Again, forgive me if this has been brought up before. Search was not very accurate.
I'm about ready to start building our squadron webpage...I've noticed our wing web site isn't a *.cap.gov but an individual identifier. I would prefer to avoid using any personal email published on the page.
Is there any way to get an official *.cap.gov email address?
Please Don't Flame me if this has been beaten into the ground :D
You might be able to go through your wing IT folks. Some wings, like CAWG, offer name@wing.cap.gov email addys. I have one myself.
Thanks,
I sent an email into wing...but I don't think ours is an "official" page... it's a .org rather than .cap.gov
Most webhosting companies offer emails... Mine gives me unlimited. (my server gives me unlimited too, but I don't want to waste space installing the software.)
It'd let you create name@yoursquadron.org
Or you can do recruiting@yoursquadron.org, or whatever that is needed
That was one thing that confused me--I don't recall the exact publication at the moment but I thought any official wing page had to be [region].cap.gov but I guess i'm mistaken.
Quote from: etc on November 18, 2011, 08:13:05 AM
Thanks,
I sent an email into wing...but I don't think ours is an "official" page... it's a .org rather than .cap.gov
Email and web page can be independent. My unit's web page isn't hosted by the wing, but email addys (as described above) are still available.
Are you working on the wing level web page, or a squadron page? AFAIK, neither needs to be on a .cap.gov domain.
I'm working on a squadron page which is going to be linked to our wing page. While browsing other wings I found several that were linked directly to .cap.gov
I was just curious as to the protocol.
Quote from: etc on November 18, 2011, 08:50:03 AM
That was one thing that confused me--I don't recall the exact publication at the moment but I thought any official wing page had to be [region].cap.gov but I guess i'm mistaken.
Nope...Review CAPR 110-1 (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/u_082503080020.pdf (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/u_082503080020.pdf))...and yes, it is dated!
There are rules for using .cap.gov, but no requirement that you use it. You do need put a footer on the pages stating the unit sponsoring the page and a few other points.
In fact, I know my region page is not in the cap.gov (wing is) at http://sercap.us (http://sercap.us)
Quote from: JeffDG on November 18, 2011, 12:46:14 PM
In fact, I know my region page is not in the cap.gov (wing is) at http://sercap.us (http://sercap.us)
It is totally off-topic, but it is interesting to note that the first 14 articles in the "News" section of the SER website cover Florida Wing activities. (The 15th article announces the election of the then-new national commander).
We now rejoin your regularly scheduled thread already in progress.
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on November 18, 2011, 02:28:15 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on November 18, 2011, 12:46:14 PM
In fact, I know my region page is not in the cap.gov (wing is) at http://sercap.us (http://sercap.us)
It is totally off-topic, but it is interesting to note that the first 14 articles in the "News" section of the SER website cover Florida Wing activities. (The 15th article announces the election of the then-new national commander).
We now rejoin your regularly scheduled thread already in progress.
Obviously, this is because FLWG has the best PA program in the nation... No surprise there though. :)
Quote from: Woodsy on November 18, 2011, 04:49:34 PM
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on November 18, 2011, 02:28:15 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on November 18, 2011, 12:46:14 PM
In fact, I know my region page is not in the cap.gov (wing is) at http://sercap.us (http://sercap.us)
It is totally off-topic, but it is interesting to note that the first 14 articles in the "News" section of the SER website cover Florida Wing activities. (The 15th article announces the election of the then-new national commander).
We now rejoin your regularly scheduled thread already in progress.
Obviously, this is because FLWG has the best PA program in the nation... No surprise there though. :)
...and FLWG does much more than most Wings (thereby PAOs have much more to report), and has many more members than most other Wings as well.
Put it this way, my Group was larger and more active than some Wings, and in some cases multiple Wings combined. More than a few times, it was noted that my role as Group/CP was much more like the duties of a Wing/DCP, or a Region/DCP in some cases.
Even Florida Wing should be larger than it is now. Every brags about how "huge" Florida is. Ranked by population, they're not very far from the bottom.
