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

[DaTower]

Just a comment on the CAP member ship in the Des Moines Metro area.  Three years ago (just before the "experiment") there was a Senior squadron with approximately 20 members, about half of whom would be considered "active".  The Cadet Program had been dropped because of lack of interest.

Today the senior squadron has 17 members, and a new cadet squadron has formed with 11 seniors and 19 cadets, bring the total to 47, and most of those are active (inactive members get transfered to IA000).

Not bad results given the fairly short timeframe of a couple years.  If the "experiment" continues, it will be interesting to see the states numbers in another year or two...

[RiverAux]

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.

I don't think that anyone would disagree with that in general.  I think people have a problem with doing the training in the same place each month and not really letting it be done at the local level. 

[cyclone]

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. 

Ugh... I hate math and stat... However, here goes some concept....

Bloated numbers is exactly what is wrong with CAP (nationally).  When CAP (NHQ) touts it numbers it throws everything at you (patron, AE, Legislative, whatever). Recently we have had about 60-70% participation in Iowa with 316 total members as compared to around 20-25% previously which is consistent with the national participation averages.

Also you have to judge our strength by the number of Officers as compared to cadets. Cadet numbers tend to fluctuate and are consistent with squadron's quality. When Scheitzach worked to scuttle ICAPA in the summer of 2006 he doomed the cadet program. We were just getting it built up.

If Iowa were going down the wrong path in weeding out its dead weight, why did the CAP-USAF CC think we were the way of the future?  Cutting dead weight is a form of deceit. Dead weight bloats membership numbers and gives false measures and stats, which results in an inaccurate assessment of a Wing's capabilities.  On the recruitment side, it also fosters extremely bad retention rates.

I've also never said that CAP-Agency requires training in just one place.  In Iowa we did not have much to work with in the beginning so we could only support one training location.  For Texas, California, or other big states it may work best for group-wide training to combine resources for better, more standardized training.  The emphasis should be placed on the process to refining your organization, not the specific tactical method of implementing because that will very with geography and other factors.

[Eclipse]

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.

Spot on, and for the record, ILWG HQ is not in Chicago, its in a Western Suburb about 40 miles away, which I will grant you, for someone 5 hours away is functionally the same thing, but in terms of location, is >relatively< centrally located to in excess of 60-70% of the membership.

ILWG is the literal example of a state where the IAWG model would not work - our groups are larger than IAWG wing, and for the most part are already fully-operational and executing the mission locally. 

Metro Chicago has more population than the whole state of Iowa, as well as a significantly larger professional ES presence in all the major cities and counties.  CAP is a >part< of the solution, and a larger part in some areas than others, but neither we nor the ILNG is answering 911, nor would we expect to.

Our role as secondary and tertiary assets is exactly in line with CAP's mission and scope.  The  aerial survey mission we did for NOAA last week and the DA work we did for the ARC in Rockford are perfect examples.

[RiverAux]

Iowa Officer Members --- Cadets
2000  220 -- 127
2001  253 -- 116
2002  303 -- 161
2003  286 -- 168
2004  254 -- 156
2005  259 -- 128
2006  253 -- 137
2007  216 -- 103

So, what this tells me is that Iowa cadet numbers shot up in 2002 (before the new program), stayed strong until 2004 and then as the new program was implemented started to drop and it has only gotten worse.  There are only a handful of states with fewer than 100 cadets and Iowa is about to join them.  While this thread is mostly about ES-stuff, it is clear that the Iowa experiment has not been good for the cadet program.   

Senior members stayed more or less stable through the first few years of the program, but still saw a big decrease from 2006-2007. 

[cyclone]

Our cadet program has been best characterized as mediocre at best since the days I joined.

The first phase of organization and improvement was prioritized on ES because it affected life and property and the gov't could relate to it.  The Cadet Program and AE have been the focus the last half of 2007 and going forward trying to get it squared away.

[Whocares]

Iowa Officer Members --- Cadets
2000  220 -- 127
2001  253 -- 116
2002  303 -- 161
2003  286 -- 168
2004  254 -- 156
2005  259 -- 128
2006  253 -- 137
2007  216 -- 103

Recruiting numbers can easily paint any picture.  Obviously this one is of some type of loss.  I wonder what the RETENTION rate was.  It is easy to persaude some 12 year old into joining, but it is not as easy as to keep that 12 year old in the program. 

re-selected an inferior and unqualified officer

From someone that acheived the rank of CMSgt and professed discipline and professionalism, I would have expected a little bit more respect out of him.  Would he have said these same words if this were to occur in the Air Force?

