National Diversity Officer - Volunteer Wanted.

[Eclipse]

The only thing that can really be done at the national level is to define the problem and sent the mandates, any action will have to happen at the units.

And I happen to think the entire role seems to be built on the unsupported belief that we need to increase membership numbers.  I ask, to what purpose?  Just so that we can say we have a larger organization?  Let's say we attract more people...what will they do?  Sit around and wait for non-existent missions? 

There will never be any "new" missions until we increase our numbers.  You cannot market a capability you do not have.

We need to increase our numbers, train-up our people and raise expectations, and then, and only then, pursue "new" missions (most of which won't be all that "new").

This idea that people are quitting because there are no missions is backwards. 

There is more than enough opportunity for us to "get into the fight", probably more than we'd really want, but excuses, low expectations, and lack of coherent vision hold us back from pursuing them.  And most of that last sentence is a local problem, not a national one.

[A.Member]

The only thing that can really be done at the national level is to define the problem and sent the mandates, any action will have to happen at the units.

And I happen to think the entire role seems to be built on the unsupported belief that we need to increase membership numbers.  I ask, to what purpose?  Just so that we can say we have a larger organization?  Let's say we attract more people...what will they do?  Sit around and wait for non-existent missions? 

There will never be any "new" missions until we increase our numbers.  You cannot market a capability you do not have.

We need to increase our numbers, train-up our people and raise expectations, and then, and only then, pursue "new" missions (most of which won't be all that "new").

This idea that people are quitting because there are no missions is backwards. 

There is more than enough opportunity for us to "get into the fight", probably more than we'd really want, but excuses, low expectations, and lack of coherent vision hold us back from pursuing them.  And most of that last sentence is a local problem, not a national one.

I disagree.  We have more than enough members and potential interest to address many important missions.   The problem is keeping the interest while we wait for strategic direction from National.    You don't grow people on a promise to bring new missions/new activity - once we have enough members.   That notion is absurd. 

Where we do agree is the fact that some (emphasis on some) missions can be derived locally...but only with support up the chain, which is, at best, inconsistent across the organization.   That is a National issue...that  requires strategic vision and a roadmap for the membership.  We also agree on the need for raising the bar; raising our expectations - across the board.  However, I call that quality over quantity.

[Eclipse]

I disagree for the most part.  We have more than enough members and potential interest.   

Maybe in your wing, but in mine, which is one of the larger ones, far too many units have anything more than about 20 members, which is probably
about 1/2 to 1/3 of what a fully-functional unit should have.

And in the larger ones, as much as 1/3 are empty shirts.  Couple that with partial engagement and attention from 1/2 the membership and we are where we are.

At current engagement levels, we need to increase our adult membership by at least 50% in order to be taken seriously as an ES resource, or increase the engagement level of the existing membership by the same factor.

Any place you have members double-billeted in key roles, you see the problem.  Any unit where the CC is also listed anywhere else on the staff roster is a problem.  Any place where the same person is listed in a role for more than one echelon is the problem.

Solved only with people.

[Ned]

And I happen to think the entire role seems to be built on the unsupported belief that we need to increase membership numbers.  I ask, to what purpose?  Just so that we can say we have a larger organization?  ( . . .)  I said it before and I'll say it again, NHQ is focusing on the wrong issues - and that is problematic.  How we will improve the missions we have - Cadet Programs and Aerospace Education?

Is it really a "unsupported belief" that we can accomplish more if we had more members?

It just seems fairly intuitively true.  Kinda like "if I had more money, I could buy more stuff."

Our members are the "capital" that enable us to accomplish our Congressionally-mandated missions.

And your response just seems internally inconsistent.  For example, the largest single program in CAP in terms of members involved and hours expended is our Cadet Program.

And for the CP, at least, "bigger is indeed better" essentially by definition.

Similarly, it seems just as true that having more members by definition improves our AE mission.  More members receiving aerospace education invariably improves the mission of education more people on aerospace topics.

I must be mission something obvious, but it also makes sense to me that having more trained and ES-rated members can only improve our readiness to perform ES.

[jimmydeanno]

How can a NATIONAL diversity officer understand your local areas problems? I would venture to guess every "local area" has a different set of problems, sometimes unique and sometimes not.

Certainly they could look at our organization from the 30K foot level.  I would venture to guess that the problems in my area are the same that affect places like Detroit, New Orleans, New York City, Atlanta, Dallas, and a myriad of other urban centers.  Someone at the national level that can help develop programs that local units can subscribe to for assistance or guidance.