Florida should have 8X the members they have now if they had penetration rates of some of the smaller states.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 18, 2011, 06:48:47 PM
Even Florida Wing should be larger than it is now. Every brags about how "huge" Florida is. Ranked by population, they're not very far from the bottom.
Florida should have 8X the members they have now if they had penetration rates of some of the smaller states.
Actually, only partly true.
Florida
| Population | Ranked 4th in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population) |
| - Total | 18,801,310 (2010 Census (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Census))[4] |
| - Density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) | 350.6/sq mi (135.4/km2)
Ranked 10th in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) |
California
| Population | Ranked 1st in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population) |
| - Total | 37,253,956 |
| - Density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) | 234.4/sq mi (90.49/km2)
Ranked 11th in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) |
Texas
| Population | Ranked 2nd in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population) |
| - Total | 25,145,561 (2010 Census)[5] |
| - Density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) | 96.3[6]/sq mi (37.2/km2)
Ranked 26th in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) |
The three biggest wings are in three of the four most populace states. Densities for two of the three are similar.
Florida apparently has more people than you think.
New York (to fill in the top four in population)
| Population | Ranked 3rd in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population) |
| - Total | 19,378,102 (2010 Census)[3] |
| - Density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) | 408.7/sq mi (157.81/km2)
Ranked 7th in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) |
I'm not sure how it fits into the wing population chart.
If someone can provide the wing membership numbers, or a source, I'll take the time to do the comparisons.
Quote from: SarDragon on November 19, 2011, 07:43:26 AM
If someone can provide the wing membership numbers, or a source, I'll take the time to do the comparisons.
I would love to see a comparison of wing size and wing size V. population. I think it would be fascinating.
Quote from: SarDragon on November 19, 2011, 07:43:26 AM
If someone can provide the wing membership numbers, or a source, I'll take the time to do the comparisons.
FLWG: ~4,250 members
Quote from: DBlair on November 19, 2011, 08:09:22 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on November 19, 2011, 07:43:26 AM
If someone can provide the wing membership numbers, or a source, I'll take the time to do the comparisons.
FLWG: ~4,250 members
CAWG has 3,694, so we're probably #2 or #3, and with Texas being the other of the top 3. They've been swapping around for the last bunch of years.
How many Wings have had Wing-widerecruiting efforts in recent years. Seems to be that any recruiting effort is at the Squadron level only. Florida Wing hasn't had a Wing-wide recruiting program since 1963 that I've been able to find.
It should also be noted that FLWG has 4247 members while RMR (total) has 3735, just sayin.
Also food for thought, NCR has 4496, FLWG almost has them beat too.
Quote from: SarDragon link=topic=14191.msig256649#msg256649 date=1321688506
Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 18, 2011, 06:48:47 PM
Even Florida Wing should be larger than it is now. Every brags about how "huge" Florida is. Ranked by population, they're not very far from the bottom.
Florida should have 8X the members they have now if they had penetration rates of some of the smaller states.
Actually, only partly true.
Florida
| Population | Ranked 4th in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population) |
| - Total | 18,801,310 (2010 Census (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Census))[4] |
| - Density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) | 350.6/sq mi (135.4/km2)
Ranked 10th in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) |
California
| Population | Ranked 1st in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population) |
| - Total | 37,253,956 |
| - Density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) | 234.4/sq mi (90.49/km2)
Ranked 11th in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) |
Texas
| Population | Ranked 2nd in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population) |
| - Total | 25,145,561 (2010 Census)[5] |
| - Density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) | 96.3[6]/sq mi (37.2/km2)
Ranked 26th in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) |
The three biggest wings are in three of the four most populace states. Densities for two of the three are similar.
Florida apparently has more people than you think.
New York (to fill in the top four in population)
| Population | Ranked 3rd in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population) |
| - Total | 19,378,102 (2010 Census)[3] |
| - Density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) | 408.7/sq mi (157.81/km2)
Ranked 7th in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density) |
I'm not sure how it fits into the wing population chart.
