No Cadet Uniform To Be Funded By CAP For First Year Cadets?

[majdomke]

WIWAC in the MIWG we didn't get free uniforms and I don't recall my parents buying them. I do remember wing HQ had a decent supply room filled with surplus given from the AF. From there it made its way to the squadron either by driving there and picking things up or someone bringing them back to the squadron for issue. It wasn't until I was older that I was able to drive myself to Selfridge ANGB and find ecstasy in the glory of a uniform supply store. It gave "Toys 'R Us" and whole new meaning.

[SamFranklin]

Sure, our money is limited and the CAP budget is becoming ever tighter.

But I'd like to know what dollar figure the leaders are trying to cut from cadet programs. Then, I'd like to know what options are available to meet that goal.

Personally I'd rather see IACE and COS cut before FCUs or flying.  Nothing against cadet officers, but new cadets should receive priority for funding.

[FW]

Sure, our money is limited and the CAP budget is becoming ever tighter.

Personally I'd rather see IACE and COS cut before FCUs or flying.  Nothing against cadet officers, but new cadets should receive priority for funding.

Interesting choice.  Why do you think it is better to spend our money on new cadets rather than on cadets who have shown long term interest and participation?

[SamFranklin]

Sure, our money is limited and the CAP budget is becoming ever tighter.

Personally I'd rather see IACE and COS cut before FCUs or flying.  Nothing against cadet officers, but new cadets should receive priority for funding.

Interesting choice.  Why do you think it is better to spend our money on new cadets rather than on cadets who have shown long term interest and participation?

Simply because if you don't invest money, time, effort, focus, etc., in new cadets, you won't produce highly-committed and highly-successful cadet officers down the road.

[Major Carrales]

Sure, our money is limited and the CAP budget is becoming ever tighter.

Personally I'd rather see IACE and COS cut before FCUs or flying.  Nothing against cadet officers, but new cadets should receive priority for funding.

Interesting choice.  Why do you think it is better to spend our money on new cadets rather than on cadets who have shown long term interest and participation?

Simply because if you don't invest money, time, effort, focus, etc., in new cadets, you won't produce highly-committed and highly-successful cadet officers down the road.

Well said...we can go out into the community and ask for sponsorships for cadet going overseas and for flight academy, but asking for money for what is looked on by outsiders as a most "basic" need (I have had people ask cadets who would do odd jobs why they were not in uniform, most say its against the regulations...imagine what they might think of the USAF Aux and the motives of the cadets if they said "I need this money for my uniform?")

Simply put, I think the uniform is expected of anyone calling themselves "cadet."  Add that to my other motives and you can get a clear image of where I'm coming from.

[FW]

Sparky, that's an answer I can live with.  An Excellent responce.

[Major Carrales]

Sparky, that's an answer I can live with.  An Excellent responce.

Thank you, Sir.  As you might tell, I am quite passionate about this issue on many fronts.

[SarDragon]

Sure, our money is limited and the CAP budget is becoming ever tighter.

Personally I'd rather see IACE and COS cut before FCUs or flying.  Nothing against cadet officers, but new cadets should receive priority for funding.

Interesting choice.  Why do you think it is better to spend our money on new cadets rather than on cadets who have shown long term interest and participation?

Simply because if you don't invest money, time, effort, focus, etc., in new cadets, you won't produce highly-committed and highly-successful cadet officers down the road.

Statistically, we don't have as big a recruiting problem as we do a retention problem. Fifty percent of the new cadets we recruit every yeardon't stick around for a second year. If we could retain just 10% of that attrition, the cadet ranks would increase every year.

[BillB]

Dave
This is where an exit interview is needed to discover why the cadet didn't stick around. Is is poor cadet leadership? Lack of activities? The reasons could be something that could be fixed by Senior Staff. At a cost of less than 75 cents for a letter to the cadet with a return address preprinted asking questions for the cadet to answer might bring an answer. Let the cadet know their answers would be anonymous.

[SarDragon]

Dave
This is where an exit interview is needed to discover why the cadet didn't stick around. Is is poor cadet leadership? Lack of activities? The reasons could be something that could be fixed by Senior Staff. At a cost of less than 75 cents for a letter to the cadet with a return address preprinted asking questions for the cadet to answer might bring an answer. Let the cadet know their answers would be anonymous.

