Proposal in the mix: New Restricted Application: Member Attendance

[Tim Medeiros]

I've been thinking lately, mostly sparked by Col Hodgkins comments regarding the need to determine the activeness of our membership.

One way we could do this is have a restricted application in eServices specifically for tracking the attendance of our members, cadet and senior.  I would imagine a report module that would include a report on the percentages of attendance/activeness, percentage of active members within the unit, activeness by month/grade/etc, and more that have yet to come across my mind.  I would also think there could be a section for the addition of meetings and activities (two different catagories), as well as a "bulk update" where the commander or designee could simply select a meeting or activity they are taking attendance for, click a checkbox to select all members and mark them as "present" much like a program my school uses.

I think this would be a good tool for commanders at all levels, as well it could tie in with the Cadet Training and Promotions application that is currently being tested, as well as the online testing system that is being proposed in the Cadet Programs Proving Grounds.  In regards to the latter, a friend expressed concern that a cadet could take a test for a promotion without even having attended a meeting.

I was hoping to guage the opinion of the membership of CAPTalk to see how this would be received, and perhaps flesh out any problems.

[smj58501]

You can do this in SIMS if you want now. With that said the closer we can get to one centralized site )eServices) to track all the info we need on our members the better. I am for this.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I used to have to do a DA form 1379 payroll report after every weekend drill.  It is a Royal PITA! 

Consider that we not only have our regular meetings, but special training, exercises, inspection visits, etc.

Capturing this data would be a nightmare.

But, that being said, I like the idea.  I just don't know how this could be done without placing an unreasonable burden on the already-burdened local units.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Maybe a "Monthly activity log" maintained by the member, and electronically certified by the unit CC.

Everyone enters the date, the activity, mileage, and number of hours spent on an activity.  Monthly it is submitted to the commander, who certifies it and enters it in the national DB.

This would also help keep members' records on tax deductable expenses.

[RiverAux]

That won't work.  CG Aux has members report their own time and 25-50% never bother reporting time spent at meetings.  If this were to be done, it would need to be the responsibility of the squadron commander or personnel officer. 

[Pylon]

Extra administrative work for every squadron, every week just because National wants to get a better feel for some statistics?   No thanks.

We already track all attendance in SIMS.  I'm already required to report attendance at safety briefings to Group and Wing (and 952 other routine "Safety" reporting requirements, which IMHO are ridiculous).   I don't need another superfluous administrative requirement to complete.

How many units won't bother to report at all?  And What about units with no internet access at the meeting location?  Now attendance has to be recorded in one spot, taken home by a member, and then inputted into E-Services?  Again, no thanks. 

I am way too tired of echelons-above-reality creating meaningless administrative busy work for volunteers at the squadron level.  There's way too much of it as it is.

With all of the variables that would likely happen with such a system anyway, National could get a much better (and likely more accurate) feel by using a statistician to examine the attendance records of a select cross-section of CAP units and extrapolate the data. 

[Tim Medeiros]

If you already track this in SIMS, whats the difference from putting it into an eServices application which can be even more useful to those echelons-above-reality?  As well, whos to say that safety briefings can't be tracked by this?

[RiverAux]

Personally, I have tracked squadron meeting attendence for my own interest, but it isn't anything that is of any use to anybody outside the unit.   

[Tim Medeiros]

If its of no use to anyone outside the unit why is CAP-USAF/CC saying we need to find out who is active and isnt?  If we keep saying we have 55k members but we don't say how many are active how are we actually portraying ourselves to our customers?  Kind of *in a stretch maybe* goes against our core value of integrity it seems

[RiverAux]

The AF has no need to know and doesn't care who is attending meetings.  That has no bearing on anything.  They want to know who is active enough in the ES program to maintain their qualifications, all of it is easily available. 

[Pylon]

If you already track this in SIMS, whats the difference from putting it into an eServices application which can be even more useful to those echelons-above-reality?

A.  Because, in order to track everything properly, I'll still need to enter my attendance into SIMS, too.  You're just doubling the entry work.

B.  Not every unit uses a system like SIMS anyways.  There will still be plenty of units who won't/can't use the online attendance system.

C.  Re-read my point above about National having a much better chance at getting the most accurate information through a sampling and statistical analysis.

D.  This is still administrative work for the sake of administrative work.

E.  Even if every squadron in the nation regularly entered in accurate attendance for every CAP function ever, what would be the benefit to NHQ?   Knowing how many members really show up to meetings is going to assist them with which strategic plans?

  As well, whos to say that safety briefings can't be tracked by this?

Well all know that paperless solutions rarely eliminate the paper behind them. 

For example,  We've got MIMS to track progression towards ES ratings... completion of tasks, commander approvals, and all that.   Guess what?  My group still requires that paper SQTRs are filled out, signed, and CAPF 100's are filled out signed, attached to the paper SQTR and sent up the chain of command for the rating to be approved (in MIMS, which is showing identical data) at Group level.   MIMS was supposed to reduce and/or eliminate all that paperwork.  Instead, I just have twice the work.

