Reading through this thread, I seem to find that many of the programs that are mentioned have PAID staff at many levels. CAP has no paid staff in command positions. It's also mentioned a program between cadet and senior. In another thread a program for 18 to 21 year olds was suggested. It was not a new program, but existed in the 1970's knows as Officer Training Corp. It failed because cadets didn't join it as it was voluntary If made manditory and combine parts of the cadet and senior program it would work. (allow OTC members to take tests in the cadet program while training for senior programs)
Lack of funding would make an 8 week summer camp impossible for the average CAP Cadet. Other than BSA, none of the youth programs have a CPPT program and are designed along more military lines.

Yeah, there are a lot of people rumbling about merging CAP Cadets into AFJROTC.

Sounds like the formulation of a complete moron, to be truthful.

How is it that the Navy can have a cadet program (Sea Cadets) AND NJROTC without conflict but we feel that two cadet programs are one too many?

For starters, consider that the Sea Cadets (unlike CAP Cadets) actually have some pretty great training. There was a division of Sea Cadets at RTC when I was going through boot camp. They trained and ate alongside us. We were there because we were getting paid. You can't help but respect a kid who is there just for kicks when s/he could be at home eating cereal and watching cartoons.

What do we have to offer our cadets? We can teach them how to build model rockets and wear a uniform.

I support our efforts, however, I think if our cadet program is to survive, we need to begin offering some pretty solid training that cannot be had if the same cadet joins the BSA (besides an orientation flight).

One of the biggest barriers to this, I think, are those individuals who feel that cadets need to be involved in everything. I think one of the reasons why many wings have poor success in their liaison with outside organizations is that we want to show up to a crisis situation with a bus full of kids dressed in camouflage.

The focus for cadets should be on training. Lots of training. Training of all sorts. I think if we tell a 14 year old that they should come and train with us so that one day they can participate in the full scope of CAP's ES missions, we will adequately separate our cadet programs from our senior programs without splintering the group.

Heck, we may even help our retention numbers in the long run.

Looking at other programs, the BSA doesn't utilize a Wing Banker Solution..  The Packs and Troops raise their own money and use it as they see fit.  Plus, the packs and Troops get a large portion of the membership fees up front to help fund the new member.  Also, BSA supports their units with sponsored fund raisers like POPCORN..  Less hoops their leaders have to jump through and more support and trust from the mother ship.. But then again, a scout is trustworthy.. But I digress..

They're also a private organization with no reporting responsibility to Congress.

Quote from: Ollie on December 09, 2009, 02:56:25 PM
For starters, consider that the Sea Cadets (unlike CAP Cadets) actually have some pretty great training. There was a division of Sea Cadets at RTC when I was going through boot camp. They trained and ate alongside us. We were there because we were getting paid. You can't help but respect a kid who is there just for kicks when s/he could be at home eating cereal and watching cartoons.

What do we have to offer our cadets? We can teach them how to build model rockets and wear a uniform.

Considering the fact that CAP has an encampment on the same RTC, you might want to take a look at what CAP actually does, versus making pointed comments not based in reality.

We impart a lot more to our cadets besides rockets and uniforms.  If you're not getting that, its a local issue.

Quote from: AirAux on December 09, 2009, 02:57:55 PM
Looking at other programs, the BSA doesn't utilize a Wing Banker Solution..  The Packs and Troops raise their own money and use it as they see fit.

So do CAP units - Wing Banker does not change that, despite the fact that people keep trying to infer it does.

Quote from: AirAux on December 09, 2009, 02:57:55 PM
Plus, the packs and Troops get a large portion of the membership fees up front to help fund the new member.

Cite, please - no troop I was ever involved in received much financial support from the councils, and the vast majority of activities and
operational expenses were funded locally by members through weekly dues or activity fees.

Quote from: AirAux on December 09, 2009, 02:57:55 PM
Also, BSA supports their units with sponsored fund raisers like POPCORN.

Want to sell popcorn, knock yourself out - send a request through to the wing and start knocking on doors.  I have one unit that makes about $1k a year selling cheesecakes.  We also have the national program of selling wreaths which nets $5 a sale and requires nothing but door knocking.  The term you're reaching for is "initiative".

Quote from: AirAux on December 09, 2009, 02:57:55 PM
Less hoops their leaders have to jump through and more support and trust from the mother ship..

Yes, and there's less nitpicking with the PTA and your local CERT team as well - of course they aren't funded by the federal government,
and the last time I checked the BSA doesn't roll out millions of dollars a year in big, expensive, and in some cases dangerous toys.  The BSA is a fine program with a mission aimed primarily at social engagement and local community involvement.  CAP has a much larger scope
from a mission perspective.