Bill, that is a great idea, but the execution usually goes in the tank very quickly. My success rate in my last cadet unit was abysmal. I couldn't even get decent answers through cadets that were still in the unit after their friends left. Most of the answers I did manage to get were of the, "It's just not my thing," nature. Guess there's not much you can do about that. They joined as a social thing,and it turned out differently from what they expected.

[Major Carrales]

Dave
This is where an exit interview is needed to discover why the cadet didn't stick around. Is is poor cadet leadership? Lack of activities? The reasons could be something that could be fixed by Senior Staff. At a cost of less than 75 cents for a letter to the cadet with a return address preprinted asking questions for the cadet to answer might bring an answer. Let the cadet know their answers would be anonymous.

Most cadets that leave leave our unit on good terms, the reasons for not renewing are as follows:

1) Getting too busy in High School, more activities push CAP out of the way unless CAP is part of the High School
2) Joined to "try it out for a year," was really active, had a good time, but its not for them
3) Moved away to another town where it was difficult to get to the meetings, or where there was no unit

Solutions...
1) integrate CAP into school systems at Middle School and High School levels
2) don't be so aggressive on getting "people to join to try it out" and focus on long time cadets
3) develop CAP Units in more locations.

[jimmydeanno]

Dave
This is where an exit interview is needed to discover why the cadet didn't stick around. Is is poor cadet leadership? Lack of activities? The reasons could be something that could be fixed by Senior Staff. At a cost of less than 75 cents for a letter to the cadet with a return address preprinted asking questions for the cadet to answer might bring an answer. Let the cadet know their answers would be anonymous.

Bill,

They (CAPNHQ) conduct exit interviews already.  Leading reasons:

1) Not enough activities
2) No flying
3) Poor leadership at the local level
4) Boring squadron meetings

Addressing item #3 tends to fix numers 1,2, and 4.

However, over the last 5 years or so, the cadet ranks have risen (14%, IIRC).

[Major Carrales]

1) Not enough activities

Thsi can be solved locally with local funds and action if squadron commanders are willing to go some leg work.  There are loads of local activities that a squadron can do that can be fun.  This could be anything using ES to do training activities (instead of a boring meeting about, lets SAY, UDF FAM/PREPS, camp out at a local County/Munifipcal airport and do the training hand's on.  As the cadets to provide some minor funds for food (i.e. $8) take the collection and show them camp cooking (with permission from the airport of course)

Offer activities to local civic groups and make then worthwhile fellowship activities.  Attending Airport Fly-ins and conducting presentations to small children (cadet led with Senior Supervision).

There are lots of activities that can take place on the cheap.  I would rather funds go to that and to having to buy uniforms.

2) No flying

Considering there are only 5 powered O-flights, weather issues and a limited number of aircraft, tote flying as a rare and valuable thing.  If you portray CAP as a "flying squadron" with regular flying as part of the curriculum, a cadet has been "led down a primrose path."  Activities can be set up, flight simulators and the like, where flying can be similated.

Maybe we need a curriculum that includes the O-Flights.  I see a disconnect between Module 1 of Aerospace and the flights.  Maybe we can organize them as a "consolidated mission."  The O-Flights as a highlight to the AE portion of Cadet advancement instead of an orphan curriculum.  Current O-Flight program missions could be altered to fit such a model.  Maybe some incentive to Senior Squadrons to set up an O-Flight schedule.  It could also be a primer to the Flight Academy.

3) Poor leadership at the local level

You can only assign leaders from avaiable people.  How many people command squadrons by de fault.  Or how many Cadet Programs are commanded by a flyer that sees it as a necessary evil?  How many people are of the mindset that there is some magical POWER to be had from political machinations?  Or parents to become commanders for the benefit of their child to the apathy or determent of others?

Addressing these issues is a matter of not easily legilsated.  Could a Group level Cadet Programs officer even be able to address any of these issues...much less National?  Solutions needed here. 

4) Boring squadron meetings

See number 1.

[Eclipse]

How many people command squadrons by de fault.  Or how many Cadet Programs are commanded by a flyer that sees it as a necessary evil?  How many people are of the mindset that there is some magical POWER to be had from political machinations?  Or parents to become commanders for the benefit of their child to the apathy or determent of others?

100% of the wrong people.

And in those cases it is a failing of higher HQ when those poor commanders are not removed.

[Major Carrales]

How many people command squadrons by de fault.  Or how many Cadet Programs are commanded by a flyer that sees it as a necessary evil?  How many people are of the mindset that there is some magical POWER to be had from political machinations?  Or parents to become commanders for the benefit of their child to the apathy or determent of others?