[MIKE]

That won't work.  CG Aux has members report their own time and 25-50% never bother reporting time spent at meetings. 

I log mine... 'cause when I hit 750 hours, I get a ribbon.   

[RiverAux]

Me too, but we're "special".

[Tim Medeiros]

If you already track this in SIMS, whats the difference from putting it into an eServices application which can be even more useful to those echelons-above-reality?

A.  Because, in order to track everything properly, I'll still need to enter my attendance into SIMS, too.  You're just doubling the entry work.

B.  Not every unit uses a system like SIMS anyways.  There will still be plenty of units who won't/can't use the online attendance system.

C.  Re-read my point above about National having a much better chance at getting the most accurate information through a sampling and statistical analysis.

D.  This is still administrative work for the sake of administrative work.

E.  Even if every squadron in the nation regularly entered in accurate attendance for every CAP function ever, what would be the benefit to NHQ?   Knowing how many members really show up to meetings is going to assist them with which strategic plans?

I'll agree those points are valid, in regards to point A, what if this can be developed like the attendance section in SIMS? 

In regards to point C, how would National gather the data in the selected units?  What if those selected units see tracking attendance as administrative work for the sake of administrative work?  Doesn't become very accurate then. 

In regards to point D, it may be administrative work for the sake of the same, however shouldn't units be taking attendance anyway so the commander can guage who exactly is active and isn't?  If a unit isn't taking attendance then how would the unit commander be able to guage trends in their members?

As for assisting NHQ with strategic plans, it would be nice to know what exactly they are in order to see how accurate attendance tracking would benefit them.  The closest thing I've seen to a strategic plan is the call for a "paperless system".

  As well, whos to say that safety briefings can't be tracked by this?

Well all know that paperless solutions rarely eliminate the paper behind them. 

For example,  We've got MIMS to track progression towards ES ratings... completion of tasks, commander approvals, and all that.   Guess what?  My group still requires that paper SQTRs are filled out, signed, and CAPF 100's are filled out signed, attached to the paper SQTR and sent up the chain of command for the rating to be approved (in MIMS, which is showing identical data) at Group level.   MIMS was supposed to reduce and/or eliminate all that paperwork.  Instead, I just have twice the work.

Frankly, to me it seems your group simply doesn't want to update their practices to current methodology.  The group in which I reside does request paper SQTRs (at least they did with the previous commander) however we didn't require 100s and the like.  From my unexperienced side of the fence (emphasis on unexperienced) it seems that most people are very reluctant to rely on computers to store information, and rightly so in most cases, however some of the time I seem to get the feeling that it is more of a fear of change than fear of loss of data.  Kind of like "we used to do it this why, so thats how we're going to do it" type of deal.


Another thing that I had a thought of in regards to this possible proposal, it may be possible to track conference attendance needed for level 3, just a random thought in the middle of dinner.

It may seem like I'm trying to create administrative work for the heck of it, but some of us here already do this sort of stuff with SIMS.  I'm of the opinion that if SIMS can do it, theres no reason why eServices can't, things that I've seen people talk about on here such as tracking of ribbons and awards, attendance, CPFT entry, test entry (according to the white paper on online cadet testing this is a very real possibility in the next year or so), tracking of past duty positions complete with dates, past levels in specialty tracks, etc.  I believe in the potential power of eServices, and feel that in order for it to reach its potential we as members need to voice our needs and desires, not just to eachother as we do on here, but to the echelons-above-reality.

Now I'll sit here and wait for the comments about youthful ignorance and such 

[RiverAux]

I think you'll probably find a lot of support for many of the other ideas that you mentioned, but not for tracking attendance. 

[RiverAux]

Now, I think a very reasonable case could be made for individual tracking of member participation in ES missions.  Right now I know that in our wing that the number of personnel and man-hours reported to the AFRCC are probably pretty inaccurate, especially on larger missions. 

Knowing exactly how much member time goes into a search (and not just flight hours) can potentially be a very valuable piece of information when asking for funding from various agencies. 

Also, if it could be linked into the training qualification system it could make it a bit easier to renew your qualifications since your mission records would already be in the system. 

[smj58501]

Whoa.... who said this application would be to solely appease NHQ? I saw it primarily as a way for lowly sqdn cdrs like myself to track participation so I have facts to base a few decisions on.

Not everything on eServices should be/ is there to keep the information monsters above us happy.... a good similar example is the mission availability tool. My members or I can go in and input availability by day.... makes it real easy to plan crews days into the future as needed. An attendance tracker would be no different.

Also, use of this tool should be voluntary, just like the mission availability one. Its there if you want it.... otherwise carry on as you were.

The nice thing about an eServices app is it would be web based and it could be accessed from any computer. With SIMS I need to do a download onto one computer and do the updates myself.

