CAP pensions

[RiverAux]

CAP has no pension system itself and CAP members aren't allowed access to any federal or military pension system based solely on their CAP service.  Many probably feel that this is appropriate since we are a volunteer organization.  However, it isn't uncommon at all for state police and fire retirement systems to have some provisions to provide pensions (with lower benefits, obviously) to volunteer police or firefighters.  One example I saw recently had a pension for volunteers that calculated monthly benefits at about $5 X Years of Service. 

Would you be in favor of having CAP lobby the feds to get some form of reduced benefit pension program for volunteers?

The obvious sticking point would be the fact that CAP is a membership organization and we would want to limit pension plan participation to members who were actively contributing to the organization and not just those who paid their dues.  I DO NOT want to discuss various methods of determining who is an active CAP member. 

Instead, I would propose that CAP pensions be limited to senior members who at least maintain current qualifications to participate in Air Force Assigned Missions.  This would limit the pensions to those actually directing aiding the Air Force.  Yes, yes, all CAP work could generally be considered to be aiding the AF, but AFAMs are recognized by the feds as different in that we can get federal workers comp if injured (and over the age of 18) while on an AFAM and the AF provides much more oversight of AFAMs than they do other CAP work. 

So, under this proposal, obviously ES qualified members would be included (may want to exclude those who only have GES), but would also include CD qualified members and O-ride pilots. 

Now, I would take it a bit further beyond those who just maintain currency and limit it to those who participate in a minimum number of AFAMs every year.  I think a good number would be 12 as it would be easier to sell it if you could say "the pensions would be limited to those who are participating in AFAMS once a month on average".   

I would also limit it to AF-assigned, AF-reimbursed missions again so as to have the strongest possible connection to support provided directly to the federal government.   

It might also be wise to not allow partipation in the program until someone has been in CAP for 5 years.  Otherwise we'd have to start a whole bunch of paperwork to get people in the system when they join, just to have them drop out after a few years. 

Following the guidance for workers comp which only allows it for CAP members over 18, we would probably want to limit the pension program the same way. 

Now, if such a system were set up with the limitations I propose, CAP would obviously need to set up a way to track member participation so that they could certify on an annual basis which members should get pension credit for that year and provide documentation to the member and the feds for that service.

One thorny issue would be when you would start receiving the pension since a lot of our members are older.  Someone may not join CAP until they're 60 and they may not leave until their 70s or until they die.  In other words, many CAP members would likely still be earning service credit long after those in other pension plans have retired and are collecting their benefits.  Would they not be eligible to get the pension until they left CAP?  That would be a disincentive to stay in the organization.

[RiverAux]

As mentioned in the thread I just started on CAP pensions, at least some states have pension plans that are open to volunteer firefighters and cops.  Does anyone know of any states that have pension plans open to volunteer SAR team members that might also apply to CAP members in that state?

[MIKE]

Merged.  No need for two threads on this.

[Pumbaa]

We have quite a number of volunteer fire squads in the boonies of NY.  They are actually quite good. We could model the plan after that. I would agree with the comments above that something should be offered for CAP.

I would think  that active members who are attending meetings AND are participating in SAREX/Training missions would of course be a requirement. So tracking should not be a major issue.

In regards to age I think there needs to be a minimum amount of service years.  Ie if you join at age 60 you still have to wait 10 years. (or whatever)  65 would be the base.

[JohnKachenmeister]

As the lawyers say, "Let us assume, in arguendo, that such a program was actually considered."

The proposal of the initiator fails to take into account the very valid contributions to the Air Force as represented by the AE and CP programs of CAP.

And, what's wrong with "Just paying your dues?"  I had squadron members who NEVER showed up, except when I desperately needed them.  While their participation was minimal, that minimum participation saved the day more than once.

If you want to do something like this, why re-invent the wheel?  We already have a point system for reserve participation.  We can develop a modified point system for CAP.

But just a word of advice... Don't try to fund this through investments on Wall Street.

[RiverAux]

The proposal of the initiator fails to take into account the very valid contributions to the Air Force as represented by the AE and CP programs of CAP.

There is absolutely no way to accurately track participation in these programs by senior members in any way that doesn't come down to somebody saying "hes a good guy...give him a pension".

Keep in mind that convincing the feds to allow CAP participation in a existing or new pension program is going to be almost impossible to do.  That being the case, we have to be able to show them in as strong a way as possible that the persons getting the pension have been directly supporting the federal government.  While the AE and cadet programs do that, it is only in a very, very indirect manner.  Trying to include folks who only do that would sink the whole idea.