My point was that NH has near 1K members with just over 1million in population. Ergo, Florida should have 18k members, but they don't have anything close.
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on November 19, 2011, 02:17:12 PM
It should also be noted that FLWG has 4247 members while RMR (total) has 3735, just sayin.
Also food for thought, NCR has 4496, FLWG almost has them beat too.
Population for FL - 18,801,000
Population for RMR - 10,914,000 (CO,UT,MT,ID,WY)
% membership FLWG - 0.023%
% membership RMR - 0.034%
LAWG: 581 total members
LA POP: 4,492,076
Membership % LAWG: .012%
Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 19, 2011, 02:18:11 PM
My point was that NH has near 1K members with just over 1million in population. Ergo, Florida should have 18k members, but they don't have anything close.
Just doing some thinking here, why should they? It is a different environment, with a vastly different demographic. The population has a different mindset on things, they may have things that preclude them from being members, or may not live within a decent (in their mind) distance of a unit, who knows.
Just because one state has a certain percentage of population as CAP members doesn't mean all states should be the same, people are different.
As part of my DCP job, I spent some time plotting cadet membership versus the Census Bureau's (http://www.census.gov/popest/intercensal/national/nat2010.html)age cohort data, which was pretty discouraging.
The last time I checked, Uncle Sam estimates something like 41 million Americans are between 10 and 19 years of age (not an exact match to our 12-21 CP, but close enough).
We have about 27,000 cadets.
Which suggests that something like 0.06% of Americans in our age group are CAP cadets. Like I said, in terms of market share and penetration, it was pretty discouraging.
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on November 21, 2011, 12:25:20 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 19, 2011, 02:18:11 PM
My point was that NH has near 1K members with just over 1million in population. Ergo, Florida should have 18k members, but they don't have anything close.
Just doing some thinking here, why should they? It is a different environment, with a vastly different demographic. The population has a different mindset on things, they may have things that preclude them from being members, or may not live within a decent (in their mind) distance of a unit, who knows.
Just because one state has a certain percentage of population as CAP members doesn't mean all states should be the same, people are different.
From my point of view, Florida is larger geographically, in population, has more airports, pilots, children, retirees, planes, Air Force bases, infrastructure, and certainly has more weather and area that our services would be in need. So by my logic, an area that has 18 times the population, and the aviation infrastructure to support it, should be able to support 18 times the members.
I'm certainly not a statistician, but I would suspect that we could/should expect a minimum baseline for membership numbers based on some sort of average membership penetration rate. We are a membership organization, so you would think that we'd have goals for membership numbers placed on our corporate officers (as well as fundraising goals). I'm sure some statistician somewhere could probably figure out a pretty good saturation rate based on population.
When I see large metropolitan areas that only have 20 cadets, I see a failure of CAP leadership. My hometown of 10K was able to support a squadron of 40 members, so why does Miami only have 2 units? With 400K people to draw from it seems to me that those units would either have 250 members each, or there would be 10 units.
I'm not saying that FL isn't doing a good job at what they are currently doing, but if I were the Wing Commander, I'd be trying to figure out why I didn't have 10X the members I do now based on the size of my wing - geographically and population. I think it may be a factor of not wanting to actively pursue a large surge in membership because of the extra workload that the wing would have in growing and expanding versus how much time our volunteer leadership model is capable of supporting.
Quantity isn't quality - if you're accomplishing the missions who cares?
How many members does it take to "accomplish" the Cadet Program?
How many members does it take to "accomplish" Aerospace Education?
Sounds like missed opportunity to me. If we are tasked with conducting these missions, the above two certainly don't have a maximum number, in fact, I would argue that the MORE people we have, the more successful we are in accomplishing the mission.
We are a membership based organization. I don't agree with the "quality over quantity" stuff because two of our missions aren't geared around real performance standards. Sure, they have enough pilots and scanners to keep up with their workload. But, you'll need more pilots to fly cadets, etc. Also, if we have an ES mission, why aren't we generating more missions that would INCREASE our workload, creating a demand for new members to fill that need?