[Eclipse]

This would get my vote.

I love SIMs, but anything that moves to eServices is my preference.  Not only are the apps available
anywhere you have internet (including your phone), but they live beyond the current commander and are available to every echelon.

[RiverAux]

There are much easier ways for squadrons to track attendenance than doing data entry on a computer.  Heck, knowing the way eservices is set up, I doubt anything there would be user friendly and other computer-based options would probably be easier.  An excel spreadsheet worked great for me.  Heck, the old grease-pencil chart on the wall works pretty good too. 

[Tim Medeiros]

Heck, knowing the way eservices is set up, I doubt anything there would be user friendly

Why not provide feedback to NHQ/IT in regards to this?  We are their customers, the only way they know something isn't working or isn't user friendly is if the people who are having problems tells them.  Its like a webmaster who has a high-speed connection tries to incorporate a website with flash and tons of graphics, while their end user only has a dial-up connection.  Only way that webmaster is going to get a clue that he needs a low-speed version of the website is if that user speaks up.  I guarantee nothing will change if we keep quite, if we speak up to those that can affect change, change just may happen.

[Short Field]

I love SIMs, but anything that moves to eServices is my preference. 

SIMS is nice but doesn't help manage the Senior Member's records as well as I would like.  E-Services is the way to go whenever possible.

I started tracking attendance on a spreadsheet (using the sign-in roster needed for the safety signoff) just to see if the Sqdn Cdr was really giving the good deals to the "ones who participate" or just his buds.  Very interesting to realize that some "very active" members hadn't attended a meeting in over a year.  I do like the idea of a grease pencil check-off on a wall chart for everyone to see.


One problem with tracking attendance (if you are going to base hard decisions on it) is you really need to add either an "approved absent" or add all activites.  I missed some meetings last year because I was on a SAR and other meetings because I was doing wing buisness - at a significant cost of my time and money.   So - should I be penalized on attendance because I volunteer to do stuff more than members who just show up for meetings?

[Tim Medeiros]

I was thinking there could be an "Excused" option as well for the taking of the attendance, that would cover cadets who couldn't make it due to homework or seniors due to work or other necessary committments.

[mikeylikey]

I was thinking there could be an "Excused" option as well for the taking of the attendance, that would cover cadets who couldn't make it due to homework or seniors due to work or other necessary commitments.

Do you accept the "I can't make it tonight because I have a lot of homework" excuse?

[Tim Medeiros]

I used it tonight, college is a pain especially when I have a weekend long activity I'm supporting for the wing.  I have yet to be in a position to have it be given to me as I have yet to be a commander, however I am of the opinion that school work should come before other activities, the only thing that should trump school work especially for a cadet should be family.  Case in point, I said I'm not going to school (when I was given the option) for the two days before my dads death in 1996.

Edit: for the record, I'm still working on the homework nearly done with one subject, 3 more to do

[mikeylikey]

^ True!  School should come first.  Hey enjoy your homework.  (Little secret......make friends with the smartest, know-it all girl in the class, and start saying things like "you were totally right in there about blah blah"......or "why are you taking this class, you should test out of it".......then one day tell her "I think since we are the smartest two in the class we should get together and study".  THEN hit her up for her previous nights homework so you can "check" your answerers)  May or may not work for you, probably not so much if your married?!?

[smj58501]

I was thinking there could be an "Excused" option as well for the taking of the attendance, that would cover cadets who couldn't make it due to homework or seniors due to work or other necessary committments.

Or it gets kept simple.... 1 column for present, 1 for absent, and a remarks column to fill in whatever information you deem pertinent regarding the members presence, absence, duty that mtg, etc.

On a sidebar.... in a similar vein but still a sidebar. This thread triggered the memory and it is too priceless not to share.

Best request to get out of National Guard annual training I ever got when I was a Battery Commander- "My wife and I are trying to have a baby. She usually is <paraphrasing now> 'most able to support conception' during the time of month we have scheduled for annual training. I need to stay home so I can...." (you can figure the rest out). You can guess the answer he got (followed immediately by me excusing myself to my office so I could laugh my fourth point of contact off for a good half hour)

[Tim Medeiros]

^ True!  School should come first.  Hey enjoy your homework.  (Little secret......make friends with the smartest, know-it all girl in the class, and start saying things like "you were totally right in there about blah blah"......or "why are you taking this class, you should test out of it".......then one day tell her "I think since we are the smartest two in the class we should get together and study".  THEN hit her up for her previous nights homework so you can "check" your answerers)  May or may not work for you, probably not so much if your married?!?

Good idea, not married yet, still working on the girlfriend aspect with someone in mind (so much in mind I'm planning to visit her 1200+ miles away before she moves to Elmendorf), even helped her with some studies the other night over the phone

I was thinking there could be an "Excused" option as well for the taking of the attendance, that would cover cadets who couldn't make it due to homework or seniors due to work or other necessary committments.