In order to illustrate how hard it might be to make this happen, just recall that CAP members who flew active combat missions during WWII have never received any sort of benefits....

[RiverAux]

Merged.  No need for two threads on this.

actually, these are two very separate issues...
1.  Whether or not to start a federal-based pension system for CAP.
2.  A straight-out information question about whether CAP could currently qualify for any state pension systems that have benefits for SAR team members. 

[RADIOMAN015]

This sends the wrong message for wanting to volunteer.  It would be an administrative nightmare for recording & reporting & the potential for fraud would be overwhelming.   CAP has no problem in getting volunteers.  It isn't the same challenges that are faced with staffing the volunteer fire department service in many small communities.   I also think fundamentally that "volunteering" means you derive a personal satisfaction in helping others in need & has nothing to do about long term monetary compensation for your efforts.  Perhaps a better approach would be to improve reimbursement for current out of pocket expense (e.g. food purchase, choice of standard cost per miles verus actual gas expense, etc) during AF (or state) authorized missions.  I also personally would like to see the federal tax regulation change to allow a percentage of total out of pocket/unreimbursed volunteer expense become a direct tax credit OR be an "above the line" dollar for dollar deduction from income (rather than requring itemization).      
RADIOMAN  

[Duke Dillio]

While I am all for the idea of pension (solely for my financial self benefit), I don't know how you would track those that are active.  The idea of limiting it to people who participate actively in AFAM's only isn't, in my mind, a good option because there are some of us who don't get called for that many missions every year.  I can only recall one AFAM this year in my area.  There have been lots of missions this year but most have been in the southern portion of the state.  There are probably some states where they don't get that many missions each year.  I'm sure that someone out there would probably say "where is the money going to come from?"  Again, I am not opposed to the idea.  I just don't think that I will ever see it as a reality.

[Major Carrales]

I'd imagine there would have to be some standard for active participation in CAP.  Unless you just wanted a whole bunch of people gathing together for retirement insurance.  That is more like a frateral organization (Woodsmen of the World, Knights of Columbus et al.) than a service organization like CAP.

Still, it might be a way to offer long time members something that much more meaningful for old age along withthe meaningful feelings of service once feels in the present. 

[isuhawkeye]

I would love to hear form a CAP member in Maryland, or Pennsylvania.  Both of those states have VERY active volunteer fire/rescue departments with pension programs for service. 

[RiverAux]

This sends the wrong message for wanting to volunteer.  

Gee, all those volunteer firefighters and policemen participating in pension programs must be doing it for the wrong reasons as well....

The idea of limiting it to people who participate actively in AFAM's only isn't, in my mind, a good option because there are some of us who don't get called for that many missions every year.

Remember, doing o-flights and CD missions are also AFAMs and would count.  But, you're right, in that it would make it be more difficult for those in some areas to qualify.  But those who have done more missions have done more for the feds, and so should be rewarded.  I

ts sort of tough luck for some, but there isn't really any way at all to tell apart the guy who just maintains currency by doing a SAREX once a year but will never come on an actual mission from the guy who would go every time he is called but never gets the call.  

[Eclipse]

Would you be in favor of having CAP lobby the feds to get some form of reduced benefit pension program for volunteers?

No.

[arajca]

As a retired (1/2 pension) volunteer firefighter, you need to have a baseline standard. In any volunteer service you'll have those who exceed the minimums by a great deal (I did early on as a FF), those who just meet the minimums (I did at the end), and those who don't meet the minimums (I retired before reaching that point). As long as the member meets the minimums - which need to be realistic (IMHO, 12 AFAM's annually is not realistic, due to a lack of AFAM's) - don't worry about how far they may exceed the minimums. I would add a requirement that members actually retire (file the appropriate paperwork) and not just quit or stop renewing.

You may have some folks at the end staying to reach pension eligibility, but for most members, it won't be an issue until the end.

As for details of my pension plan - I paid $0.00 into it. I will get $400/month (full pension is $800) starting at age 50 (not there yet). The Fire District paid into the fund, which covers many vol. fd's in CO.

[Ned]

Perhaps we should start with a clear statement of the problem or issue that we are trying to solve with some sort of pension.


That would help guide us while we craft the pension "solution" to the "problem" we are trying to solve.


For example, I imagine that the volunteer firefighters have a significant problem with volunteers becoming injured or perhaps even disabled while on duty.  Obviously, anyone with family responsibilities would hesitate to volunteer for hazardous duties if there was a non-negligable  chance that they could be disabled to the extent that their family might be affected.

