Who else can CAP learn from?

[RiverAux]

Some are of the opinion that CAP can learn little from other organizations due to the supposed uniqueness of our organization.  I happen to have a much more open mind about this issue and think that there are many things other organizations do that we might be able to adapt to our own uses.  I often use the CG Aux as an example (and I bring CAP up often as an example on a CG Aux board) since it is the organization that is most similar to what we do.  Every once in a while we here something said about the Boy Scouts, usually in relation to a cadet protection-type issue. 

But, leaving the CG Aux aside, I'd like to hear about some other organizations, volunteer or paid, that might have some good ideas about doing things that might makes sense for CAP.  This can be in any area you'd like ranging from youth leadership development, general organization or administration, disaster relief, SAR, or public education (AE or other), etc.. 

No need for a thesis on this, but lets here about maybe one or two things that another group you're familiar with does that you think might work in CAP.  Name the group and describe the idea. 

[lordmonar]

Anyone and everyone.

With the caviate.....if it isn't broke....don't fix it. 

[GroundPounder73]

I would think community based, "civilian" emergency services agencies would be a great source of learning material.

[jimmydeanno]

I've always thought that CAP could learn a whole lot from BSA (Boy Scouts of America).  Not so much in the way that they run their actual program, but the way they run their business; fundraising, advertising, recruiting, etc.

If we exclude our appropriated funds, BSA has a fundraising ratio to us of about 265:1 on our corporate funds. 

As a business, the BSA should be a strong role model of "what to do" when it comes to ensuring financial stability of a non-profit.

[Майор Хаткевич]

If we exclude our appropriated funds, BSA has a fundraising ratio to us of about 265:1 on our corporate funds. 

Cappie the Eagle Cookies?

[AirAux]

I think we can learn about uniforms, rank structure, and fund raising from the Salvation Army..

[RRLE]

ARES/RACES - no rank, no uniform, very loose structure. Very few requirements other than an Amateur License and some ICS courses. Extremely mission focused and technically savvy. And there whenever the balloon goes up.

[arajca]

ARES/RACES - no rank, no uniform, very loose structure. Very few requirements other than an Amateur License and some ICS courses. Extremely mission focused and technically savvy. And there whenever the balloon goes up.

And only ONE, VERY LIMITED mission. No development training for members. If you aren't into radios, don't bother them.

[DogCollar]

The Red Cross and Salvation Army Disaster Response Services...any organization that can mobilize a large contingent of well-trained volunteers to respond to mass disasters is who we should seek out for advice and instruction.

[Airrace]

I would think community based, "civilian" emergency services agencies would be a great source of learning material.

I  agree with you.

[Airrace]

I think we can learn about uniforms, rank structure, and fund raising from the Salvation Army..

Fund raising could be improved.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Others have provided ES-related things, so here are some more on the cadet side:

US Navy Sea Cadets
http://www.seacadets.org/public/
They have a good relationship with the Navy, Marines and Coast Guard...a possible model for building bridges with the Air Force?
Also, they ask a lot more of their adult members...you're not even considered for appointment as Ensign until you've completed a one-year training phase.
http://www.seacadets.org/public/officer/trifold-faq-officer-low.pdf

Young Marines
http://youngmarines.com/

Army Cadets/American Cadet Alliance
http://goarmycadets.com/
Their requirements for their "senior members" are also a lot more rigorous than ours
http://goarmycadets.com/officer-and-nco-corps.php

And, of course, our foreign equivalents:

UK Air Training Corps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Training_Corps

New Zealand Air Training Corps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Air_Training_Corps

Royal Canadian Air Cadets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Air_Cadets

Australian Air Force Cadets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Air_Force_Cadets

However, their officers are actually commissioned reservists in the RAF/RCAF/RAAF/RNZAF and are paid, and these organisations are a lot more closely connected with their parent Services.

[Eclipse]

^ I wouldn't disagree with the idea we could take things from those other cadet programs, but it needs to be said that none of
those have an operational or adult component, the entire focus is on the cadets, which changes the dynamics of involvement and
training required.

[RiverAux]

Lets assume for the sake of this thread that we're looking for bits and pieces of other programs that might be adaptable to CAP, not wholescale transformation.

In particular I'm interested in hearing from those who are intimately involved with the programs in question and really know what is working and what is not about some particular idea.   I guess I was also looking for much more specific ideas that we can steal.  For example, what exactly about the BSA fundraising could we use? 

[lordmonar]

The BSA hires council (wing) and District (Group) executives.  They are charged with three primary duties.  Recruiting (new units and sustained units), Training (leader training) and fundraising.

They are hired full time to do these jobs.

