CAP wants more of my money

[JeffDG]

Understand, but it would be a minor change with zero budget implications except for the
lawyers who would probably have a conniption.

I'd be willing to bet NAFI would lobby hard against it as well.

It would have significant budget implications...specifically that the O-Ride money comes from appropriated funds, and as such, has strings on it from Ma Blue...don't know if they'd appreciate us using it for flight-training.  Regardless, it would certainly require their permission.

We can't just use "A" money for whatever we like.

[Eclipse]

It would have significant budget implications...specifically that the O-Ride money comes from appropriated funds, and as such, has strings on it from Ma Blue...don't know if they'd appreciate us using it for flight-training.  Regardless, it would certainly require their permission.

We can't just use "A" money for whatever we like.

Agreed.

It would take the USAF to buy in, but I don't imagine that would be a hard-sell.

As it stands, we're (theoretically) "budgeting" 5 flight hours per cadet for what amounts to burning
a hole in the sky for 45mins to an hour.

Substituting actual, log-able flight instruction for those eligible (age-wise) would be a zero-dollar change
and actually increases the ROI on the USAF's money.  It also uses the money for the exact same reason
it was intended - promoting general aviation, etc., etc. but instead of a pattern ride it has actual
value to the cadet in question.

It would definitely be a recruiting bonus, and if it was limited to say, Phase II cadets, could quell the
naysayers who would be concerned cadets would only join for the 5 free hours of instruction.

[Ned]

One of the uniques challenges CAP has in seeking outside revenue is the perception that we are entirely funded by the Federal Government.  (Which is only about 85% true.)

Large donors have choices about where to place their donations, and many of them are understandably reluctant to give it to us for that reason.  When I make a donation, I want to know that I am making a measurable difference to the organization.  Like some people will be served who would not otherwise be served, orphans fed that might otherwise go hungry, and perhaps support a new science outreach program for the Discovery Museum.

For us, we need to combat the perception that if the donor doesn't give us money for a particular program, Uncle Sam will pay for it.

That's a big part of why Harvard has a substantially larger endowment than UCLA or West Point.

There are specific strategies to deal with the problem.  Mr. Dotherow is happy to talk to anyone about it at great length.

But it is a problem.  Members like you and me see things a little differently.  If I kick in a little extra to support a flight scholarship or to subsidize a cadet's encampment tuition, I know where the money is going.  And know that if I don't do it, it may not happen.

[Alaric]

One of the uniques challenges CAP has in seeking outside revenue is the perception that we are entirely funded by the Federal Government.  (Which is only about 85% true.)

Large donors have choices about where to place their donations, and many of them are understandably reluctant to give it to us for that reason.  When I make a donation, I want to know that I am making a measurable difference to the organization.  Like some people will be served who would not otherwise be served, orphans fed that might otherwise go hungry, and perhaps support a new science outreach program for the Discovery Museum.

For us, we need to combat the perception that if the donor doesn't give us money for a particular program, Uncle Sam will pay for it.

That's a big part of why Harvard has a substantially larger endowment than UCLA or West Point.

There are specific strategies to deal with the problem.  Mr. Dotherow is happy to talk to anyone about it at great length.

But it is a problem.  Members like you and me see things a little differently.  If I kick in a little extra to support a flight scholarship or to subsidize a cadet's encampment tuition, I know where the money is going.  And know that if I don't do it, it may not happen.

Charity begins at home, if NHQ is serious about raising money than do it from external sources, stop trying to take money from the local units where the work gets done.  Maybe cut costs like mailing solicitations to members and cut paid staff.  95 - 98 percent of all staff for the American Red Cross are volunteers, they are a lot bigger and work far larger incidents then we do on a day to day basis.

[Eclipse]

One of the uniques challenges CAP has in seeking outside revenue is the perception that we are entirely funded by the Federal Government.  (Which is only about 85% true.)

Agree on the perception.  At the unit-level it's effectively 0%.

[Eclipse]

95 - 98 percent of all staff for the American Red Cross are volunteers, they are a lot bigger and work far larger incidents then we do on a day to day basis.

An interesting / good point.

NHQ tried to get us to augment the USAF through VSAF.  Why aren't volunteers augmenting paid staff?

In this day and age you don't have to be sitting in Maxwell to do the office work, or for that matter even answer the phones.

We hear about being short-handed, budget cuts, etc., etc., but never anyone asking for help.

[husker]

Charity begins at home, if NHQ is serious about raising money than do it from external sources, stop trying to take money from the local units where the work gets done.  Maybe cut costs like mailing solicitations to members and cut paid staff.  95 - 98 percent of all staff for the American Red Cross are volunteers, they are a lot bigger and work far larger incidents then we do on a day to day basis.