Further, in most cases you can draw a line directly from something that has detailed oversight, or is prohibited, to some member who couldn't follow rules, file paperwork, or ignored safety.  I will grant you that the discussion there circles back to leadership and intestinal fortitude in weeding out the goobers, but that doesn't change the fact that if more people would just follow the rules and we could show a baseline, consistent performance nationwide, we'd have more leeway in requesting missions and funding support.

Quote from: AirAux on December 09, 2009, 02:57:55 PM
But then again, a scout is trustworthy..

No one is inferring anything about the Wing Banker Solution.  It is a fact, Jack..  It is a pain in the butt having to do all of the extra forms for deposits and withdrawals from Wing than it ever was from the corner Bank.  We were told that we would never have to do any reports anymore once the Wing Bank was in place.  We have to do more reports now than ever.  If we need money to do something we have to plan ahead, request it from Wing, wait for them to get us a check, etc, etc. 

Whenever we had new applicants for Scouting, we took their check for $50.00 for example, deposited it in OUR bank, and sent national a check for $6.00.  That gave us $46.00 funding right there.  Now, one of our cadets gives a check for $30.00 and a senior gives a check for $69.00, both to National and we get NADA..

The POPCORN was a national project, sponsored by the National Office and a lot of advertizing went into it.  It wasn't a small local, one shot deal that raised $200.00.  Annually, we would make $2,000-3,000 off of it.  Plus it was nice having the campsites owned by National (Although our military bases are owned by the military, we don't get near the support from them we should).

Our cadets don't get much benefit from the millions of dollars in large expensive toys.  Maybe a few orientation flights, but not as much as we could be doing for them. 

I know it's two entirely seperate organizations and they are vastly different, RiverAux wanted to know about other organizations so there it is..

^ I can't address the above without further high jacking the thread, except to say that Wing Bank rocks, and your wing must not be doing it right.  The rest shows you have local execution issues and a fundamental misunderstanding of what CAP is and how it works.

The BSA spoon-feeds, CAP requires initiative.  There are way more toys and opportunities available in CAP than the BSA for those willing to make the effort.

Quote from: AirAux on December 09, 2009, 02:57:55 PM
Looking at other programs, the BSA doesn't utilize a Wing Banker Solution..  The Packs and Troops raise their own money and use it as they see fit.  Plus, the packs and Troops get a large portion of the membership fees up front to help fund the new member.  Also, BSA supports their units with sponsored fund raisers like POPCORN..  Less hoops their leaders have to jump through and more support and trust from the mother ship.. But then again, a scout is trustworthy.. But I digress..

IIRC troops get zero funds from national membership.  Units are all self funded.

Quote from: arajca on December 09, 2009, 03:58:23 PM
They're also a private organization with no reporting responsibility to Congress.

Negitive Ghost Rider.  They are a congressionally chartered corporatation just like CAP.  And they do report to Congress every year, just like CAP.http://www.scoutingnews.org/2009/05/22/2008-bsa-annual-report/

Quote from: FW on December 09, 2009, 04:15:15 AM
^I don't think there ever will be a "separation" however, there have been some small rumblings about a possible integration of the cadet program with AFJROTC.

It's already "integrated" to some extent, in that cadets can have dual membership.  My first (composite) squadron had a few dual-status cadets.  It was often confusing for me because most of them wore their JROTC rank insignia and I was not at all familiar with that.  They also wore both CAP and JROTC ribbons, which gave some of them so many ribbons that it looked like just too much...it made General David Petraeus' ribbon rack look like that of a buck private.

If the two cadet organisations were "merged" it would not be an equal "merger."  One would absorb the other, and you can probably guess which that would be...the one with most direct Air Force involvement.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 09, 2009, 04:59:07 PM

Quote from: arajca on December 09, 2009, 03:58:23 PM
They're also a private organization with no reporting responsibility to Congress.

Negitive Ghost Rider.  They are a congressionally chartered corporatation just like CAP.  And they do report to Congress every year, just like CAP.http://www.scoutingnews.org/2009/05/22/2008-bsa-annual-report/

But they can be a lot more selective in who they allow in...remember all the lawsuits against the BSA over homosexual Scouts and leaders?  The courts have always ruled in favour of the Scouts.

I don't think we could do that, because of our non-discrimination policy, and the fact that since we aren't under the UCMJ, "don't ask don't tell" doesn't apply to us.