Or it gets kept simple.... 1 column for present, 1 for absent, and a remarks column to fill in whatever information you deem pertinent regarding the members presence, absence, duty that mtg, etc.

On a sidebar.... in a similar vein but still a sidebar. This thread triggered the memory and it is too priceless not to share.

Best request to get out of National Guard annual training I ever got when I was a Battery Commander- "My wife and I are trying to have a baby. She usually is <paraphrasing now> 'most able to support conception' during the time of month we have scheduled for annual training. I need to stay home so I can...." (you can figure the rest out). You can guess the answer he got (followed immediately by me excusing myself to my office so I could laugh my fourth point of contact off for a good half hour)

Good idea for the reason column, which could also be used with an excused checkbox either way works really.  As for your sidebar, one word, nice.  Thats a winner for the best excuse I've ever heard

[Dragoon]

The answer might not be in automation - but in policy.

If we could define what an "active member" is, then we could give commanders the option to put members into the "inactive"  status.

No need for a centralized attendance module - all you'd need in the database is the ability to declare and change active/inactive status.

I don't think we need to roll up individual unit meeting and activity attendance to the National Level - a decentralized approach makes more sense.

But the key is to agree on the problem to be solved.  If that problem is "how can we find out how many of our 60,000 members are actually doing anything", then defining active status and asking commanders to enforce it might be worthwhile.

[RiverAux]

An "active member" is already specifically defined in our regulations, but I realize that some folks want it defined differently. 

[DNall]

River, didn't we have a rather involved, including technical details, conversation about this last spring? I thought we woked out a real strong plan of action. I don't remember if this was before or after iowa popped on the scene, but we were talking about a reserve status kind of thing.

I do think we need to do this, and it's rather simple to do. I just want to warn you up front though that it's real dangerous. We got 52k or whatever members on the books nationally. You hear folks talking all the time about 50 thousand volunteers, Sar mission this & that. Obviously that's BS & we're talking about a miniscule percentage capable of responding in any given area.

If you start giving legit manning & capability numbers. A lot of resources (planes, radios, vans, training dollars, etc) are going to be moved around significantly. I think that's a good thing. The hard part is you still have to justify to congress, but now you have to do it on real world numbers. I'm not sure most of CAP wants to those numbers actually known.

[NIN]

we're at least using the CAPID scan part of SIMS.. Now if I can just get it to give me usable data out the back end in a promotion board setting, or when my supply officer wants to see who's "recently inactive" so she can get uniforms back, etc.

I can't do everything.. I've no CPU cycles left for SIMS, so hopefully one of my "two really savvy" folks will take it and run with it.

Oh, yeah, and on safety brief nights, everybody signs in before safety starts, and the whole squadron, by policy, is in the brief.  Makes for fairly accurate rosters.

[BlackKnight]

No need for a centralized attendance module - all you'd need in the database is the ability to declare and change active/inactive status.
[snip]
But the key is to agree on the problem to be solved.  If that problem is "how can we find out how many of our 60,000 members are actually doing anything", then defining active status and asking commanders to enforce it might be worthwhile.

^^^ What Dragoon wrote.   Absolutely correct!!! 
The problem for NHQ and CAP-USAF is that we don't know how many of our members are "active" at any given time.  It's a dynamic number and changes daily.  And the active/inactive status is probably unrelated to weekly meeting attendance.  I'm sure we all know members who haven't made a meeting in 3 months, but if the big one hits they'd rally round.  So the squadron commander or personnel officer should be making the call on who's active.  Not some attendance formula in e-services.

Besides which, capturing and storing on-line weekly attendance data on 60,000 people would be an I/T nightmare. On the other hand, if Walmart and Kroger can track what brand of toilet paper you buy each month... 

[RiverAux]

Yep, we talked about it.  However, I still maintain that the only active membership numbers that anyone in or out of CAP care about are those relating to our ES capabilities.  And as all our ES qualifications are available in services, if anyone wants them, they are already available. 

[Dragoon]

Yep, we talked about it.  However, I still maintain that the only active membership numbers that anyone in or out of CAP care about are those relating to our ES capabilities.  And as all our ES qualifications are available in services, if anyone wants them, they are already available. 

The assumption  is that a currently qualified person is "active."  This is not a good assumption, me thinks.

Some of these ES qualified folks have already announced they are going to let their membership drop.

Some of them have already told their commanders that they won't be doing any real CAP for the next year because of work/family/etc.

Some have said "no" when called out for every mission of the previous year.

Some haven't attended a meeting in so long that no one has current contact information on them to alert them if needed.

Some may have been restricted from participating in any CAP activity due to disciplinary action, ongoing investigations, grounding, etc.

Of course, any commander could scrub their roles and very quickly determine who is active and who isn't. 