I don't think the paid staff could be cut any more.  As it is, they barely keep their head above water.

[JeffDG]

Charity begins at home, if NHQ is serious about raising money than do it from external sources, stop trying to take money from the local units where the work gets done.  Maybe cut costs like mailing solicitations to members and cut paid staff.  95 - 98 percent of all staff for the American Red Cross are volunteers, they are a lot bigger and work far larger incidents then we do on a day to day basis.

I don't think the paid staff could be cut any more.  As it is, they barely keep their head above water.

Much of that is the fact that the paid staff refuse help from volunteers.

[arajca]

Charity begins at home, if NHQ is serious about raising money than do it from external sources, stop trying to take money from the local units where the work gets done.  Maybe cut costs like mailing solicitations to members and cut paid staff.  95 - 98 percent of all staff for the American Red Cross are volunteers, they are a lot bigger and work far larger incidents then we do on a day to day basis.

I don't think the paid staff could be cut any more.  As it is, they barely keep their head above water.

Much of that is the fact that the paid staff refuse help from volunteers.

Not just the paid staff. It's from the Nat CC on down.

[NIN]

In this day and age you don't have to be sitting in Maxwell to do the office work, or for that matter even answer the phones.

We hear about being short-handed, budget cuts, etc., etc., but never anyone asking for help.

Preach on, brother.

My comment in the other thread about heraldry speaks volumes to the fact that the "keeper of the heraldry" in CAP doesn't necessarily have to be a paid HQ staffer.  That could be a volunteer (or a subset of the NUC, again, volunteers) and it would be better than having nobody "minding the store".

[Spaceman3750]

It would have significant budget implications...specifically that the O-Ride money comes from appropriated funds, and as such, has strings on it from Ma Blue...don't know if they'd appreciate us using it for flight-training.  Regardless, it would certainly require their permission.

We can't just use "A" money for whatever we like.

Agreed.

It would take the USAF to buy in, but I don't imagine that would be a hard-sell.

As it stands, we're (theoretically) "budgeting" 5 flight hours per cadet for what amounts to burning
a hole in the sky for 45mins to an hour.

Substituting actual, log-able flight instruction for those eligible (age-wise) would be a zero-dollar change
and actually increases the ROI on the USAF's money.  It also uses the money for the exact same reason
it was intended - promoting general aviation, etc., etc. but instead of a pattern ride it has actual
value to the cadet in question.

It would definitely be a recruiting bonus, and if it was limited to say, Phase II cadets, could quell the
naysayers who would be concerned cadets would only join for the 5 free hours of instruction.

Not all of our o-ride pilots are CFIs. We can always change that rule, but it has the implication of having fewer o-ride pilots.

[Eclipse]

Not all of our o-ride pilots are CFIs.

Nor do they need to be.

Regular O-Ride?  Regular O-Ride pilot.

Flight instruction?  Needs a CFI, and further one willing to give instruction.

Some wings might not even be able to do it at all, but it would be a nice to have, zero-cost option.

[Walkman]

I got the same letter the other day. I pitched it. Not because I was insulted that I already pay money for the program, but because I lost my job and I'm trying to launch a new business. I just don't have anything else to give right now. BUT fast forward a couple of years when my business is running strong and I have some extra cash, I'd make as big of a donation as I could to this (or another CAP) scholarship program.

I wasn't a cadet. But CAP has become such a huge part of my life and had given me so much that I'll gladly give a little extra to help future cadets gain as much if not more than I have.

(Yeah, the last time I gave blood it wasn't red, the color was 1620)

[antdetroitwallyball]

You were alone with teenagers, and no one had a heart attack? No one was inappropriately contacted? Man, some of the folks on CAPtalk probably wouldnt touch BBBS with a 10 light year stick.

Yeah, BBBS is a totally different model.....lol....

The background check was MUCH, MUCH more thorough. They had you undergo mutiple interviews, and you had to request papers from Child Protective Services, etc. You also have contact with the parent several times a week.

But back to the money/donations issue, everyone wants your dollar. Everyone wants to BE the "good cause," and expects to fund THEIR charitiableness with EVERYONE ELSE's money. Not inherently a bad thing, but it's gotton out of control.

Too many charitable causes that keep too much money for their own organization...

[Ned]

In this day and age you don't have to be sitting in Maxwell to do the office work, or for that matter even answer the phones.

In this area, the BoG totally agrees with you.

Which is why we have directed that the volunteer and paid national staffs be combined into a single staff supporting the organization at the National level.  Composed of both volunteer and paid members.