If CAP adopted this....we could hire full time people to be wing commanders.  Doing their current operations job and add the fund raising part to it.

This would help to eliminate the politics involved with corporate command.

Also on the BSA model.  The District Executive has a volunteer staff headed by the District Commissioner.  The DC has a training staff and a cadre of Unit Commissioners.

The training staff conducts training on the level of SLS.  The Unit Commissioners are the eyes and ears of the DC.  Each UC has 1-4 units that he/she reports on.  They are required to make periodic visit to the units to check up on basic things....uniforms, following the program guidelines, etc.  They are the conduit where the unit leaders ask for help from the District staff.  If a unit has a bunch of new members and they need training the UC will report to the DC who then starts the ball rolling to get the required training.  If a unit is loosing members they can ask the UC for help who goes to the DC to get help on recruiting.

This is how the Council keeps eyes on the remote unit and insures that everyone is doing what they are supposed to.
The UC's are not inspectors like an IG team....but are more of a mentor/guide/pipeline to the larger BSA resource network.

Another aspect of the BSA model we could use is their summer camp system.

Most Councils hold summer long camps, that run 8-10 week long sessions.  They hire their staff for the entire summer.  Scouts attend the summer camp as units and not individuals.  If a scout can't attend a particular particular session he joins another unit and attends with them.  Each unit brings their own adult leadership (at least 2) at a ratio of 10-1.  The program is broken up into first year attendees that would be a canned program designed to bring brand new cadets to their curry-wright brother level...the rest of the encampment would be break out sessions offering different skills and activities (ES, Comm, model rocketry, advanced drill, honor guard, rifle shooting, O-rides).  Instead of the current system where everyone must more or less do what everyone else does.

Being regionalised we can get permanent facilities and it become easier to standardised the program.  Smaller wings would not have the burden of putting on their own programs.  It becomes easier to arrange military support for transportation, O-rides and weapons familiarization.  We save on overhead staff by consolidating (8 staffs instead of 51).

An added bonus would be that the facilities (assuming they were CAP property) could be used throughout the year for other events and even rented out to other groups.

Costs could be held down by using dedicated fundraising activities to support the facilities and subsidise the participant costs of the encampment.

[JayT]

^ I wouldn't disagree with the idea we could take things from those other cadet programs, but it needs to be said that none of
those have an operational or adult component, the entire focus is on the cadets, which changes the dynamics of involvement and
training required.

Unless I'm mistaken, the RAF(VR)T does have an 'operational' mission training university cadets (think ROTC) as well as providing them leadership training. Not the same as CAP's operational mission of course, but perhaps there needs to be a seperate between the Cadet Program and Senior program, ie, have CAP SM's NCO's and Officers in one organization and cadets in another.

[EMT-83]

The American Cancer Society does a great job with branding and volunteer training. Their style guide shows how logos are to be used and details include use of fonts, acronyms, capitalization, etc. Anyone not familiar with the ACS logo?

They have a volunteer training program that includes real job descriptions and shows how to establish and reach recruiting and fundraising goals, using a train-the-trainer approach to bring the message to the local level.

[Eclipse]

Unless I'm mistaken, the RAF(VR)T does have an 'operational' mission training university cadets (think ROTC) as well as providing them leadership training. Not the same as CAP's operational mission of course, but perhaps there needs to be a seperate between the Cadet Program and Senior program, ie, have CAP SM's NCO's and Officers in one organization and cadets in another.

You might as well just turn out the lights now.  It would cut the legs of CAP right off if members had to make a choice, plus, the split in organizations would add even further to the administrative burden.

[FW]

^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.

[Eclipse]

^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.

That might make for some interesting discussions, but the issue of ROTC happening on school time by paid people vs. CAP happening off hours would be difficult to reconcile.

[BillB]

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.

[Lt Oliv]

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.

[AirAux]

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..

[arajca]

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

[Eclipse]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

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".

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.

But then again, a scout is trustworthy..

[AirAux]

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..

[Eclipse]

^ 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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[lordmonar]

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/

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^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.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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.

[SDF_Specialist]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

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.

[Offutteer]

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

[High Speed Low Drag]

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."

[Eclipse]

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.

[FW]

^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.

[jimmydeanno]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Major Carrales]

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.

The "genuine" of operating Cadets in ES is what attracts a great deal of young people to CAP.  If we give lots of training with no chance for deployment, they might as well stay home and do none of it.

Real responsibility and real situations are what cadets crave.  They want to do real things, not train for nothing.

[lordmonar]

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.

Why would we shuffle them around so soon?  The only reason why we go those term limits now is because it is a volunteer position.  If it were a paid position I see no reason of keeping a wing CC for as long as he/she remains effective.

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?

