CAP Talk

Back in 1963 when CAP had a goal of putting a unit in every town with 2,500 people and was trying to get 100,000 cadets and 60,000 senior members by 1966, it was very easy for new units to attempt to get started since a charter certificate could be issued for a unit that just had 1 member.  Now, they had to recruit up or risk losing that charter within a reasonable period of time, but the initial barrier was quite low. 

In today's CAP while there is a strong push on to get more school-based units, I have not seen any real interest in growing the numbers of "regular" CAP units, at least not on a nationwide basis, though a few Wings have made some good progress on that front. 

But, in all reality, most squadrons have only a limited potential to grow their own numbers and there is a constant dance of squadrons on the decline in membership numbers while others are on the upswing.  The only real way to grow CAP is to add units and there are plenty of towns out there (although I think a town of 2,500 is probably too small) for this to happen, especially if the focus were on cadet units.   

However, I think our current minimum size to get a flight (8 members, with at least 3 seniors) can be a barrier to starting a new unit.  Sure, if you can't get at least 8 members, it isn't worth a unit, but the initial jump off to get to that number can be quite difficult on its own, much less when you are entirely dependent on some squadron to which you officially belong to do your paperwork for you in order to get those new members going. 

So, what would be the harm in allowing a flight to be chartered with 1 person based on the caveat that they have 1 year to obtain the minimum 8 for a flight or 15 for a squadron or lose the charter?  At worst, many of them would fail, but that doesn't really put us out anything to speak of.  At best, we could add a bunch of new units. 

Quote from: RiverAux on September 27, 2009, 05:17:55 PM
Back in 1963 when CAP had a goal of putting a unit in every town with 2,500 people and was trying to get 100,000 cadets and 60,000 senior members by 1966, it was very easy for new units to attempt to get started since a charter certificate could be issued for a unit that just had 1 member.  Now, they had to recruit up or risk losing that charter within a reasonable period of time, but the initial barrier was quite low. 

In today's CAP while there is a strong push on to get more school-based units, I have not seen any real interest in growing the numbers of "regular" CAP units, at least not on a nationwide basis, though a few Wings have made some good progress on that front. 

But, in all reality, most squadrons have only a limited potential to grow their own numbers and there is a constant dance of squadrons on the decline in membership numbers while others are on the upswing.  The only real way to grow CAP is to add units and there are plenty of towns out there (although I think a town of 2,500 is probably too small) for this to happen, especially if the focus were on cadet units.   

However, I think our current minimum size to get a flight (8 members, with at least 3 seniors) can be a barrier to starting a new unit.  Sure, if you can't get at least 8 members, it isn't worth a unit, but the initial jump off to get to that number can be quite difficult on its own, much less when you are entirely dependent on some squadron to which you officially belong to do your paperwork for you in order to get those new members going. 

So, what would be the harm in allowing a flight to be chartered with 1 person based on the caveat that they have 1 year to obtain the minimum 8 for a flight or 15 for a squadron or lose the charter?  At worst, many of them would fail, but that doesn't really put us out anything to speak of.  At best, we could add a bunch of new units.

If a squadron is willing to serve as a center for "satellite" flights and squadrons, it can be done.  We currently have a "satellite" flight to our unit in Kingsville, Texas.   Since I teach there, I have taken it upon myself to create a "flight" of cadets there which is starting to yield pay dirt.  When the time comes, I hope to form a full cadet squadron there.

The true obstacle to a "unit in every city" is that there will not be an "aircraft" in every city.  If people join a unit to serve, this is not a problem.  However, if they want to do regular flying...this can be a problem.

Many persons who come ask if there is an aircraft assigned to the unit.  This was a problem in the past for us, however, I simply relayed the concept that the Wing was not going to station an aircraft at a place where there was no functioning unit.   Many were turned off, but, many stayed and built the unit.

The concept of "Satellite" unit is the future of growth.  Where a central unit shares its resources with those of outlying units.  This means a lot for the central unit, coordinating training and really "sharing the wealth."

QuoteThe true obstacle to a "unit in every city" is that there will not be an "aircraft" in every city.  If people join a unit to serve, this is not a problem.  However, if they want to do regular flying...this can be a problem.