100% of the wrong people.

And in those cases it is a failing of higher HQ when those poor commanders are not removed.

Agreed, but who do you replace them with?  Is a GROUP of WING Staffer going to drive over 100 miles to command that squadron?  Or Fold the squadron?  Solutions are needed for that...but what?

[Eclipse]

How many people command squadrons by de fault.  Or how many Cadet Programs are commanded by a flyer that sees it as a necessary evil?  How many people are of the mindset that there is some magical POWER to be had from political machinations?  Or parents to become commanders for the benefit of their child to the apathy or determent of others?

100% of the wrong people.

And in those cases it is a failing of higher HQ when those poor commanders are not removed.

Agreed, but who do you replace them with?  Is a GROUP of WING Staffer going to drive over 100 miles to command that squadron?  Or Fold the squadron?  Solutions are needed for that...but what?

Having the wrong CC is probably just as bad as having no CC, and folding should always be on the table.  The fact that people
view the continued existence of a unit as sacrosanct is part of the problem.  If it takes someone from higher HQ to intervene for a while,
that is part of their role - not to run the unit, but to train up the new guys.

A huge part of the problem is that we continue to allow commanders to pick and choose what they want to do instead of
requiring the full mission, especially in composite units (which I continue to argue should be the only charters allowed).
Composite units with no senior program to speak of "suddenly" find themselves with no seniors when all the parents move on,
etc.

[Major Carrales]

How many people command squadrons by de fault.  Or how many Cadet Programs are commanded by a flyer that sees it as a necessary evil?  How many people are of the mindset that there is some magical POWER to be had from political machinations?  Or parents to become commanders for the benefit of their child to the apathy or determent of others?

100% of the wrong people.

And in those cases it is a failing of higher HQ when those poor commanders are not removed.

Agreed, but who do you replace them with?  Is a GROUP of WING Staffer going to drive over 100 miles to command that squadron?  Or Fold the squadron?  Solutions are needed for that...but what?

Having the wrong CC is probably just as bad as having no CC, and folding should always be on the table.

And that helps with retention how?  Folding unit should come from the lack of individuals when a unit fall in strength to like 5 people...not because of lack of leadership.

If something happened to me and the few building the unit in Kingsville, there would be 25 highly instested cadets there with no leader.  Killing it off for that reason is a [darn]able thing. 

[Eclipse]

And that helps with retention how?  Folding unit should come from the lack of individuals when a unit fall in strength to like 5 people...not because of lack of leadership.

Proper leadership sees recruiting as a key part of the mission, and further, I have personally never seen a unit running a proper, full program,
that had recruiting or retention issues.

The problem is commanders who get overwhelmed, focus on too few things, people start quitting.

[Major Carrales]

Let me suggest a wild concept...the idea that there will always ne 4-10% attrition no matter what a person does.  There will always be that percentage of people that move, have some conflict or the like.  Despite any measure taken.

I was reading at on of the other forums were a cadet joined just to fly and had no intention of "playing ball" with the officers and cadets of the unit.  Even bragged about causing havoc via major disrespect to a Cadet Officer and Squadron Commander; then reported the reactions to that as evidence of how warped CAP leadership was.

How can that person be counted against us?

Can that be accepted?  That there are just those what leave?  By the way, what is our attrition rate?

[NCRblues]

Let me suggest a wild concept...the idea that there will always ne 4-10% attrition no matter what a person does.  There will always be that percentage of people that move, have some conflict or the like.  Despite any measure taken.

I was reading at on of the other forums were a cadet joined just to fly and had no intention of "playing ball" with the officers and cadets of the unit.  Even bragged about causing havoc via major disrespect to a Cadet Officer and Squadron Commander; then reported the reactions to that as evidence of how warped CAP leadership was.

How can that person be counted against us?

Can that be accepted?  That there are just those what leave?  By the way, what is our attrition rate?

I'm not sure, in the current set up, that CAP can get accurate attrition rates...

take for example a recent squadron i visited. They have 28 people rostered in a composite squadron. On a really good day 10 show up for anything. The rest are on the roster, they show up once a year to wing conference, or just pay the dues. My point is, how do we even know who is really here anymore? Squadrons/groups/wing are so scared of names dropping off the roster, they will keep them on it, even though its an empty name/shirt....

We (CAP as a whole, not just certain groups or squadrons) would have to revise the way we deal with no-shows, or one timers....