Also, defining an active status could also be used to get members to meetings where important training is going on - for example,why the heck hold safety briefings if half your "active members" never attend them?

Creating criteria on minimium active status, and giving commanders the ability to put people into inactive status (with adequate safeguards against abuse) would give us a much better feel for how many folks we really have.  It would also motivate folks to at least do the minimum, whatever that ends up being, to retain their active status.

[tribalelder]

Does the guy who certifies your radios but doesn't come to meetings count ?

The CFI who spends a week at flight encampment instructing, but attends few meetings ?

How about the member who plans the menu for the member-cooked encampment meals ?

Collectively, our members bring a very diverse set of skills to CAP, and some of those skills may not be all that useful at Thursday night's meeting at the hangar/church basement ..., but a important to overall accomplishment of our missions. 

[Dragoon]

Does the guy who certifies your radios but doesn't come to meetings count ?

The CFI who spends a week at flight encampment instructing, but attends few meetings ?

How about the member who plans the menu for the member-cooked encampment meals ?

Collectively, our members bring a very diverse set of skills to CAP, and some of those skills may not be all that useful at Thursday night's meeting at the hangar/church basement ..., but a important to overall accomplishment of our missions. 

Could be - that would be a commander's call.  Is the guy doing enough for the unit he's worth keeping around?  Or is he just a name on the roster?  Methinks there are many more of the latter than the former.  And the former type could remain active by working out a plan with the commander to keep in contact with the unit and accomplish any mandatory tasks required of all members.

But even with that, there IS some value to meetings, even for these kind of folks.  Again, wouldn't you want your CFI, who's going to be trusted with the lives of our cadets, to be an active member in the CAP safety program?

Also, a guy labled as "inactive" isn't 2B'd - he's just not counted against the roles, not required to participate in mandatory things (like OPSEC training), and probably can't do anything outside of the squadron without regaining "active" status.

[DNall]

We're talking about active versus an administrative reserve status, not active versus kicked out. The member is still able to participate or not on thier own terms.

This is about fair & logical distribution of resources that back up & incentivize mission accomplishment, rather than vice versa.

If you have two units, both with 40 on the roster, 2 GTs, 4 pilots, etc the same. BUT, one of those units has 35 folks showing up & the other has 10. Do you need to be giving the same resources to both? Let me put that even another way. What about the unit with 60 on the roster, 3GTs, 10 pilots; versus that same 40 man unit. But this time the 40 man has 35 showing up & the 60 man has 20 & a bunch of folks that no one's ever met. Do you give more resources to the 60 man unit cause they look like on paper they need it? That's what tends to happen. It hordes resources where they aren't best utilized & keeps them from where they're needed.

From the Wg/Reg/NHQ/customer/AF perspective... we really need an acurate picture of what's happening on the ground. I understand active mtg participation isn't alone the gold standard, but it is a big part of that equation.

Let me put it another way. If you have one pilot with a gillion hours that has nothing to do with CAP unless there is free flying to do. And then you have another pilot with fewer hours but who is busting their butt to make the program work & would like to get some sorties. Why does the the first guy get the advantage in that scenerio? Why not the guy that's working his tail off keeping the program afloat, staying in touch with current regs & trng, etc.

That & where you draw the line on active versus reserve, and possibly if reserve means you get assigned off the unit rolls to a holding unit (doesn't preclude you from participating), those are the meat of the issue. The technical execution is just a minor detail for which there's half a dozen feasible options.

[RiverAux]

There are just so many possible scenarios relating to member contributions to the program that I don't think any numerical system will ever work, or would ever be implemented below the wing level.  At some point you've got to trust the judgement of the leadership to take everything into account and make the right call, and I don't see additional numbers really playing a major factor in their decision. 

The only resources that really get allocated down to the unit level are airplanes and radios.  They've already got a system for allocating the radios and I don't recall anyone here complaining about it.  So, if we're talking about planes, we all know it comes down to flying hours since that is a key factor national uses in decididing where to put planes.

[ZigZag911]

If someone wants to set up an application program for unit use, great....but keeping track of this at National (or any echelon in between) is creating a needless administrative migraine!

[BlackKnight]

The only resources that really get allocated down to the unit level are airplanes and radios. 

I don't know about you, but vehicle allocation is pretty important to our ground teams.  Those C172s aren't all that useful for ground team ops except for lead-ins and comm relays. 

[DNall]

It's not just how things are distributed, it's how much is allocated in the first place. When CAP & the AF ask for money from congress to administer CAP, & for all the resources & training that gets spread around, all that is based on information we know for a fact is highly inaccurate. Misleading congress &/or the AF or any echelon within CAP as a part of a federal budget request or information leadering to one is a criminal act.

I understand some people can only give a little time & some of that is very valuable. That's the definition of a reservist. However, we cannot support the program without a large number of members regularly & consistently attending each unit.