Full disclosure: I was a Cub Scout and Boy Scout for about 10 years.  I would have made Eagle Scout had I not passed my 18th birthday, so I have a good deal of affection for the BSA.  But CAP and BSA are apples and oranges organisationally...I don't think there's a lot we could import from them.

Of course, I have to plug state defense forces. CAP could learn a great deal from them, along with them learning a great deal from CAP. What I feel CAP lacks is a military sense. That is, there's not a lot of military customs enforced, and yes, this varies from unit to unit. I've seen some units that produce cadets (and officers) who could be mistake from actual military with a DI standing right in front of them. I've also seen some units who host members who disgrace the uniform. In turn, some SDFs could take a few lessons from cadets about enthusiasm. You can't serve your state if you don't like what you're doing. It would be a great experience for both parties, giving potential to develop a bond.

Quote from: CyBorg on December 09, 2009, 06:39:44 PMBut they can be a lot more selective in who they allow in...remember all the lawsuits against the BSA over homosexual Scouts and leaders?  The courts have always ruled in favour of the Scouts.

I don't think we could do that, because of our non-discrimination policy, and the fact that since we aren't under the UCMJ, "don't ask don't tell" doesn't apply to us.

Full disclosure: I was a Cub Scout and Boy Scout for about 10 years.  I would have made Eagle Scout had I not passed my 18th birthday, so I have a good deal of affection for the BSA.  But CAP and BSA are apples and oranges organisationally...I don't think there's a lot we could import from them.

We as CAP could also be as exclusive as the BSA but we choose not to.

Full dsiclosure:  Cub Scout, Weblos, Boy Scout (Eagle), Explorere and many many years as an adult leader.

While they are apples and oranges there is a lot of how they do buisness and run their advancement program that CAP could cross over.

The big difference between the two is focus.  BSA only focuses on yourth development while CAP has the youth development, the AE program and the ES program.

But beyond that in organisation and adminstration we could certainly gain a lot from them.  BSA has full time professional scouters at all levels of their organisation (National, Regional, State and District). 

CAP only has one or two full time professionals at the state level. (not counting the CAP-USAF guys) and they focus mainly on equipment and finances (yes they do more...but that the main reason why they were hired).

If CAP changed our National, Region and Wing commanders to paid full time jobs.....we could leverage that into getting more funding through donations, better coordination with state and national ES agencies.

I think we should be looking at the research that the BSA has done and the direction they want to go.  The link below has sections about summer camps, adult volunteers, recruiting in diverse markets and their financials.  Their Strategic Plan, 2006-2010, has 5 great guiding principles and their annual emphasis shows real direction.  It would be great to see something similar at all levels of CAP.

http://www.scouting.org/About.aspx

Quote from: BillB on December 09, 2009, 01:42:10 PM
Reading through this thread, I seem to find that many of the programs that are mentioned have PAID staff at many levels. CAP has no paid staff in command positions. It's also mentioned a program between cadet and senior. In another thread a program for 18 to 21 year olds was suggested. It was not a new program, but existed in the 1970's knows as Officer Training Corp. It failed because cadets didn't join it as it was voluntary If made manditory and combine parts of the cadet and senior program it would work. (allow OTC members to take tests in the cadet program while training for senior programs)
Lack of funding would make an 8 week summer camp impossible for the average CAP Cadet. Other than BSA, none of the youth programs have a CPPT program and are designed along more military lines.

As others have posted on other threads, I think that makes a huge difference.  Wing CC, Region CC, and Nat Staff should be paid positions - and those that get hired would be moved to the wing that needed them (after initial switchover).  Pre-req:  Be eligible for that position through the normal course.  (i.e don't hire from the outside).  But by the transfer process, wings would have the oppurtunity for the "breath of fresh air."

Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 10, 2009, 09:02:30 PM

Quote from: BillB on December 09, 2009, 01:42:10 PM
Reading through this thread, I seem to find that many of the programs that are mentioned have PAID staff at many levels. CAP has no paid staff in command positions. It's also mentioned a program between cadet and senior. In another thread a program for 18 to 21 year olds was suggested. It was not a new program, but existed in the 1970's knows as Officer Training Corp. It failed because cadets didn't join it as it was voluntary If made manditory and combine parts of the cadet and senior program it would work. (allow OTC members to take tests in the cadet program while training for senior programs)
Lack of funding would make an 8 week summer camp impossible for the average CAP Cadet. Other than BSA, none of the youth programs have a CPPT program and are designed along more military lines.

As others have posted on other threads, I think that makes a huge difference.  Wing CC, Region CC, and Nat Staff should be paid positions - and those that get hired would be moved to the wing that needed them (after initial switchover).  Pre-req:  Be eligible for that position through the normal course.  (i.e don't hire from the outside).  But by the transfer process, wings would have the oppurtunity for the "breath of fresh air."