Again I would draw from the BSA model and say that they do it all time.  Also ain't no one going into battle

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.

BSA does this all the time.  Someone screws up it is the professional scouter who gets fired.  On the other hand.....if your job is dependant on your subordinate volunteers following the rules.....how long would you put up with a screw up before you 2b him?

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.

Most certainly.  Johnny Squadron Commander starts off with the 'I'm a volunteer" argument.....you just say "CAP is a privilege not a right, bye bye". Then you start the work to find and train his replacement.  But unlike now....the Wing CC would have the time to this sort of work....unlike now where he has to fit it in between his real job, CAP duties and home life.

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

Because the job is hard work and now pay you only find those with the time on their hands willing to do it.  Offer the right pay and you will get real professionals.

And unlike Highspeedlowdrag I would not limit myself to just CAP volunteers for the job.  I would look for those with the management skills and passon for it first.......I can always train them to do the CAP side of things.

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.

How does the BSA do it?  We also hire 50+ wing administrators, how are we paying for 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.

Come on down to a BSA round table meeting or any other BSA event.  They seem to do it just fine.

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.

Payed by CAP or payed by the USAF what is the difference?  The BSA/Red Cross/Boys Club/United Way all have found ways to have paid staff and volunteers to work side by side with out disturbing their traditions of volunteerism.

[Major Carrales]

Ollie, if you train your cadets to believe in what CAP does...instead of unloading "a BUS full of KIDS;" you have a group of professionals ready to be a force multiplier.  I make it clear that CAP cadets are to be held to a "higher" standard than anyone else there age I deal with.  That they are expected to act as adults and will be treated accordingly.  That the moment they "act like KIDS," they will be "treated as KIDS."

You will be surprised how much a teen-aged cadet will fight for the privilege  to be taken seriously, to be accepted as a member of a team and to continue to do "real world work."  Because it is the status quo of their lives to be condescended to, excluded from the institutions/establishments and run through meaningless "baby games" that never contribute to "the real thing."    They will praise you and grow from the former, and hate you forever for any of the latter.

[FARRIER]

Ollie, if you train your cadets to believe in what CAP does...instead of unloading "a BUS full of KIDS;" you have a group of professionals ready to be a force multiplier.  I make it clear that CAP cadets are to be held to a "higher" standard than anyone else there age I deal with.  That they are expected to act as adults and will be treated accordingly.  That the moment they "act like KIDS," they will be "treated as KIDS."

You will be surprised how much a teen-aged cadet will fight for the privilege  to be taken seriously, to be accepted as a member of a team and to continue to do "real world work."  Because it is the status quo of their lives to be condescended to, excluded from the institutions/establishments and run through meaningless "baby games" that never contribute to "the real thing."    They will praise you and grow from the former, and hate you forever for any of the latter.

Joe, thank you. :clap:

[Lt Oliv]

Ollie, if you train your cadets to believe in what CAP does...instead of unloading "a BUS full of KIDS;" you have a group of professionals ready to be a force multiplier.  I make it clear that CAP cadets are to be held to a "higher" standard than anyone else there age I deal with.  That they are expected to act as adults and will be treated accordingly.  That the moment they "act like KIDS," they will be "treated as KIDS."

You will be surprised how much a teen-aged cadet will fight for the privilege  to be taken seriously, to be accepted as a member of a team and to continue to do "real world work."  Because it is the status quo of their lives to be condescended to, excluded from the institutions/establishments and run through meaningless "baby games" that never contribute to "the real thing."    They will praise you and grow from the former, and hate you forever for any of the latter.

That would make an excellent poster.

The reality of the situation is that we end up looking a tad foolish when we roll up with our bus full of "professionals" who, in the eyes of local agencies and the law are, in fact, KIDS.

It doesn't matter what the cadets crave. What matters is what we can reasonably deliver. The fact is that in many areas, a typical CAP cadet is simply too young to be considered a volunteer in a variety of ops because State and Local Governments calls the shots there.

If the state says a ground team has to be 18+, they don't care how well trained the cadets are.

That attitude is precisely what has us in this jam in the first place. Other youth programs (Sea Cadets, Young Marines what have you) focus on training. I'm sure you can find a group of highly motivated Young Marines who want to go to combat, NOW! That doesn't change the fact that their role at present is to train so that, when they reach legal adulthood, they can make the decision themselves.

Heavy involvement of the cadets limits the scope of what CAP can offer. Your attitude seems to be that the cadets are our mission and I am disagreeing with you. I am advocating putting the mission first and letting the cadets fill in wherever they reasonably can. Whereas your objections seem to favor dressing up some adolescents and arriving at a disaster with our chests puffed out because we command a small army of highly trained professionals who need to be home at a reasonable hour to do their math homework.