And to respond to another suggestion, I have pinged a few key staffers and we will take a look at creating an opt-out button for development solicitations.  Preliminary indications are that it should be relatively easy to do, but we haven't spoken to the IT crew yet.

More when I have it.

[FW]

Every organization I belong to asks me to contribute more than my annual dues.  Even those organizaions in which I pay for flying (Angel Flight, PALS), asks me to contribute more. Even the boards I belong to tap me for extra cash now and then.  There is nothing strange about asking, however giving is predicated on the value perceived.  I happily contribute more to those organizations which prove to use the money to provide more and better services to their "customers". 

CAP needs contributions to fund Cadet Programs and AE; as well as scholarships and infrastructure.  We all know that, however if there is a perception membership funds are being wasted, it becomes problematic to find regular contributors from amongst the members.

If CAP can show the value of contributing, members will contribute.  Kind of like the ARC, it's more than blood....

IMHO, it would be sad if there were an "Opt Out" button included in Eservices.  I would rather change the climate for giving, but what do I know. :angel:

[Mitchell 1969]

I think we can all agree that CAP needs additional funding, and that we should not be so dependant on a single source - Uncle Sam.  (Who although beloved, can be a little fickle and invents things like sequestration which can and does cause CAP immense problems.)

The Board of Governors' guidance is to broaden our financial base and seek additional revenue sources.  So we pursue grants, STEM funding, and additional customers.

And we hired a Director of Development, Skip Dotherow.  Skip came to us with an extensive background in fundraising in the non-profit world.  He has created an carefully crafted program that includes annual giving, wills and bequests, special fundraising events and campaigns, and all of the similar programs that every single major non-profit in this country utilize.  Because they are effective and help support the organization.

One part of that are the letters that many of us receive from time to time asking for additional support.  Obviously, they are not intended to insult anyone, if for no other reason because insulting people does not provide an effective fundraising method.  If you are unable to give or simply do not wish to give additional support, do not give.

Everyone -- including Skip -- fully understands that all of you are already engaged in CAP and pay dues at the local, wing, region, and national level.  We know that you support your unit in countless other ways -- providing supplies, sponsoring cadets to activities, kicking in for pizza, etc.  All of which adds up.  We really, really understand that.

But some members are in a position provide additional support, and are happy to do so when asked.  Particularly if it is part of a particular program and they can see where their particular donation is going.  To a particular flight scholarship, perhaps.  Or maybe to support the IACE program.

As others have indicated in this thread, providing volunteers an additional opportunity to contribute to the mission is both normal and necessary in the non-profit world.  ARC volunteers receive that same letters that have been described here.  As do BBBS volunteers.   Scouters, symphony subscribers, and the parents of every public and private school in the universe -- all receive letters seeking support.

Bottom line: seeking additional support from the fraction of the membership that can provide it is an important and successful part of our development plan.  But we also are aggressively pursuing outside gifts, donors, grants, and other funding. 

All of which enables us to better perform our missions.  Which is the real reason we exist in the first place.


Ned Lee
NHQ Apologist

His first couple of letters, in my opinion, talked down to the recipients. Either he has picked up on that because of feedback from the recipients or somebody at NHQ gave him a briefing on realities and actualities.

I didn't mind the tone or general content of the latest letter. In fact, as a long-ago recipient of cadet flight training, I'm sympathetic to the cause. But - I do wonder about how the campaign was targeted. It costs in the 5 digits for postage alone to send   out the mailers on such a shotgun basis. I hope more is donated than was spent.

Besides the targeting and expense - is there an actual plan for how to use the money? I've got a vision of somebody saying "We could use $xxx000, but let's wait until we get what we get before we come up with an actual budget." I fear that the solicitation was for a concept rather than for a program.

[SunDog]

I don't mind if they ask; it would probably be cheaper and as effective (or as ineffective) to do it via email.

NHQ has a real big lift, to overcome how it/they are perceived by membership. Those chains have been forged over a long, long time.  Makes for a tough current for a development guy to swim against. . .best of luck to him, for real.

I'll kick in a bit locally - can't see sending $$$ to a NHQ, a group that gave us eServices, WMIRS, gut-wrenching bureaucracy, and ethical dwarfs in command.

My sqdn doesn't have dues, which would likely not fly at all. We'll pitch in and cover for a CP need, if and when.  As someone else said - I'd have to see the $$$ impact, locally and clearly.

[tribalelder]

I thought Wing Banker was going to solve CAP's financial woes by giving the corporation an unqualified audit opinion.

Now NHQ wants to be in my will.

[FW]

^There is a big difference between accounting for every penny, and insuring each penny is used for the best possible purpose.
CAP doesn't have "financial woes".  It has a need to expand and provide better services to it's members.  Mo' money would help.  How to get it is another matter.