Membership trends

[RiverAux]

A certain individual who runs a website critical of CAP (and who has been banned from here before) is claiming that CAP's total membership is now around 22-26K.  While this person has shown some ability to get some good intel every now and again, I find this absurd.  Membership in my wing has basically been stable for 5 years and if overall membership had dropped by half, I would think that trend would show up in my state as well. 

What about you?  For those of you with access to wing level membership data, do you see any evidence of such a massive catastrophe?

[jimmydeanno]

NHQ Reports in the Cadet Program Year in Review that cadet membership stands at 23,800 about a 3% increase from last year.

Certainly the entire membership can not be at that level, considering the younger half makes up that number.

[RiverAux]

Hmm, the report says a 7.8% increase for cadets over 2008 and a 0.3% loss for seniors.  I assume that this will match up with the overall CAP annual report when it comes out.  Not sure how "the individual" is going to spin this.  Thanks. 

That 33% 1st year cadet retention rate is WAY worse than I would have expected.  Something seriously wrong there.  I expect the overall retention rate to not be great since kids grow up and discover other interests, but would hope that we keep a majority for at least 2-3 years.

[BillB]

Cadet retention has always been poor due in part to what RiverAux mentions, outside interests pop up in teen years. But in exit interviews and emails from cadets, it also appears that loack of activities at the Squadron level also comes into play. One example given by a former C/Major was that his Squadron hadn't had a SAREX test or training at the Squadron level for four years. This would seem to indicate a poor Squadron CC, but more a lack of attention paid by Group and Wing to the Squadron.

[davidsinn]

INWG has around a thousand. Since we're one of the wings below the median I'd say 22k is absurd.

[Turk]

Here in the Northeast, NY has surged upward nicely, with several new units.

After holding steady for a long time, NJ has surged upward, too.

CT was 500 a few years ago - now they're over 700.

RI and NH have held very steady for years.

So... where in the country is this so-called "drop" taking place? Not here!   

[AirAux]

River, I find that if I can get a cadet to an encampment within their first six months, I get a much higher retention rate.

[jimmydeanno]

River, I find that if I can get a cadet to an encampment within their first six months, I get a much higher retention rate.

NHQ statistics back that up as well, only expanding that 6 months into "the first year."  I don't have them handy, but have seen many reports citing encampment as one of the best retention tools for first year cadets.

[Eclipse]

River, I find that if I can get a cadet to an encampment within their first six months, I get a much higher retention rate.

NHQ statistics back that up as well, only expanding that 6 months into "the first year."  I don't have them handy, but have seen many reports citing encampment as one of the best retention tools for first year cadets.

+1 - not only have I read the stats repeatedly, I have seen it first-hand.

[swamprat86]

Encampment in a year for Cadets and completion of Level II for Seniors tend to retain members.  I found if I could get them through these hurdles they tend to stay on board for several years after.  Otherwise, they lose interest or focus and drop off.

[Eclipse]

Encampment in a year for Cadets and completion of Level II for Seniors tend to retain members.

Both of those things require participation outside the unit, which opens up the "real" CAP for members who are struggling with poor
local programs.

[ZigZag911]

I think total membership is mid 50Ks...active probably 10-12 K less (just an estimate!)

[sparks]

A real distinction exists between members who are on the rolls and those who actually are qualified and participate. The estimate of 10-15% of the 50,000 total could be accurate but I have no idea how to get at a good number. The web blogger could be correct on active members but not toal enrolled.

It is true, O-rides and activities will keep cadets and seniors active and engaged. Just drilling in uniform and hanger flying won't satisfy those looking for more.

[RiverAux]

In this case he was specifically talking about total membership including those dead people who haven't been taken off the rolls yet.  We've got other threads to discuss "active" vs "inactive" membership....

[Major Carrales]

Now,

In reality there are cadets that join half-halfheartedly (because a friend did) and drop off, and Seniors that join and find they don't have the time, folks going through divorces and folks that move off to tropical Pacific Islands.

The top two I mentioned are what have curtailed our numbers.  Not much can be done to retain them.  The last mentioned there is one of our number that keeps CAP close to heart...there is nothing that will drive him off.