[RiverAux]

Retaining cadets for more than 3-4 years is pretty hit or miss.  Kids join lots of clubs and then change their minds about them later, or develop other interests.  If a cadet doesn't renew after his first year, then you might have a problem with the program. 

Senior members though...if you get them past the first 2-3 years, you've probably got them for a pretty long time. 

[Eclipse]

If Iowa were going down the wrong path in weeding out its dead weight, why did the CAP-USAF CC think we were the way of the future? 

Can you please cite where you got that?

Handing out awards and praising people for a job well done is not the same as insinuating its the "Way".

[fyrfitrmedic]

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.

Don't DEWG and MDWG have something similar?

[isuhawkeye]

when col hodgkins was present in Iowa he made a speech.  SInce the speech was not recorded or transcribed I cannot site it. 

The col. made it VERY clear that CAP has a bloat problem, and that Iowa was on the right track.

Believe it or not

[Eclipse]

when col hodgkins was present in Iowa he made a speech.  SInce the speech was not recorded or transcribed I cannot site it. 

The col. made it VERY clear that CAP has a bloat problem, and that Iowa was on the right track.

Believe it or not

Yes, he commented at the last NEC that there is an issue with improperly reporting our membership numbers because patrons, empty shirts, and non-ES types are included in the reporting, not to mention the 1/3 of seniors who have never accessed eServices*, but that has nothing to do with validating the actual IAWG model, other than an indication that the idea of losing non-performers is a good idea.

There's a difference between moving legitimately non-active members to a status which is reported separately and making it so difficult, or impossible for some active members to participate that they just stand down or quit.

So far, in defense of how things are going in Iowa now, I have heard "the guard thought we were Boy Scouts and now they love us...", "...we do a ton of Iowa's SAR...", and "...we get a lot of money and a nice building from the state...".  All good things for Iowa, none which required the WTA concept in exclusion of the actual CAP model that everyone else uses, at least not in the other states who can make the same statements.

*lack of eServices use, however, is not a pure indicator of ES participation because a number of larger states still use the WMU.

[Johnny Yuma]

when col hodgkins was present in Iowa he made a speech.  SInce the speech was not recorded or transcribed I cannot site it. 

The col. made it VERY clear that CAP has a bloat problem, and that Iowa was on the right track.

Believe it or not

Yes, he commented at the last NEC that there is an issue with improperly reporting our membership numbers because patrons, empty shirts, and non-ES types are included in the reporting, not to mention the 1/3 of seniors who have never accessed eServices*, but that has nothing to do with validating the actual IAWG model, other than an indication that the idea of losing non-performers is a good idea.

There's a difference between moving legitimately non-active members to a status which is reported separately and making it so difficult, or impossible for some active members to participate that they just stand down or quit.

So far, in defense of how things are going in Iowa now, I have heard "the guard thought we were Boy Scouts and now they love us...", "...we do a ton of Iowa's SAR...", and "...we get a lot of money and a nice building from the state...".  All good things for Iowa, none which required the WTA concept in exclusion of the actual CAP model that everyone else uses, at least not in the other states who can make the same statements.

*lack of eServices use, however, is not a pure indicator of ES participation because a number of larger states still use the WMU.

Again, I reiterate..

1. The USAF, our parent organization, is interested in what we can field for operations in ES.

2. If your members aren't training in ES, they're dead weight when it comes to getting your training money, vehicles, even uniforms from DRMO.

[CAPrider]

Senior members though...if you get them past the first 2-3 years, you've probably got them for a pretty long time. 

That was my intent, having been in CAP for about two and a half years. This newest mess has me wondering, though. I have to honestly say that the biggest hurdle I had this past few years was the inconsistency of the national organization. It seemed first that the biggest concern was how pretty the uniforms looked to the National Commander's eye...sheesh, we had one change after another. (Oh, yes, those are being reversed, too....or are they? oh, yes they are.....)

Then the black eye of the removal of the national commander under 'circumstances'.....

Now the unprofessionalism of this newest debacle....

I have been in clubs just like that. Went to what I hoped was a much better purpose, and was hugely excited to see the professionalism locally. (I am still a member of the other clubs, just am not pouring my time and effort into them like I had been...for 16 years each!) Do I need another club? nope.....

[Ned]

Again, I reiterate..

1. The USAF, our parent organization, is interested in what we can field for operations in ES.

No doubt.  But they are also interested in what we do in cadet programs, where they also spend a lot of money for uniforms, training, mandays, etc.

2. If your members aren't training in ES, they're dead weight when it comes to getting your training money, vehicles, even uniforms from DRMO.