In all honesty, our units are asked to meet guard/reserve Sq level admin requirements for inspections, but our manning is in most cases well below a flight sized element. You could shut down a lot of units because they can't legitimately get teh job done, or you can redesignate most units as flights & lift a lot of that admin load to a more centralized Sq structure where they can share resources & actually do what's expected of them.

If we allow units to focus on one area (say ES or CP over AE, or flight ops over GT), and if we can't really man all the positions so we struggle to make it look good for the reports but don't actually do much. All that kills the program. You are not as a unit allowed to make those choices. All you are allowed to do is recruit & retain enough people to do the job. If you can't do that, then your unit can't exist.

I'm not saying we need to shut down units. I'm sayin we need to pour resources into recruiting & retention, into unit oversight & mgmt support, that we need to reevaluate the mgmt & pgm goals we demand of our units. We do need to look at how we manage & distribute resources, and how we allocate those resources between members that contribute at different levels. We just can't operate at all without knowing what we're have to work with.

[RiverAux]

I believe it highly unlikely that CAP would get any additional information if we could prove that our units and individuals are "active".  I've never heard that this is an issue that has been limiting our funding in the past.  In fact, we've had a major bump in funding over the last few years for comms and have been replacing a whole lot of aircraft with things as they stand right now. 

[DNall]

You mean additional money? Yeah that's right, we would not get more money. We'd get less, a whole lot less, and that's the point. Not that we need less money, but that we need to know what's really going on so we can see where our problems are & focus on/resource them correctly & efficiently to fix the situation.

Right now we just sweep it under the rug & spin that same BS party line that plays in Congress to ourselves & our customers. That's not close to reality. There's people maintaining their membership and maybe ES quals as well that hadn't been in contact with CAP in a couple years. If you look at what we have now though, that person is going to show up as a fully mission ready member in his geographic area. I'm then going to tell our customer I have X capability in that area based on those figures. I'm going to assign all resources according to that data. That just doesn't work. It disincentivizes (is that a word) the behavior we need for our org to operate.

[RiverAux]

(yes, I meant money, sorry).

The real issue you're complaining about is our membership qualification system then.  Evidently you think there is a large percentage of our folks who only do the minimum to maintain their qualifications and are not willing or cannot actually respond to missions or participate in funded training beyond those requirements. 
That is what you need to focus on, not worrying about meeeting attendence. 

[afgeo4]

(yes, I meant money, sorry).

The real issue you're complaining about is our membership qualification system then.  Evidently you think there is a large percentage of our folks who only do the minimum to maintain their qualifications and are not willing or cannot actually respond to missions or participate in funded training beyond those requirements. 
That is what you need to focus on, not worrying about meeeting attendence. 

The issue is then not the membership qualification system, but the members themselves. They should be questioned on their sanity first (why would they put in the work to certify if they're not going to do missions anyway) and their commitment to the organization second.

However, how sane can we all be when so many of us put in 30 or more hours a week into this and it isn't even our job.

[RiverAux]

There's people maintaining their membership and maybe ES quals as well that hadn't been in contact with CAP in a couple years.

Well, no more than 2 years.

Incidentally, I am on record in another thread as being in favor of increasing the minimum sortie requirements for aircrew (and probably ground teams) members in order to re-certify.  Not because I think that we're somehow misleading folks with our capabilities, but because on the face of it I don't think they're adequate to maintain proficiency in the skills. 

[afgeo4]

There's people maintaining their membership and maybe ES quals as well that hadn't been in contact with CAP in a couple years.

Well, no more than 2 years.

Incidentally, I am on record in another thread as being in favor of increasing the minimum sortie requirements for aircrew (and probably ground teams) members in order to re-certify.  Not because I think that we're somehow misleading folks with our capabilities, but because on the face of it I don't think they're adequate to maintain proficiency in the skills. 

Well you can't really expect that with only 4 SAREX's being done by Wings per year. Maybe if they increase the ES training budget...

[mynetdude]

Maybe a "Monthly activity log" maintained by the member, and electronically certified by the unit CC.

Everyone enters the date, the activity, mileage, and number of hours spent on an activity.  Monthly it is submitted to the commander, who certifies it and enters it in the national DB.

This would also help keep members' records on tax deductable expenses.

I personally disagree, this places more burden on the commander to do more work than he already has to do unless he can/wants to setup designees to oversee this.  I'm all for this idea, but not giving the commander more work.  I don't know where to begin, I can tell you all about our squadron's troubles our commander is about a year away from completing his term and he is buried so high he can't get out from under it yet.

Our squadron does something like this but not exactly electronically either.  Every week our previous Personnel/IT officer would print a sign in roster for the regular meetings and this is managed via an MSAccess database which I have now been trained to do for my squadron since his departure.  When the meeting is over, I send the hardcopy to an archival binder that archives the whole one/two years worth of meeting sign ins.