They could help provide insight and advice to National Board members to address the issues that they face in their wings.  A subject matter expert if you will, the same as employing a finance subject matter expert when you want to make sure that your finances are in order.  Many "local" problems are not unique, and someone with a national picture can offer solutions that you just can't see with your head down in the quagmire. 

[Flying Pig]

How can a NATIONAL diversity officer understand your local areas problems? I would venture to guess every "local area" has a different set of problems, sometimes unique and sometimes not.

Certainly they could look at our organization from the 30K foot level.  I would venture to guess that the problems in my area are the same that affect places like Detroit, New Orleans, New York City, Atlanta, Dallas, and a myriad of other urban centers.  Someone at the national level that can help develop programs that local units can subscribe to for assistance or guidance.

They could help provide insight and advice to National Board members to address the issues that they face in their wings.  A subject matter expert if you will, the same as employing a finance subject matter expert when you want to make sure that your finances are in order.  Many "local" problems are not unique, and someone with a national picture can offer solutions that you just can't see with your head down in the quagmire.

Really?  How?  The diversity officer is going to come with some special skill that none of us have?  Why is this issue something your PAO and Recruiting Officer cant handle?  By placing a title on someone magically ordains them with insight beyond our level of understanding?  All we are doing is putting a politically correct name, and creating a redundant layer to something CAP already has.  Public Affairs and Recruiting.

[jimmydeanno]

Well, its obviously a skill that we're lacking if we cant seem to push onto the markets we're trying to.  We don't currently have programs or assistance in working those issues.  I don't care what you want to call it, I'm just looking for the skills to help me get around the.challenges I face.  One of them is diversity.  Strangely, the 55 year old white male seems to not be good at recruiting anyone except people just like him.  Maybe its time to try something different.

[A.Member]

And I happen to think the entire role seems to be built on the unsupported belief that we need to increase membership numbers.  I ask, to what purpose?  Just so that we can say we have a larger organization?  ( . . .)  I said it before and I'll say it again, NHQ is focusing on the wrong issues - and that is problematic.  How we will improve the missions we have - Cadet Programs and Aerospace Education?

Is it really a "unsupported belief" that we can accomplish more if we had more members?

Accomplish more what?!  Yes, there is absolutely no evidence to support that belief for the organization right now. 

We have 60,000 members according to National (by comparison, the United States Air Force, which actually has responsibility for defending the nation currently has ~330,000 Active, ~68,000 Reserve, and ~95,000 Guard airman; and those numbers will soon be cut).  How many more members are needed to accomplish whatever it is you think we can't accomplish now with our current membership? 

If Eclipse's estimate that 1/3 of that membership is an empty shirt is true (I think the percentage could be higher), why is it that 1/3 of our membership ineffective?  Shouldn't that raise some big red flags at National?  If so, does adding members really raise effectiveness of the organization?  Suggesting as much is tantamount to just throwing in so many numbers so as to drown out the problem, rather than actually solving it. 

Simply adding members can't and won't solve the core issues facing the organization.  That needs to start with a true strategic vision and roadmap for the organization by leadership at National.

[Patterson]

Just to make sure I am not mistaken let me ask a question.  Where is the CAP National Headquarters located? 

I was always under the impression it was located at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama.  If so, I am curious if anyone in our CAP Senior Leadership ever connected with the Air Force there regarding this matter. 

The Air University, in particular the PME school system located there has done extensive research on this subject and continues to address the Diversity Issue for the Air Force.  Perhaps CAP can ask them for assistance, or would that be going "too far" away from our ever growing division between the two organizations.

[Major Lord]

The unavoidable tendency for so-called "Diversity" programs is the implementation of "affirmative action" programs,  indisputably racist policies. Let me quote from a recent article concerning the Supreme Courts soon-to-be-revisited review of affirmative action:

In 2007, Alito joined with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to strike down affirmative action programs in public high schools in an opinion that concluded, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

The last sentence is so self-evident as to be profound. Just take a look at how race-base policies have served the minorities in America so far....from allowing their kidnapping worldwide and forcible submission into slavery, to the Dred Scott decision, all the way up to creation of a permanent welfare class, where entire groups of people have rejected the blessings of their god-given rights to the bounty of America's liberty, and chosen instead to feed from the table scraps of their leftist masters, and beg for more....this is no way for a man to live, and the ideology that promotes it should be refuted by all men of conscience.

Major Lord

[Al Sayre]

One cannot right the wrongs of the past by imposing punishment on those who did not perpetrate them in the present and future.

[Ned]

Accomplish more what?! 

Oh, come on.  As a legal-type guy, I don't mind arguing for argument's sake, but this is just silly.

More cadets = more cadets trained.  Our single largest Congressionally-mandated mission.