Fortunately, CAP members on AFAM already are covered by FECA that provides benefits.  (Sure, it is only based on GS-9 step 1, but that is far easier to fix than inventing a whole new persion program.)


And although I understand that you are attempting to exclude CP and AE folks from the discussion, could you clarify why we should do this?  After all, members who perform primarily ES are a minority of the membership, and if we -- as you suggest -- further limit the discussion to just members performing AFAM, then we are only talking about a benefit for a very, very tiny percentage of the membership


So what is the "problem" we are solving here?

[isuhawkeye]

I would disagree that the fire service uses pensions as a solution to injuries.  In my fire service experience I am covered under the department's work comp program, and They will even cover lost wage for missed time from my primary employer. 

Pension programs are a thank you for volunteering.  They are a recruiting tool, and an incentive.

My pension is paid in by my city, and it is the same pension program that I get for working for the state (IPERS) its nice getting that extra padding into my retirement portfolio

[RiverAux]

And although I understand that you are attempting to exclude CP and AE folks from the discussion, could you clarify why we should do this?  After all, members who perform primarily ES are a minority of the membership, and if we -- as you suggest -- further limit the discussion to just members performing AFAM, then we are only talking about a benefit for a very, very tiny percentage of the membership

Because quite frankly, it is those participating in AFAMS who put themselves most at personal risk of death or injury.  CP and AE are worthy programs, but there are probably tens of thousands of volunteers in federal government programs that do more or less equivalent work that have little or no personal risk but yet have a bigger direct benefit to the feds than those CAP members in those programs. 

The risk associated with AFAMs that is not associated with other CAP activities is  the difference. 

[Ned]

Because quite frankly, it is those participating in AFAMS who put themselves most at personal risk of death or injury. 

Some do, some don't. 

I suspect GTMs and aircrew are probably at a measurably higher risk, but folks sitting doing other important work at the search base-- like ICs, PAOs, and logisticians --  not so much. 



And does this response indicate that the "problem" we are trying to solve is compensating members for risk?

If so, isn't that kinda the whole point of our FECA coverage?

And if the "problem" is more like a "recruiting tool and incentive" , as suggested above, what is the rationale for excluding CP and AE?


But rather than have us guess what problem we are trying to solve, let me repeat my request for a clear statement of the problem.  That would certainly make this discussion more focussed.

Ned Lee

[lordmonar]

Does anyone know how much a pension program would cost?

I'd rather by ISR balls for our 182's.

[RiverAux]

I suspect GTMs and aircrew are probably at a measurably higher risk, but folks sitting doing other important work at the search base-- like ICs, PAOs, and logisticians --  not so much. 

As I was at the gym I was thinking that I probably wouldn't mind limiting the pension program to aircrew members since that is where the most risk of death seems to be.  On the other hand, the highest risk of injury is pretty obviously on the ground, but not having any info on the number of minor vs serious AFAM-related ground accidents, can't really go any further down that road. 

Does anyone know how much a pension program would cost?

There are way too many factors that would have to be decided in regards to exactly how the program would be run for me to give an good estimate.  But if you want I'll take a stab at it......
1.  Go with the volunteer firefighter benefit I mentioned at the top of $5/month X years of service.
2.  Limit it to those who have actual retired from CAP service (requires 20 years) and assume all participants have only the minimum years == Participant benefits would then be $100 per month = $1,200/year.
3.  Assume that 7% of CAP seniors stay in long enough to retire (not out of line based on a quick look at the number of people in my wing who have been in over 20 years).  == 7% of 35K = 2,450 people
4.  For the sake of argument assume that 25% of all seniors who reach CAP retirement have been aircrew qualified for that whole period and are eligible (probably not a bad estimate based on what is shown on the Homeland Security page).  2,450 people X .25 = 613
5.  So, we're at 613 CAP senior members who would be eligible to get the pension. 
6.  Assume that half of all eligible retired and started getting benefits right now.  307 eligible X $1,200 per year = 1st year cost of $368,400 + 10% admin = $405,240. 

Obviously, the number of people getting benefits would grow and probably would be encouraged by this program, so the ongoing costs once everything got going in 5-10 years would be higher. 

By the way, I wouldn't be adverse to this being a program where the particpant would have to make some of the contributions themselves in order to get the benefit.  So, the actual costs to the feds would probably be lower if we assume that is the route chosen.

I"m not terribly familiar with federal pension programs, but I bet there is an option out there like that that would be appropriate for us to get into.  Wouldn't advocate having our own stand-alone program -- not enough people to justify the admin.