities of the people below them. Many people in the position of Squadron Commander, Deputy Commander, CDS, CDC, and other significant leadership roles have no clue what they're involved in and don't even know their own chain of command. Not to mention the inconsistencies between org charts for senior squadrons (with more or less than 50), composite squadrons, and cadet squadrons.

Plus, I think technology has been a huge factor. Outdated media, specifically in regard to videos for recruiting or training. Poorly-designed website. Even more poorly managed wing, group, and squadron websites. Poorly-interfaced manuals, pamphlets, and posters. CAP has a very dated feel to it that hasn't caught up with the second decade of the 21st Century.

[FW]

Lines of authority and responsibility are established by organization structure. Leadership is found at every level.  CAP's organizational structure, as found in CAPR 20-1, works for us.  It may need tweeks from time to time, however I don't see a need for major change. 

Your claim of some who hold positions of responsibility at the squadron level may be true, however that is a failure of leadership of those above.  As I state again; higher levels up the chain need to coordinate, provide strategic, tactical planning, and tools to help make it work.  Good Leadership is necessary at every level. 

Reversing membership trends is not an easy task.  There are many variables, and you mention some.  I don't envy those tasked to reverse them.  I wish them success.

[SarDragon]

In another thread regarding cadet physical fitness, Col Lee said he would like to see at least 3 master-rated CP officers in each cadet/composite squadron. It's not feasible. And I don't say that to insult him, but we just don't have the manpower to do that. It's going to make it even more difficult for the volunteer side to stay involved if we start requiring even more training and consolidating units that don't have the staff. Imagine requiring 3 master-rated CP officers, 2 master-rated ES officers, and 2 master-rated AE officers in a composite squadron.

That's an 18-24 month journey, with significant participation outside the unit. Hard to do? Perhaps, depending on interest or initiative. Not feasible? Depends on how hard you try. It's all about goals.

[TheSkyHornet]

In another thread regarding cadet physical fitness, Col Lee said he would like to see at least 3 master-rated CP officers in each cadet/composite squadron. It's not feasible. And I don't say that to insult him, but we just don't have the manpower to do that. It's going to make it even more difficult for the volunteer side to stay involved if we start requiring even more training and consolidating units that don't have the staff. Imagine requiring 3 master-rated CP officers, 2 master-rated ES officers, and 2 master-rated AE officers in a composite squadron.

That's an 18-24 month journey, with significant participation outside the unit. Hard to do? Perhaps, depending on interest or initiative. Not feasible? Depends on how hard you try. It's all about goals.

How hard you try doesn't equate to your ability to be there. I put my nose into the books. I show up when I can, especially for weekend training. I try to get the online training done as much as possible. It's one thing to take my Saturday and Sunday and work entirely for CAP all weekend. But I can't be driving 300 miles all the time to attend training events across the state or go visit other Wings, nor can I take a week off of work to fly down to Florida for a SAREX and PDO week. I can't take 4 days off and staff encampment. Some people have that ability. I don't. If I had the ability to take a week, unpaid even, off of work with a CAP excused absence, like military leave, I would. But I don't have that option. My interest and initiative is there. But I'm not willing to lose a paying job over it.

Everyone in CAP is a volunteer. But not everyone in CAP has a full-time job. I'd like to see something in the training program that allows us full-timers to receive training in a way that we can afford to attend/participate (even if online). We want to get that training, but we just can't get to it.There are a lot of good people out there who want to participate but can't commit to the schedule. Maybe some of those people should just steer clear of CAP, but if this discussion wants to address retention, that's one of the talking points.

[Holding Pattern]

In another thread regarding cadet physical fitness, Col Lee said he would like to see at least 3 master-rated CP officers in each cadet/composite squadron. It's not feasible. And I don't say that to insult him, but we just don't have the manpower to do that. It's going to make it even more difficult for the volunteer side to stay involved if we start requiring even more training and consolidating units that don't have the staff. Imagine requiring 3 master-rated CP officers, 2 master-rated ES officers, and 2 master-rated AE officers in a composite squadron.

That's an 18-24 month journey, with significant participation outside the unit. Hard to do? Perhaps, depending on interest or initiative. Not feasible? Depends on how hard you try. It's all about goals.

How hard you try doesn't equate to your ability to be there. I put my nose into the books. I show up when I can, especially for weekend training. I try to get the online training done as much as possible. It's one thing to take my Saturday and Sunday and work entirely for CAP all weekend. But I can't be driving 300 miles all the time to attend training events across the state or go visit other Wings, nor can I take a week off of work to fly down to Florida for a SAREX and PDO week. I can't take 4 days off and staff encampment. Some people have that ability. I don't. If I had the ability to take a week, unpaid even, off of work with a CAP excused absence, like military leave, I would. But I don't have that option. My interest and initiative is there. But I'm not willing to lose a paying job over it.