The point being that the key to keeping people is to have them emotionally invest in the program.  Simple marketing "perks" and the addition or remove of a minor benefit will do nothing to retain.

A trend that need to be looked at are those that join and cannot be retained due to factors that "all the WING King's horses and all the WING King's men could not mitigate."
These people should have been given a realistic view of what they could do prior and, instead, "not enlist" or delay their membership rather than becoming a statistic that Lt Cols Tom, Dick and Harry will later use as an specious indicator of "people are leaving in droves because _(insert agendistic point there)___ made them go."

[RiverAux]

Sure, those are some of the reasons why I don't expect that CAP's first year retention would ever be extremely high for either cadets or seniors, but when you lose 2/3 of cadet recruits in a year, that goes a little bit beyond just overselling the program.  I'm sure that is responsible for some of the losses, but not that much. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Sure, those are some of the reasons why I don't expect that CAP's first year retention would ever be extremely high for either cadets or seniors, but when you lose 2/3 of cadet recruits in a year, that goes a little bit beyond just overselling the program.  I'm sure that is responsible for some of the losses, but not that much. 

From a cadet perspective, and having had almost all cadets that started with me/after me quit at some point, I'd say it is. The program is presented to them wrong (The flying lessons, disaster work, etc, etc), or they find other interests that (at this age is easy) interest them more.

[EMT-83]

To echo comments by Major Carrales, an honest conversation with prospective members before accepting their application could go a long way towards keeping non-renewal numbers down. I've had several folks reconsider joining upon learning that CAP membership is a two-way street – CAP offers a lot to its members, but they also need to bring something to the table. The pilot interested only in "free" flying, the ex-military guy who wants to "straighten out" cadets, the resume-builder who wants to belong but doesn't want to participate. All of them have walked in, and back out of, our door prior to submitting an application.

We did O-flights for 12 new cadets today. Judging by the smiles on their faces, they all had a great day. The challenge is keeping that enthusiasm alive and giving them a reason to stay in the program.

[RiverAux]

This has always been a definite issue with senior members, but the cadet program on the other hand is pretty straight forward. 

I just reviewed the survey of new cadets and I think I see the problem
http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=v_2bzFsXpUeMVr7NIFa2LAJHXOMCJrqyWfvatQnKvS_2bvY_3d
Top reasons for joining CAP:
1.  Interested in military 75%
2.  To learn to fly  69%
3.  Help my community 53%
4.  scholarships 39%

I suspect the "help my community" response is really a stand in for emergency services.  So, if these cadets joined expecting to learn to fly and to do ES, they were going to be extremely disappointed in the fact that almost no cadets learn to fly in CAP.  And quite frankly ES involvement by cadets varies a great deal and the chances of them joining a squadron that doesn't use cadets in this area is high. 

Now, the exit survey NHQ did isn't very enlightening as it mixes together answers from cadets who have been in the program for more than 2 years with those that left before, so I don't think we can tell much from it about why 2/3 of cadets leave in their first year. 

[RADIOMAN015]

According to "State of the Organization: 'Health of CAP'" article in the "Civil Air Patrol, Volunteer" magazine Nov/Dec 2009 edition, it states that CAP membership enjoyed a substantial increase last year (I would assume fiscal year basis?), up 6.5%, just shy of 58K members:  34,736 senior members, & 23, 233 cadets.  It interesting to note that when the article starts off with "Members are CAP's most important assets", "BUT with the economy in trouble, membership is apt to decline as individuals find it harder to pay dues, leave work for CAP assignments or invest in CAP activities".

Now it seemed to me this was kind of a "mixed" message.  Apparently actual membership results were much better than expected.

Since CAP is in "the numbers game" so to speak anyways, whether membership is up or down from a mission capability standpoint has little affect unless you are losing "trained" members.  So it is possible that you are loosing experienced members (via drop out from active participation) and actually gaining a much less qualified senior members.

From a cadet membership standpoint, frankly I can't recall very many cadets attending EVERY CAP squadron meeting for a 1 year period in my squadron.   Senior membership wise it is even worse as far as actively attending squadron meeting.   I think our squadron commander is going to be doing some follouwp with senior members early in 2010.

Again, I just don't think that overall membership stats really are a good indicator of the health of the organization, without further analysis.
RM