[Lt Oliv]

As a side note, I will tell you that your reference to training as "baby games" is offensive to anyone who ever served in the military.

Are recruits in boot camp playing "baby games?"

There is a time to train and a time to put the training to work. I don't care if cadets want "the real thing" they are limited in what they can participate by local laws and rightfully so.

I never said training had to be useless.  I think that the training should be redeveloped into something useful. If you think that relevant training is a "baby game" well, maybe your best service to the community would be sitting at home playing with your shadowbox.

[Major Carrales]

Heavy involvement of the cadets limits the scope of what CAP can offer. Your attitude seems to be that the cadets are our mission and I am disagreeing with you. I am advocating putting the mission first and letting the cadets fill in wherever they reasonably can. Whereas your objections seem to favor dressing up some adolescents and arriving at a disaster with our chests puffed out because we command a small army of highly trained professionals who need to be home at a reasonable hour to do their math homework.

We have three stated missions and Cadet Programs are one of them.   We allow Cadets to operate in CAP, it has been part of what we do since the 1940s.

Putting the mission first involves applying ALL the MISSION, not just a cherry pick.

In the scope of how we operate in my sphere of influence, cadets interact with our potential "clients" well before the disaster occurs.  They display and prove their professionalism prior to ever being called up.  While they don't fly the missions, I have seen them, during Hurricane Relief, play a most active and vital role in the AirOps room and they have distinguished themselves on Ground Teams even working hand in and with the Army.

They receive the same training as a senior members and, in some cases, end up more qualified in Emergency Services than those in certain offices who are "rustled up" to be an Emergency Service Coordinator.

[Major Carrales]

As a side note, I will tell you that your reference to training as "baby games" is offensive to anyone who ever served in the military.

Are recruits in boot camp playing "baby games?"

There is a time to train and a time to put the training to work. I don't care if cadets want "the real thing" they are limited in what they can participate by local laws and rightfully so.

I never said training had to be useless.  I think that the training should be redeveloped into something useful. If you think that relevant training is a "baby game" well, maybe your best service to the community would be sitting at home playing with your shadowbox.

I am going to dismiss the insulting tone as lack of experience here at CAPTALK and remind you to be Civil in your discourse.  You seem to, in the heat of emotion at my mention of your name in a post, have lashed out and deliberately misinterpreted my meaning. (most likely to solicit an emotional response from Veterans in an effort to discredit my post with a sort of ad hominem effort so present in our current political system)

Your last line is a hurtful personal insult that has no place in CAPTALK, especially since you have know idea what you are talking about.  I should demand an apology, Sir...however I have already said I have dismissed it.

By "baby games," I mean those school programs, like a student council, where students are led to believe they can make a difference and effect policy, but are instead given no real authority to do anything more than play with Robert's Rules.  These do nothing but discourage.

In the event that you have forgotten...
The Civil Air Patrol is chartered by Congress with federal support to serve as the official civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force. We are a volunteer organization with an aviation-minded membership that includes people from all backgrounds, lifestyles, and occupations. It performs three important missions assigned by the US Congress...

1) Emergency services, which includes SAR and disaster relief operations

2) Aerospace education for youth and the general public

3) ...and Cadet Programs for our youth.

That is FOCUSING on the MISSION!!!

[N Harmon]

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

You forgot:

- Build, maintain, and fly gliders and airplanes.
- Manage small and large groups of people.
- Survive in the wilderness.
- Give first aid to an injured person.
- Marshall aircraft.
- Defend computer networks from attack.
- Construct and repair airport runways.
- Work in space.
- Fly in military aircraft.

And that is just off of the top of my head. I'm sure there are tons of things I'm forgetting. CAP provides amazing opportunities that may or may not be available in other programs.

[lordmonar]

On the training and the use of cadets.

I would be wonderful if we can train our cadets and use them all the time but that is just not going to happen all the time.

We should use them when and where we can....but it is still not wasted training.

The Boy Scouts (to continue with a theme) trains their scouts in a lot of areas (about 120 different merit badges).  There is no expectation that they DO anything with these skills after they complete the requirements, except maybe discover a love for the new skill.  The idea is to expose scouts to a lots of things so they can grow and maybe become better leaders.

CAP can do the same with ES.  Learning to be a MRO, FLM, MSA or GTM give them skills they may or may not ever need.  We can still use them as a leadership lab even if they never ever get called out on a real SAR.

[davedove]

My thought is that we can potentially learn something from any organization.  We should not be so quick to throw out an idea because "we don't do things like they do."  Sure, our organization's environment may make an idea from another place unworkable, but we won't know unless we look at it.