Hmmm.  And yet cadet units get vehicles, DRMO uniforms (on occasion), and training money.

Look, this isn't a "CP is better than ES" kind of thing.  But we are both in the same boat funding-wise, and it doesn't help to focus exclusively on one program or the other in these kinds of threads. 

Together, we move forward.

Ned Lee
National CP Advisor

[Johnny Yuma]

Again, I reiterate..

1. The USAF, our parent organization, is interested in what we can field for operations in ES.

No doubt.  But they are also interested in what we do in cadet programs, where they also spend a lot of money for uniforms, training, mandays, etc.

But they're not allocating the $$$ like they are ES.

2. If your members aren't training in ES, they're dead weight when it comes to getting your training money, vehicles, even uniforms from DRMO.

Hmmm.  And yet cadet units get vehicles, DRMO uniforms (on occasion), and training money.[/quote]

CP does have access to vehicles, but if a vehicle that is taking 10 cadets to an airshow is needed for an ELT mission the cadets are walking.

DRMO holds are being screened by CAP-USAF based on people training for missions. Happened to our Wing a year or so ago.

I've yet to see any training money for CP like is spent on ES at the wing level.

Look, this isn't a "CP is better than ES" kind of thing.  But we are both in the same boat funding-wise, and it doesn't help to focus exclusively on one program or the other in these kinds of threads. 

Together, we move forward.

Ned Lee
National CP Advisor

Respectfully, I understand. You're talking to a former cadet, second generation CAP cadet at that. But the reality is that CP takes a backseat to ES.

Take a look at the Logistics TA. There isn't much there that speaks for use by CP.

CP and ES is 2/3 of the CAP mission, but if you can't see that the USAF's interests right now are primarily in ES you're blind.

[davedove]

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.

Don't DEWG and MDWG have something similar?

I don't know about DEWG, but National Capitol Wing has squadrons that are actually in Maryland.

[JayT]

I think this whole Club v. Agency thing is a sympton of many smaller issues in CAP.

Let me state this clearly. Its a stupid discussion. CAP is both, and both 'sides' need to recongize that.

Obviously, CAP does many things. We have a cadet program that does all that marching and leadership stuff. We have an aerospace education program that does a variety of things. We have an ES program that does a variety of things, depending on the area, relationship with local government, local capabilities.

We have pilots who support all three things in one way or another. We have teachers, lawyers, firemen, bankers, students, policemen, etc etc. We have guys who are successful, we have guys who aren't so successful, and we have guys (like me) who are still trying to figure out how the heck we're gonna put food on our table in a few years.

Some people join CAP to help cadets, some join to fly, some join because they think they're gonna be stomping it out in the boonies every other weekend. Some join because of their own egos, some join to help the community.

But, like I said before, I believe that people should conform to the organization, then individualism comes later. Every CAP member should at least be farmilar with all three missions, even if they don't activity partcipate in all three.

Do you'll know how annoying and frustrating it is as a Cadet Officer to spend time teaching rank, customs, saluting, and respect, and then have some Senior Member come in next and say cadets can call him by his first name? Or call the Squadron CC by his first name?

Or, how annoying it is to have a SM say something like "I don't care about that ES crap, we don't do much of it" after discussion CAPs missions with a new member?

CAP isn't a club. Nore is it an agency. Its not a place for pilots to sit around and talk about flyin,' nore is it a place for a bunch of super ghung-ho SAR guys to pretend they're a technical rescue squad.

I think many of our members need to find a balance between all three missions, and realize how important each is.

[Nick Critelli]

 CAPTALK members:

If you respect me personally and what we have done for the Iowa Wing,
then please end this debate. It is destructive to the one thing we all
loved: CAP.  CAP leadership has spoken as is their right. I have
accepted their directive, sent a letter of congratulations to the new
commander and that should be the end of it.   The new commander is
entitled to chart his course, gather his leadership and march on. What
was, was; what is, is and what will be, will be.

For those who do not respect me or what we have done, I ask you to
please stop the attack. You are now in control; you are leadership.
Lead, take it no further.

In closing, remember we are civilians in a civilian organization. An
organization has no  reputation or credibility apart from that of its
members.  To get respect from the USAF we must show by our example that
we deserve it.

Nick Critelli

[mikeylikey]

^ Sir, I don't know you personally, but this letter most likely would have been better sent to your Wing after various emails were sent to Iowa State agencies. 

Your fellow Iowa Members are in the wrong, not us here at CAPTALK. 



(Maybe I can be the last poster on this thread before it gets locked???)


Best of luck to you Lt Col Critelli.