I like quality members, too. Nothing says that by increasing our membership that we're going to "water down" the quality of our programs.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 21, 2011, 05:18:56 PMWhen I see large metropolitan areas that only have 20 cadets, I see a failure of CAP leadership. My hometown of 10K was able to support a squadron of 40 members, so why does Miami only have 2 units? With 400K people to draw from it seems to me that those units would either have 250 members each, or there would be 10 units.
This has been my point of contention for a long time - that there is apathy towards a baseline understand of our membership, the
failures in recruiting, and no particular statistical basis for anything we do. Things are done because people locally "felt like it", with
no pressure from above to be part of a larger plan.
Were I national commander, I would look to the major cities, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami, Seattle. You know, places
where people live, and resources are relatively available, and if we're not doing well there, how can we expect rural US locations to do well?
One of the problems is the continued pilot-centric mentality of everything. Couple that with how few major GA airports are located within the boundaries of major cities, and you can see how we got where we are.
ES is a separate conversation - major cities don't need our help, so the opportunities for real service are in the suburbs and rural areas, but
the cadets live in the cities, and there is no reason or excuse for our lack of execution in major metro areas, especially when you consider
all the youth programs folding because of budget issues, and the apparent clamor for structure in the next generation of youth.
Unfortunately this is a multi-year process, and year 1-2 are painful, because you have to have functional units ready to accept the new people,
administrative support to handle the influx, and multitudes of other staff and members who will provide the outside activities that give CAP its real value.
If we woke up today and decided that 1 million members was a goal by 2020, it would be 2-3 years before you could do the kind of recruiting
drives necessary to garner those numbers. Sustainability is also an issue, because we have far too many members content to wander into weekly meetings, sit in the back of the room and whine about Group or Wing, and go home having done nothing but burn some fuel.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on November 21, 2011, 05:25:19 PM
Quantity isn't quality - if you're accomplishing the missions who cares?
Increasing membership affords everyone more opportunity for growth, leadership and input. A 10-member unit is check boxes, not "fulfilling the mission". How many flight cc's can there be at once? Flight Sgt's? Element Leaders? Even staff jobs? Far too few, and on the cadet side especially, a lot of the deal is timing - you should be a Flt CC when you're a new officer, and >noy< be cadet commander as a A1C, etc.
One thing that ya'll don't mention is that in areas of higher population density, you generally find a higher number of diversionary activities. In a small rural area where CAP, Scouts, and the church youth group are the only activities available, you'll likely find a higher membership ratio; as opposed to a large urban area where the youth have CAP, Scouts, ACA, ROTC of multiple flavors, church youth groups, Explorer groups, 100 different types of after school clubs, band, sports - both school and organized league, local malls, skate parks, and other such places to hang out... With so many more activity choices, it's not surprising that the percentage of total youth and actual individuals involved in CAP is lower. Not to mention that most areas of high population density tend to be much more politically liberal and consequently less likely to encourage their youth to join a paramilitary organization that they aren't familiar with already.
There is also the cost factor, while areas of high population density generally have a higher median income, they also have a higher proportion of those below the median who probably can't afford to support their children's membership in any organization.
JMHO
^ As compared to others, I agree to an extent, but in major cities there is plenty to go around. The truth is, that in my kids' peer group,
there are far too many of their classmates that don't do anything outside of school except wear out the couch.
Same goes for the adults.
Quotewould love to see a comparison of wing size and wing size V. population. I think it would be fascinating.
Attached is a chart of wing membership vs state population that I did a couple of years ago, using 2008 data, for another thread discussing similar issues. Each wing's data point is coded by region, so a comparison of regions can also be made. The old thread is here http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9386.msg169533#msg169533. (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9386.msg169533#msg169533.)
The data show a trend that the ratio of CAP members to state population decreases with increasing population.