We still submit safety briefings electronically and by fax.  I generate a safety briefing sign in from the SAME MSAccess DB, everyone initials I get it back, enter it in via the WMU (Wing Management Utility) forward the copy to the safety officer who did the briefing that night he faxes it sometime thereafter.

I did see there is an option to enter meeting attendance as well, however it seems to be through the same interface you would do safety briefings as well.  So I have to experiment and see how I could report electronically for regular meetings as well as safety briefings. And btw, we also do the same thing for cadet safety briefings as well.

[mynetdude]

That won't work.  CG Aux has members report their own time and 25-50% never bother reporting time spent at meetings. 

I log mine... 'cause when I hit 750 hours, I get a ribbon.   

How do you keep track of hours? What kind of hours? training, meetings, admin work you do at the unit and/or at home? Etc?

[MIKE]

7029 Member Activity Log http://forms.cgaux.org/archive/a7029f.pdf

7030 Mission Activity Report http://forms.cgaux.org/archive/a7030f.pdf

7038 Vessel Examination Activity Report http://forms.cgaux.org/archive/a7038f.pdf

7039 Workshop Mission & Attendance Report http://forms.cgaux.org/archive/a7039f.pdf

7046 RBS Visitation Report http://forms.cgaux.org/archive/a7046f.pdf

[mynetdude]

Thats pretty neat, although I haven't seen any regs (yet) that indicate that CAP members have to log (or if they choose to) their hours to get ribbons.  I do know that members CAN log 10 actual missions (SAR, disaster relief, anything that comes from NOC/AFRCC) they get a ribbon but... then let me ask the member has to locate each and every one of those missions via NIMS/WIMIRS or the WMU depending on how you access your ES data per wing then you have to write/print that information down create a CAPF 2A Personnel Actions and list every single one of those missions and cite the regulation that says you are entitled for that ribbon.

We already have CAPF 45A and 45Bs these are also kept to record your activities however many seniors at least in my squadron are all still handwriting it in their personnel file do I as a Personnel officer (I just been recently assigned that duty) want to read all those handwritings? Sorry, nope I have 20/50 vision bad enough I need a magnifier I'm don't feel like playing find the needle in the haystack when its simple to teach someone to generate their own electronic CAPF45A/B and submit a copy each time they generate a CAPF2A electronically and attach it for the records to make things go smoother rather than just writing a bunch of stuff in the "REMARKS".

Additional tracking requirements won't solve the problem, at least not at the individual level. But I DO like the CGAux way of tracking hours and since it is done electronically CAPF45A/Bs can be done the same way I don't see why that can't be utilized in addition to the silly pink folder in your personnel file with the same information and hard to write in spaces because they are so tiny.

[SarDragon]

Thats pretty neat, although I haven't seen any regs (yet) that indicate that CAP members have to log (or if they choose to) their hours to get ribbons.  I do know that members CAN log 10 actual missions (SAR, disaster relief, anything that comes from NOC/AFRCC) they get a ribbon but... then let me ask the member has to locate each and every one of those missions via NIMS/WIMIRS or the WMU depending on how you access your ES data per wing then you have to write/print that information down create a CAPF 2A Personnel Actions and list every single one of those missions and cite the regulation that says you are entitled for that ribbon.

We already have CAPF 45A and 45Bs these are also kept to record your activities however many seniors at least in my squadron are all still handwriting it in their personnel file do I as a Personnel officer (I just been recently assigned that duty) want to read all those handwritings? Sorry, nope I have 20/50 vision bad enough I need a magnifier I'm don't feel like playing find the needle in the haystack when its simple to teach someone to generate their own electronic CAPF45A/B and submit a copy each time they generate a CAPF2A electronically and attach it for the records to make things go smoother rather than just writing a bunch of stuff in the "REMARKS".

Additional tracking requirements won't solve the problem, at least not at the individual level. But I DO like the CGAux way of tracking hours and since it is done electronically CAPF45A/Bs can be done the same way I don't see why that can't be utilized in addition to the silly pink folder in your personnel file with the same information and hard to write in spaces because they are so tiny.

For tracking ES participation, particularly finds, I  print out a copy of the closing traffic that goes out at the end of the mission, and stick it in their record. The record is periodically reviewed, and when there are enough missions documented, the 2a gets generated.

[mynetdude]

Thats pretty neat, although I haven't seen any regs (yet) that indicate that CAP members have to log (or if they choose to) their hours to get ribbons.  I do know that members CAN log 10 actual missions (SAR, disaster relief, anything that comes from NOC/AFRCC) they get a ribbon but... then let me ask the member has to locate each and every one of those missions via NIMS/WIMIRS or the WMU depending on how you access your ES data per wing then you have to write/print that information down create a CAPF 2A Personnel Actions and list every single one of those missions and cite the regulation that says you are entitled for that ribbon.