More members = more people who receive our internal AE and are available for external AE.  Another one of those things Congress created us to do.

And of course, more trained and rated ES folks means greater ES capability.  Not only for our traditional SAR missions (which save a fair number of lives last year, IIRC), but also to be available for disaster relief when needed.  Things like Katrina and Deepwater Horizon.

Sure, I don't have a controlled double blind study to prove the hypothesis "If CAP were 8% larger, then we would save 8% more lives each calendar year."  But that is just a silly, lazy argument.  Feel free to recruit a couple of PhDs and study what you perceive to be a problem and let us know how it goes.

In the meantime, we will train cadets, educate ourselves and the public, and continue to save lives as directed by the Congress of the United States.

And recruit more folks to help us in these missions.



The "empty shirt" problem is important, but certainly not confined to CAP.  It affects every organization that counts on trained personnel to accomplish a mission.  As an Army officer, we managed the same issue.  There is always a percentage of folks who are not "MOS qualified" (new personnel who haven't had training, transfers from other specialties, etc) and/or "present for duty" (deployed, at school, on leave, TDY somewhere, on medical profile, AWOL, being processed for discharge or transfer, etc).  Not to mention simple unit vacancies (not having people in designated slots.)

I served in both MP and Infantry battalions and we never, ever had over 85-90% of our authorized positions present, able, and trained to perform missions.  And usually less.  And those were folks who were under contract, paid to be present, paid to train, and could receive severe sanctions (including prison) for failing to show up.

Even if Bob is correct and 33% of our folks are unavailable at any one time, that is not all that bad when compared to other organizations.

[Eclipse]

More people also means less effort to sustain operations for everyone.

Even if Bob is correct and 33% of our folks are unavailable at any one time, that is not all that bad when compared to other organizations.

That's not exactly what I said.  My assertion is that as much as 33% on the whole, and more in specific areas, are empty shirts - absolutely not involved  beyond writing a check once a year, and I'm not talking about Patrons, I'm referring to "active" members who haven't been seen in 5+ years.

Move the conversation to members who are only partially or marginally engaged, and the conversation gets a lot worse.

But the second part is "OK" from the perspective that CAP is a volunteer organization and isn't supposed to be staffed by a small group of people working longer hours pro-bono than they do in their paid universe.  The point is a large number of people with diverse skills coming together
and holding a corner so everyone can be successful but not have to give up every waking spare moment to drag things along via brute-force.

CAP is not a fraternal organization where the mission is membership and fellowship, but a lot of people treat it that way, and anyone who would
present that our current levels of membership and member engagement are "fine", really doesn't understand the question, or is in the group
who artificially and purposely limit their scope specifically to maintain the "club" atmosphere.

[A.Member]

As an organization, we have 60,000 members.   They are not distributed evenly and I'm not privy to comprehensive membership break down by state.  However, for the sake of argument that can be broken down evenly to 1,200 members per Wing.   Such numbers could allow for distribution of 12 full squadrons of 100 members each for every Wing, pretty healthy squadron numbers by most measures.   Placed properly, geographically they are able to provide reasonable accessibly and coverage for even the largest states, save for possibly Alaska.  Of course, in reality the breakdown isn't nearly so clean, however, the point is still is enough to speak to the question of membership capability. 

Consider the ES mission using the numbers above.  Of the 1,200 members per Wing, roughly half are cadets.  That leaves 600 seniors per Wing.  Take out a 1/3 for the empty shirts.  That leaves 400.  Maybe another 25% of those are new/not qualified in ES.   That leaves 300 ES mission ready volunteers per Wing (it's actually a higher number since cadets can participate in a number of ES activities). 

Now, how many real ES missions have you been called out on over the past year?  In our squadron, which has 80+ members, we (as a squadron) were called out on a total of 0 missions in 2011.  Zilch.  Zip.  Nada.  We have 7 fully qualilfied aircrews and most members hold at least 2 ES ratings.  In two and half years, I've flown one actual mission, which equals the total number possible based on notification/opportunities received!   There certainly are other Wings with higher activity levels  but this non-activity is a theme I hear more and more.  So, tell me, how does adding more people make our unit or Wing any more mission capable?   300 volunteers cannot meet the current annual ES needs of a few missions per year?  Really?  And, granted I went to public school, but I believe zero times any number still equals zero. 

In our squadron, the issue is one of people showing up, realizing there are no missions, having nothing to do of real value, and eventually leaving.  Our unit is in no means unique in this respect.  What is the average length of membership?  I don't know the answer but someone at NHQ should.  I suspect the answer to all is it's not long at all.   Of the cadets that sign membership papers, how many cadets with the program for more than a year? more than 2 years?   These are all issues of retention and driven from a lack of strategic vision from NHQ.   