Mike
Quote from: sardak on November 21, 2011, 06:51:13 PM
Quotewould love to see a comparison of wing size and wing size V. population. I think it would be fascinating.
Attached is a chart of wing membership vs state population that I did a couple of years ago, using 2008 data, for another thread discussing similar issues. Each wing's data point is coded by region, so a comparison of regions can also be made. The old thread is here http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9386.msg169533#msg169533. (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9386.msg169533#msg169533.)
The data show a trend that the ratio of CAP members to state population decreases with increasing population.
Mike
Mind if I print this out and use this at the next CLC/wing commanders call?
^^^^^No, go right ahead, it's there for anyone's use and credit info is in the document properties. I've now got the data for 2010 and will post a new chart when I'm finished.
Mike
The updated chart showing 2010 CAP membership per 10,000 residents of each wing is attached.
Mike
Quote from: sardak on November 22, 2011, 06:16:35 AM
The updated chart showing 2010 CAP membership per 10,000 residents of each wing is attached.
Mike
Fascinating...
Is there a link out in outer web space to all the legislative day pamphlets by any chance?
I wonder why membership data for Nevada wing couldn't be obtained.
Quote from: tsrup on November 22, 2011, 02:09:32 PM
I wonder why membership data for Nevada wing couldn't be obtained.
Most of the members are in Area 51? >:D
The Legislative Day Newsletters, Reports to Congress and the Financial Reports are here:
http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/cap_reports/ (http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/cap_reports/)
I think you're onto something about the membership being in Area 51. In fact, the whole wing must be there based on the comment on the reports page: *Nevada removed at request of the Wing Commander
Mike
So we go like this...
Hey, Lordmonar, how many folks in your wing, according to your eservices profile?
Why would the wing commander ask to not have a fact sheet made?
Quote from: NCRblues on November 23, 2011, 02:05:13 AMWhy would the wing commander ask to not have a fact sheet made?
Politics >:D
Probably any number of reasons to, "it's not done yet", "It's got errors".. so we just won't go with it. Just like how many licks to get to the center of a tootsie pop.. the world may never know.
But that won't stop the speculators from driving the price up.
Having been involved with the fact sheet process for my wing, I suspect it was probably removed simply due to an error or typo that was discovered too late to fix, and too incorrect to let be published, no big conspiracy.
Alright, no more wondering, no more conspiracy theories. Lordmonar kindly sent me the Nevada Wing data so I updated the chart. It's attached and labeled as Rev. A. Adding Nevada bumped the average and median up slightly.
Mike
So, it seems that the smaller wings are pulling more than their fair share of members from their local populations. What's the deal with our largest wings?
Is it a matter of them being too large geographically (span of control issue)?
Is it a matter of volunteer leadership not having enough time to volunteer to a larger organization, so the effort isn't put into it?
Is it a matter of volunteer leadership in those wings just being content with being "the largest wing"?
Is it a cultural thing?
Is it something about urban areas?
Something else?
I know in my wing the biggest issue is that the population is focused on a single metro area, and CAP
has a very poor presence there.
~76% of the state's population is located in the metro area, which takes up about 1/3rd of the Northern area,
and is served by about 15 units. Then the rest of the state is flat and primarily rural.
Something else...
There is zero downstream pressure to grow, and zero downstream "plan" in which to gauge a member's part, so everything is done because "someone felt like it", with a very low bar of performance, and a very high bar of fail before people are asked to leave.
The pockets of success, random operations where we are able to help people in a disaster, or the long-standing activities which run on their own steam
are not part of anyone's greater plan, and therefore do not scale. And even those that might be scale-able can't grow because the "nearby planets" have no interest in how "those other guys do it", as that would generally expose weaknesses or programatic failings of their own activity, and "this is how we've always done it..."
With little exception, everyone wants to reinvent the wheel, hates ideas they didn't invent, and the "Getting Started" book is opened for every operation. Why? Because there's no expectation of standardization, and those who have had success did so by their own brute force effort with little support from upstream or even laterally
Until this changes on a national scale, nothing will change locally.