That is why I threw in the caveat about this being more for cadet units.  The obstacles to developing a successful senior unit without a CAP airplane or looser restrictions on the use of Member-Owned aircraft are almost insurmountable in my book. 

However, you can have an incredibly successful CAP unit without an airplane and even without a van or really any significant monetary or equipment investment by CAP.  \

Some wings have approached the new unit concept by using Group staffs that are almost entirely focused on new unit formation which is another alternative to the squadron/satellite concept (no reason both can't be done). 

The current minimums are too small as it is.

If anything, they should be increased to reduce the number of 1-senior units that are scattered all over the place.

That was an awfully ambitious goal....

I have been in numerous towns with 2500 while I was stints in wildland fire.  Some of these town were lumber towns a good majority were ranching towns that required a more than normal 8 hour day work schedule.

The next would be of the rather independent ideas of these folks who respect the uniform but did not want government involved with their daily lives such as today.  Not everybody that I have met in my life has THE volunteer spirit to put the time into CAP

MAYBE that what CAP needs to realize........UNTIL this become a paid operation, CAP will be lucky to get what it does get as far as the volunteer spirit.  CAP can become a 40 + hour week ON TOP of employment and after awhile the burnout factor becomes prevalent.  110% in CAP??  That is rather debatable

The next thing CAP NEEDS to understand is the dynamics of public administration.  Towns of 2500 are either dying or  disappearing.  If folks want to start a Sqdn...how much help are they going to get from a Wing or a Region??  CAP sometimes can not even help itself stand up with the amount of work and not to mention the logistics of getting meeting facilities. 

MAYBE CAP NEEDS to start up a Great Start program on how to SELL CAP and not make promises and become some bunch of cronies in BDU's spouting off about somethings they do not know about in a community.  How to sell CAP to the civic leaders, so we are not seen as bunch of wannabe yokels who, are ARE volunteers, in a uniform, do not appear to bigger big shots than they are.  Neeeeeext is the buyin, you folks ever try to convince the skeptics??  I had to in my previous job, trying to sell fuel reduction projects to folks who planted their homes dead square in areas of pine plantations.  THAT was a project to convince them, through education, the merits, of fuels reduction, so their home(s) would not burn in the wildland urban interface.

So relate that to CAP....CONVINCE those towns of 2500 that they NEED CAP.  If they say yes,  GET READY to convince.  My job as above, got a couple of CAP outfits to mingle with the community by GPS'ing homes in the wildland urban interface......Some of those homeowners were impressed at some of the CAPers, but in most cases did not interest folks to join CAP.

Goals of putting a Sqdn in every town 2500??   Better a have a GREAT Program starting with EACH SQUADRON and WING Commander.

I see eight members easier  than 1 anyway, how is that one "gonna" get 8-15 members?  It may not put "us out anything" other than individuals time to try to stand up a Sqdn and that perso trying to stand that unit up and failing...you think we would recruit them back after that "little exercise?"  Better have some good BBQ's and cookie sales...'cuz CAP NEEDS all the sweeeeet help it can get

Quote from: Major Carrales on September 27, 2009, 05:30:50 PMIf a squadron is willing to serve as a center for "satellite" flights and squadrons, it can be done.  We currently have a "satellite" flight to our unit in Kingsville, Texas.   Since I teach there, I have taken it upon myself to create a "flight" of cadets there which is starting to yield pay dirt.  When the time comes, I hope to form a full cadet squadron there.

Please tell us more about this satellite flight concept.

Quote from: NC Hokie on September 27, 2009, 08:51:01 PM

Quote from: Major Carrales on September 27, 2009, 05:30:50 PMIf a squadron is willing to serve as a center for "satellite" flights and squadrons, it can be done.  We currently have a "satellite" flight to our unit in Kingsville, Texas.   Since I teach there, I have taken it upon myself to create a "flight" of cadets there which is starting to yield pay dirt.  When the time comes, I hope to form a full cadet squadron there.

Please tell us more about this satellite flight concept.

The concept is that there is a major Unit, maybe in a metropolitan area with facilities to support aircraft and the like, and smaller units (maybe cadet units and local senior units) in the out-skirting area.