Once the core challenges facing the organization are addressed and we are actually trending in a direction in which demand is beginning to meet and/or exceed our resource availability, then we can talk about how to increase the membership levels.

[Eclipse]

Your numbers may divide the pie evenly, but they don't tell the whole story.  For starters they pre-suppose that every "eligible" adult is even interested in ES, which we all know they aren't.    They also pre-suppose that there is any sort of even distribution of qualifications, or that those qualifications are
a result of any plan more structured than "because we felt like it".

The lack of missions is a local failure.  Period.   Local might be defined as the Wing, or Group, but it's generally the unit, even though members at the units like to blame anything but themselves.  The units (are supposed to) have the personnel, the trainers, the resources, and the intuitive to execute the missions.  Most wings have evolved into a wing-heavy emphasis on response, training and plans because of the failure of unit CC's to execute on their mandates.

Don't get me wrong, saying it doesn't fix it.  I failed too. Why?  Lack of people.  At some point even the most motivated, experienced, incentivized members simply run out of steam, hours, or both.  And when the same 20% of the membership is performing all the activities in a wing, ES, Cadet Programs, unit activities, and all the administrivia required to run a professorial-level organization, at some point people start dropping back to the simpler, more objective events and tasks, and the more difficult things like being a manager instead of a wrench turner, wrangling meetings with local agencies, and generally doing the task of leading instead of doing, fall by the way side.

Again, the fix is people.

My wing has more than enough missions, both of the historical nature, and those we see in the pipe, to keep those who still show up busy, and much more is left on the table because of he lack of the ability to respond properly.   In this era of cash-strapped agencies and towns, not to mention the
flood of HLS money for those who qualify, if you can't play, it's because you have chosen not to.

To pick those mission off the table takes qualified people who are willing to sacrifice more than the bare minimum amount of time to proficiency and
experience, while also mentoring the next wave. 

And this idea that cadets are a factor in ES response just needs to stop.  I am a staunch advocate of cadets being involved, but the harsh reality is
that even the top performers are only a small percentage of the ranks, and the practical limitations of both CAP and the customers limits their effectiveness (and that just is, what it is, and is not going to change).   By all means get them involved, but they are not, and cannot be, our primary "force".

We need adults to accept the mantle on ground ops, especially in actual SAR ops to ever be considered a legitimate response asset in comparison to our peers.  The best thing we can do for our cadets is to get our adults in gear and give them something to be a part of.  No adults, no cadets, regardless of how well the cadets are trained.

Getting back to your 400 - that's a ridiculous number for a state-wide response, especially when you consider that most disasters that we could help with are short-term situations that last a day or two and then are over.  Having 400 people at your disposal is great, having 400 people
spread out over an area the size of my wing, where the furthest points between active units require a 6-7 hour drive is no way to scale your responders.  400 ES people per group wold be a much more reasonable goal and workable number.

Having 10 each of BD's, SC's, and IC's, instead of 10 people sharing all the jobs, means your people can contribute an OPS period and go home, instead of having to commit their entire bank of free time to CAP.  That, alone, changes the paradigm and would increase our effectiveness.  Home many other agencies that purport to execute on our scale have basically the same names on the REMF list as the operators list?  Answer?  None.

How many agencies would see a state or region-level director spend 1/2 the day administering 40-60 field offices, and then the rest of the day
strapped to an airplane doing the very job of those offices, instead of the people in those offices?  Answer?  None, except on TV, where inexplicably
Admiral Kirk can run an entire Starfleet Division, and still be the only person qualified to strap on a phrase and save the universe.

In the real world the REMF and operator pool rarely mix, even in some of the smallest departments and agencies.

The fix is people, and lots of them.

[Eclipse]

Now, how many real ES missions have you been called out on over the past year?

To answer the question directly, about 20-30 in the wing, including probably about 10 missing person searches which went multiple days, and far more ELT's then I would have thought.   We're busy, but historically have not done a very good job of letting each other know what we are doing.

Pushing back your two years, I can't quite touch week(ish) long deployed one we had, but I can look to double the above, plus 2 evals, 2 GTE's, and a whole lot of practice weekends.

Then my wing has two encampments, a flight academy, and about 4-5 major cadet training activities.
How much time do you think people have when the same 20% are doing everything?  More people means things get spread out better.

[Eclipse]

One more thing.

No actual missions doesn't the time is wasted.  There have been thousands and thousands of people in the military and ES over the years who trained
up and never got the call, never fired a shot in anger, never flew in combat, never made anything more than a traffic arrest, never saved a life, and never extinguished anything more than a practice fire.