We already have CAPF 45A and 45Bs these are also kept to record your activities however many seniors at least in my squadron are all still handwriting it in their personnel file do I as a Personnel officer (I just been recently assigned that duty) want to read all those handwritings? Sorry, nope I have 20/50 vision bad enough I need a magnifier I'm don't feel like playing find the needle in the haystack when its simple to teach someone to generate their own electronic CAPF45A/B and submit a copy each time they generate a CAPF2A electronically and attach it for the records to make things go smoother rather than just writing a bunch of stuff in the "REMARKS".

Additional tracking requirements won't solve the problem, at least not at the individual level. But I DO like the CGAux way of tracking hours and since it is done electronically CAPF45A/Bs can be done the same way I don't see why that can't be utilized in addition to the silly pink folder in your personnel file with the same information and hard to write in spaces because they are so tiny.

For tracking ES participation, particularly finds, I  print out a copy of the closing traffic that goes out at the end of the mission, and stick it in their record. The record is periodically reviewed, and when there are enough missions documented, the 2a gets generated.

So, being the last person out on the mission whether you are at the ICP or remote base, if there is a find you will put them in the appropriate members' files? A great idea, except now you have to divulge into that much more time to getting to the locked files or locked room that contain the files.

I will certainly ask my commander about that, I have never seen anybody mention ever putting find information into a members' personnel file which seems like a perfect way to do it. Rather than having to go through the WMU and look at ES participation records, which can be done too a bit more time consuming because that information does not (to my knowledge) tell you whether you have a find or not all it does it tells you what mission # you participated in and in what capacity.

Since I am the squadron's newly assigned Personnel officer, I would like to find ways to have meaningful information in the members' files and make the job smoother and less time consuming when possible.

[SarDragon]

Our closing traffic goes out on an email list that anyone in the wing can subscribe to.

A typical message looks like this [identifying info redacted]:

Search mission 08Mxxxx was opened and closed 24 January 2008 for an ELT
signal in the [xx] area.  First signal was located and secured in a King Air, Nxxxx at [xx] Field, [xx].  Non distress finds authorized for [member], [unit] and [member], [unit].

Additional signals were df'ed off the coast and into Mexico.  Those signals were later secured by the USCG and authorities in Mexico. Non distress finds (1) authorized for [member] and [member], [unit].
*****

It doesn't take all that long to look through a couple of messages a day (probably fewer in your wing), and print them out. I have all messages from that source and with "mission" in the subject go to a separate mailbox, so it's even that much easier. I just use the tools that are available to me.

YMMV.

[DNall]

The mission qual system & attend are a bit related in my mind.

Back to the example I mentioned. If you have one member working hard on a weekly basis to keep CAP up & runing, and constantly training to do ES. That means they are up to date on the latest stuff. Versus they crusty old guy that isn't very active. They both show to a mission or SaREx, old guy busts outy his log book says he's got a billion hours & been a mission pilot for 20 years. That guy is almost always going to get the ride before the one that's otherwise busting his butt.

What that does is discourage people from getting/staying qual'd for ES, and discourages paying their dues keeping the unit afloat so they can eventually do the more exciting stuff. What I'd rather do is track people's contributions as best we can & reward the accordingly.

On the unit scale, it's kind of the same thing. I don't want to put a plane with a unit that will fly the crap out of it if those aircrews are just looking for a cheap ride & not really contriibuting otherwise. I'd rather put that in a place where it gets fewer hours but better quality ones with people that are here to be CAP members first & fly second (at best). Same deal with radios, vans, uniforms, etc. I know how we gave out radios, and the system we used to decide how many we need. That was all highly flawed cause we don't actually have any idea what's going on at the street level with our membership.

The real truth is CAP's active membership is somewhere the very low side of half what we say our national membership is. The ES qual'd numbers are far lower then that, and the actual mission ready not to mention also active in the program numbers are miniscule. You look at that on a geographic basis, and we're not capable of operating in any legitimate way. That's all anecdotal cause there are no hard numbers to work with, but you know it's pretty close to the truth.

I'm not saying CAP needs to go away, just the opposite. I'm saying we need to look at reality & begin addressing it right away. If we aren't willing to do that, and be accountable for the results, then we don't deserve anyone's money - taxpayer or member dues.

[RiverAux]

You're talking about a "good old boy" problem that will not be solved with any sort of statistical analysis.  A commander who would chose the old guy that is barely active over the young, super active guy is not going to do something different just because the difference is documented and recorded back in eservices. 

While I agree that we should not advertise our whole membership as ES ready volunteers, I don't think this is a big deal.  The AF certainly knows that we've only got 530+/- planes and that we're not going to put 55,000 people on them at the same time.  Just about all our other customers are down at the local and state level and they really don't care about our national capabilities in the first place. 

Now, down at the Wing level is where there is probably greater possibility for overemphasising our capabilities.  But, again, our folks have a pretty good idea of our response capabilities right now and if they're doing things right, won't overpromise.