I'm not sure where I'd fall on this. Having people who can concentrate full-time on CAP has its advantages, but you're going to have trouble growing people organically with these kind of management skills (i.e. have to be in CAP 5-10 years to get to level 3 or 4), and you can forget about transferring most people around the country for this job, especially if it has a limited life span of 3 years.  Few people would uproot their lives after building relationships in the organization for 5-10 years.  It would also impact their effectiveness, since they'd lose whatever network they had built to that point.

Unlike the military, or even most corporations, where there is consistency of training and legal obligation to follow orders, everyone below
the Wing CC will still be there on their own dime, with their own set of priorities.  How many would be inclined to follow a stranger into battle just because he's the new Wing CC?

And further, how many people would want to tie their careers to a situation where they can be held accountable in a very real-world way (i.e. fired) for the actions of volunteers who have no real-world implications for non-performance.

The Nat CC orders the Region CC who orders the Wing CC - they are all paid ee's, so they salute and execute, but below the Wing CC, you have to ask real nice, and then what if it doesn't get done?  Who get fired?  The random problem-child member can always be term'ed, but yo can't start wholesale bouncing people, because there's no consistent stream of replacements.

In the military and corporate world, you bounce the bozos and hire a new guy.  We all know the score in CAP, where the low-performer may be the only one willing to do the job.

Then there's the cost.

At a minimum, this is 100-150K a year plus benefits and expenses, and when you're hiring execs at that level you can't nickel and dime them about paperclips and copy expense the way we do to our volunteers today. 

So let's say with benefits and expenses we're talking about $200K per year.

That's about 14 Million - 1/2 again as much as the total operational budget.  Good luck with that.

And let's not forget that while the Wing CC is now on the payroll, the rest of the organization is not.  How do you motivate people with "follow me", when you're the only one in the room who doesn't have to get up early the next day for a "real" job.  Good luck with vacations - we're all taking vacation time to play CAP, while you're away from CAP on a paid vacation.  Excellent plan.

If the belief is that monetary compensation is the way to attract better talent, you'd be much better served by finding a way to get
CAP commanders integrated with the reserves in some capacity to allow them to partake of some limited benefits, perhaps be compensated when they play CAP, and garner a little more respect around the military water coolers.

This would cost a lot less (in hard cost, probably the same in soft costs), and generally preserve the volunteerism aspect of CAP.

^Having paid wing and region "executives" would be a more appropriate paid position, IMO.  Volunteer commanders would still be a valued asset in bring the member "view" to the organization via national and regional conferences; and serve as the contact points with the paid staff at NHQ and, of course, serve as the volunteer leader at their respective level.  These "executive" positions would be paid based on the amount of funds brought into the organization (something like BSA).  As the funding stream was solidified and, we had a much larger investment base (over $100 million), we could bring in additional paid staff to help at the group level (lowest paid level; like a BSA council).  These professional CAP officers could coordinate with volunteer leaders at the local level and help with special unit activities, local fund raising, etc. 
All we need now is to acquire some cash and, the will to pursue the idea.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 10, 2009, 09:34:10 PM
And let's not forget that while the Wing CC is now on the payroll, the rest of the organization is not.  How do yo motivate people with "follow me", when you're the only one in the room who doesn't have to get up early the next day for a "real" job.  Godd luck with vacations - we're all taking vacation time to play CAP, while you're away from CAP on a paid vacation.  Excellent plan.

How does the ARC have so many paid employees yet still have hundreds of thousands of unpaid volunteers?  They don't seem to have a problem listening to what the paid guy says.

But the reorganization of CAP to use paid employees (read National, Region and Wing CCs) would obviously cost more, but in reality 14 million shouldn't be 1/2 of our operating budget in the first place.  All that does is highlight our ineffectiveness to raise money to support our cause.

Additionally, paid employees tend to be held to a different standard.  Someone who is getting paid to do a job is typically liable for the success of whatever their responsibility is.  Not hitting recruiting numbers?  Not hitting fundraising numbers?  Congratulations, we're hiring someone else who is willing to do the job.

I don't think that the paid employees of ARC or BSA are disconnected from what the organization does or the spirit of it.

The ARC structure is a lot different than CAP's, and they are paying people and reimbursing them at a much higher level of dollar amount and a much lower level of management.

They also being in money at a rate that is geometrically higher than CAP ever will in its current form.  You'd basically have to be paying
people down to the unit level to compare the organizations.