Everyone in CAP is a volunteer. But not everyone in CAP has a full-time job. I'd like to see something in the training program that allows us full-timers to receive training in a way that we can afford to attend/participate (even if online). We want to get that training, but we just can't get to it.There are a lot of good people out there who want to participate but can't commit to the schedule. Maybe some of those people should just steer clear of CAP, but if this discussion wants to address retention, that's one of the talking points.

This pretty much mirrors my situation, except that in addition, I can't make weekend trainings because this year our weekend trainings have managed to land on the same days of our Cyberpatriot competitions/trainings where I am coach.

Crazy thought, but if I can make a youtube video demonstrating a task proficiency, why can't an evaluator review the video and sign off on my proficiency? You could even put in a requirement for say, 2 evaluators, one not from your squadron to allay any concerns that might crop up from the practice.

[arajca]

Crazy thought, but if I can make a youtube video demonstrating a task proficiency, why can't an evaluator review the video and sign off on my proficiency? You could even put in a requirement for say, 2 evaluators, one not from your squadron to allay any concerns that might crop up from the practice.

Not so crazy. Finding ways to work outside the box can be challenging. My personal example is the vast number of describe, list, or identify tasks for GTM3 (and a few others). Why do those need to evaluated in the field? I had one group ESO tell me ALL GTM tasks had to evaluated in the field, no matter how simple and refused to consider alternatives. Fortunately, when I presented my plan for a WRITTEN test for those tasks to the wing, they liked the idea, with the caveat that the test had to be supervised and graded by a proper SET-qualified member. Suddenly, at regular meetings during the winter, we could get half or more of the GTM3 tasks signed off, saving the fun stuff for spring and summer when we could run around outside instead of spending valuable sunlight listing the signs, symptoms, and treatment of cold weather injuries. Hot weather injuries became part of the safety brief.

We did tell everyone that once qualified, they needed to remember the info as they could be quizzed at any time. And I've done a couple of those quizzes.

[RiverAux]

I'm still amazed that CAP hasn't turned all of those things into online tests.  No need to waste valuable face time taking a test. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

How hard you try doesn't equate to your ability to be there.

Which, as many of my former colleagues on this board know, is one thing that killed my CAP career.

I put my nose into the books.

Which is what I was doing (among other things, to keep my safety currency up).  However, in the last nastygram I got from my CC, he told me that "self-aggrandisement" by doing online courses did nothing to help the unit.

Everyone in CAP is a volunteer. But not everyone in CAP has a full-time job. I'd like to see something in the training program that allows us full-timers to receive training in a way that we can afford to attend/participate (even if online). We want to get that training, but we just can't get to it.  There are a lot of good people out there who want to participate but can't commit to the schedule. Maybe some of those people should just steer clear of CAP, but if this discussion wants to address retention, that's one of the talking points.

I can say that in my case this attitude directly affected the non-retention of a member.

It is all well and good for National to say that they appreciate the efforts of every volunteer in CAP, but at the local level, when you are told that your efforts to "telecommunicate" are not valued, and are even an example of selfishness, there's a level of cognitive dissonance there that I do not understand.

[Robert Hartigan]

Anyone that wants to be a member of Civil Air Patrol and needs to telecommute is welcome in my unit. I have plenty of projects that need worked on that don't involve attending unit meetings. Talent is talent and I'll put it to use to make my little corner of CAP better.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Anyone that wants to be a member of Civil Air Patrol and needs to telecommute is welcome in my unit. I have plenty of projects that need worked on that don't involve attending unit meetings. Talent is talent and I'll put it to use to make my little corner of CAP better.

I wish I would have lived near you.  Leaving CAP was one of the most difficult and disheartening decisions I ever had to make.

[41839j]

I don't think the numbers are as important as the quality of the people you have.  Our membership is down about 25% compared to three years ago, but this was by purpose and design.  The decision was made to have quality rather than quantitiy, and we culled a lot of dead weight.  We don't need people that are consuming resources without contributing.

It is my opinion, but I would say we are better off since having done this.

[Storm Chaser]

The problem is that, in general, we're losing more members than we're recruiting or retaining. While some unit may chose to remove inactive members, it doesn't change the fact that CAP as a whole is not manned to fulfill all the functions and roles required by regulations. That's why you have in every unit and at every level a few key players with 3-5 duty assignments, many at different organizational echelons. While that may seem standard practice, CAP's organizational chart is not designed to be run by a few members. This is something that needs to be addressed for the wellbeing of our organization and members.