Thus, we have an aircraft in lets say Corpus Christi, Texas; with a cadet squadron/flight in Kingsville, Texas (about 50 miles south).  Ideally, cadet units in Alice, Robstown, Orange Grove, Mathis and Taft. (see map below)


These can be cadet units, however, they could also be "local" Senior Units that meet locally (for training items done traditionally on meeting nights...i.e. safety, professional development, COMM training and other items not dependent on aircraft) and train "globally" (that is, on weekends or SARex activities out of the major Unit)

This provides that people who want to serve in CAP can without the need to drive miles away for simple things like commander's sign offs and safety meetings.

The idea comes to me based on a concept in the old Iowa Model where "CAP stations" existed in rural areas.  However, unlike that model that transferred all field grade officers WING, this relies on them in the "field."   

I don't think cutting the minimums for flights or squadrons is really helping.  8 for a flight and 15 for a squadron is too few personnel as is IMO.  Cut the minimums and you just have twice as many struggling units and a lot more charter turnover.  Here today, gone tomorrow.

Where I'm at, I have three or four units within 30 minutes or so driving.  Two of those units are within the same city and have already "merged" for a brief period until the struggling unit was able to regain squadron status.  If CAP got off the once a week for 2.5 hours meeting schedule you could conceivably merge a few units into one larger centralized squadron.

Quote from: Major Carrales on September 28, 2009, 12:50:26 AM
The concept is that there is a major Unit, maybe in a metropolitan area with facilities to support aircraft and the like, and smaller units (maybe cadet units and local senior units) in the out-skirting area.

Thus, we have an aircraft in lets say Corpus Christi, Texas; with a cadet squadron/flight in Kingsville, Texas (about 50 miles south).  Ideally, cadet units in Alice, Robstown, Orange Grove, Mathis and Taft.

Do the smaller units have their own charters or are they a part of the major unit?  To use your example, would NHQ recognize squadrons or flights in Alice, Robstown, Orange Grove, Mathis, and Taft or would members of those units show up on the Corpus Christi Composite Squadron roster?

Quote from: MIKE on September 28, 2009, 01:09:24 AM
I don't think cutting the minimums for flights or squadrons is really helping.  8 for a flight and 15 for a squadron is too few personnel as is IMO.  Cut the minimums and you just have twice as many struggling units and a lot more charter turnover.  Here today, gone tomorrow.

I agree with you as far as whether a unit has the manpower to continue to justify its existence, but that isn't what we're discussing.  We're discussing the minimum size necessary to START a unit. 

The idea being if Buster Smith in Joeville wants to start a CAP unit, get him through Level 1 and give him a charter number and a chance to do it.  If he can't make the minimum size in a year, yank it. 

That's the thing... I don't think getting 8 peeps together to form a flight to start off is at all unreasonable. It's [darn] tiny.

Quote from: NC Hokie on September 28, 2009, 01:31:20 AM

Quote from: Major Carrales on September 28, 2009, 12:50:26 AM
The concept is that there is a major Unit, maybe in a metropolitan area with facilities to support aircraft and the like, and smaller units (maybe cadet units and local senior units) in the out-skirting area.

Thus, we have an aircraft in lets say Corpus Christi, Texas; with a cadet squadron/flight in Kingsville, Texas (about 50 miles south).  Ideally, cadet units in Alice, Robstown, Orange Grove, Mathis and Taft.

Do the smaller units have their own charters or are they a part of the major unit?  To use your example, would NHQ recognize squadrons or flights in Alice, Robstown, Orange Grove, Mathis, and Taft or would members of those units show up on the Corpus Christi Composite Squadron roster?

They begin a "functionalities" of the major Unit until that eventually gain the membership needed to be their own chartered Unit.

The "Brahma Flight" (KINGSVILLE) is an internal working mechanism of the Corpus Christi Composite Squadron, existing only as a squadron Personnel Action on file at the unit.  It currently has the strength to charter as a squadron, however, due to certain personnel issues in Corpus Christi the decision to charter has been tabled until those issues are resolved.

So your squadron is acting as an "incubator" to establish other units?

I don't think that the size limit is the problem....more that there is no (or little) effort to create new squadrons.

Sure in urban areas where you got tons of people and you can spin off new flights all the time.

But what about the idea of putting new squadons into new towns?

Where are the recruiting teams who have to travel 50-60-100 miles 2-3 times a week to help set up these new squadrons?

That goes back to my opening post about there being little apparent interest in CAP growing outside of the school programs. 

Maybe the leadership is fine with our current membership levels and unit distributions and as far as the ES program goes, we're probably about where we need to be.  But, there is no reason at all the cadet program couldn't be significantly larger.   

Quote from: RiverAux on September 28, 2009, 03:13:35 AM
That goes back to my opening post about there being little apparent interest in CAP growing outside of the school programs. 

With what data do you support that assertion?

The only thing limiting any unit is the ambition and initiative of the Commander and staff.  In situations where there simply isn't the population density to support a unit, move it.

In most cases, units are exactly the size that the people involved want them to be.

Quote from: Eclipse on September 28, 2009, 03:18:51 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on September 28, 2009, 03:13:35 AM
That goes back to my opening post about there being little apparent interest in CAP growing outside of the school programs. 

With what data do you support that assertion?

Just which letters, directives, columns written by the National Commander or any other evidence out there have you seen indicating that creating new CAP units is considered a priority or is even on the "to do" list at a national level? 

Keep in mind that I just finished reading about three years of CAP Times from the early 1960s where almost every other issue had something about the national goal of reaching 160,000 members by 1966.  That is the sort of thing that tells me that recruiting, and recruiting new units was a priority at that time.  I have seen no such evidence that this is a priority today.

And, it may not be a priority as far as the CAP leadership is concerned.  There are certainly plenty of issues on the table to deal with.  However, in an organization who has had several years of falling membership, you would think recruiting would be a big deal. 

Quote from: RiverAux on September 28, 2009, 03:36:24 AM
Just which letters, directives, columns written by the National Commander or any other evidence out there have you seen indicating that creating new CAP units is considered a priority or is even on the "to do" list at a national level?

As a Commander, growing my unit(s), including requesting new charters when appropriate, is my Prime Directive.  If our commanders need to be reminded that growth is a priority, we really are in trouble.

If you're looking for NHQ ink, the Executive Director talked a lot about the "Bricks and Mortar" initiatives at the national level - meeting spaces being critical to unit maintenance and growth, but admittedly there hasn't been much on that lately.

Quote from: RiverAux on September 27, 2009, 05:17:55 PM
However, I think our current minimum size to get a flight (8 members, with at least 3 seniors) can be a barrier to starting a new unit.  Sure, if you can't get at least 8 members, it isn't worth a unit, but the initial jump off to get to that number can be quite difficult on its own, much less when you are entirely dependent on some squadron to which you officially belong to do your paperwork for you in order to get those new members going. 

So, what would be the harm in allowing a flight to be chartered with 1 person based on the caveat that they have 1 year to obtain the minimum 8 for a flight or 15 for a squadron or lose the charter?  At worst, many of them would fail, but that doesn't really put us out anything to speak of.  At best, we could add a bunch of new units.

Just the typical "paperwork" required of ANY unit requires more than an "Army of one" to just do that.
HOWEVER, from a ground Emergency Services standpoint, I think the concept of a small ES flight (or even CAP operating locations under control of the nearest squadron) can make sense -- especially from a radio communications, UDF type team concept.  I think at least on the senior side there's many that have a primary interest in ES and not necessarily all of the other professional development opportunities.   
CAP also has to "compete" for membership which much more recognized  (and community supported) youth activities as as Boy Scouts & Girl Scouts.   Even from the Senior Membership side, there's now Medical Reserve Corps & Community Emergency Response Teams, that have some funding & are strongly recruiting & have gotten some good press at the local level.
The school method for gainining cadets seems to be a worthwhile effort, that surely in CAP's quest of the "numbers game", can add significant cadet numbers to the rolls, with much less effort than other community recruiting methods.
RM

Jumping in a little late here, on the concept of "satellite" units attached to a parent unit. Like Major Carrales, we are incubating two smaller units. One is a school-based cadet flight with its own charter, and the other is a new senior squadron yet to be formed.

With the cadet flight, we provide administrative support and training for the senior members running the program. It's basically train-the-trainer, where they are slowly taking control of the unit.

The new senior squadron is recruiting members and looking for a home. Until that happens, these members are integrated into our composite squadron.

Honestly, it's been a lot of work. However, it's rewarding to be involved with expanding the program.