That doesn't mean their time was wasted.  It means they were lucky enough to never need their training.

We train to be ready.  We hope we are capable when the bell rings, and hope the bell never rings.

If, when the bell rings in your area, you see missions and work that you know your people could be involved in, but they simply aren't able to
go, the the failure is local in making the connections with the agencies who would invite you. 

If, If, when the bell rings in your area, there simply just isn't anything your people could actually do, for whatever reason from lack of interest to politics, then so be it.  Time to move on to the Condo Board or the Pet Shelter, but don't insinuate your situation is anything but local, and don't think for a minute CAP has anything close to "enough" people.

(And as Ned said, there can never be "enough" cadets, since some of the mission is growing the corps)

[A.Member]

The lack of missions is a local failure.  Period.   Local might be defined as the Wing, or Group, but it's generally the unit, even though members at the units like to blame anything but themselves.  The units (are supposed to) have the personnel, the trainers, the resources, and the intuitive to execute the missions.  Most wings have evolved into a wing-heavy emphasis on response, training and plans because of the failure of unit CC's to execute on their mandates.

That's a great academic argument...and also a great myth.   The reality is that without support up the chain, including Region and National, a local unit will not be consistently successful in their endeavor for any meaningful duration.  I've seen this first hand.

My wing has more than enough missions, both of the historical nature, and those we see in the pipe, to keep those who still show up busy, and much more is left on the table because of he lack of the ability to respond properly.

Kudos to your Wing.  Perhaps your SD is engaged.  Maybe you've got competent Region leadership.  Whatever the case, embrace it because the trend certainly appears headed in the other direction.

Having 400 people in a group at your disposal is great, having 400 people
spread out over an area the size of my wing, where the furthest points between active units require a 6-7 hour drive is no way to scale your res ponders.

With strategic placement of units, most members are within 1 1/2 hours of their unit.  How many truly statewide responses have you been involved in?  In my 10+ years, I can count on one hand.   In those cases, we've had more than enough local ground team members and aircrew...well, that's easy.

[Ned]

In our squadron, which has 80+ members, we (as a squadron) were called out on a total of 0 missions in 2011.  Zilch.  Zip.  Nada. 

Well, I'm sorry that more people weren't endangered to provide you with a sense of self worth.

But the fact that there were no fires in the past year does not mean that there is a problem with the volunteer fire department.

Indeed, most people would think a lack of fires is generally a Good Thing.

The issue you are attempting to reach only becomes a problem if CAP were called and we could not respond because we did not have qualified aircrews and selfless volunteers like yourself.

If it helps, think of it this way.  When there finally is a fire, it just seems better if the volunteer fire department has more trained and available firefighters rather than fewer.

But we all hope there isn't a fire, don't we?

There are many CAP units in high tempo areas like California that fly many, many missions each year.

In our squadron, the issue is one of people showing up, realizing there are no missions, having nothing to do of real value, and eventually leaving. 

If members are not valued, given meaningful and challenging training, and respected by using their time efficiently and wisely, then I suspect there will indeed be a turnover problem.

That's why we try to have the best commanders and staff officers available to lead their units effectively.

Heck, if all my squadron ever did was sit around waiting for the bell to ring, I'd leave too. 

Restated, this sounds like a local command issue rather than a systemic problem.

Of the cadets that sign membership papers, how many cadets with the program for more than a year? more than 2 years?   

Our first year retention figures for cadets is about 40%; more if we get them flying and/or to encampment.  We actually track this stuff pretty carefully and put in out in a variety of formats (teach it at TLC, requests for input from CAC's, etc.)  It is not a secret.

While a 40% retention figure may "sound bad" to some, it appears to be right in line with other youth groups and programs.  Young people in the 12-18 range often change their interests.  After all, even if we retained every single cadet for every single year of potential membership we cannot get over about 85% retention until we figure out a way to stop the ageing process.

This is not to say that we cannot do better.  We can and should.  The NHQ CP shop strongly believes that retention is primarily related to the quality of the weekly unit meetings.  If your meetings suck, your retention sucks.  If you have good meetings, you have much better retention.  To aid in this, they have a laser-focus on supporting Tuesday nights.  They have revised the texts and curriculum recently, provided a series of "hands-on" aerospace and leadership activities designed for meeting nights, and even put "squadron in a box" on line to provide dozens of model lesson plans and activity guides for meeting nights.

But the key is trained, supportive squadron leadership.  To support squadron leadership, NHQ has revised the CP specialty track, created and fielded the Training Leaders for Cadets course, and revised the CI and SUI guides to provide more meaningful criteria.  Just last year, NHQ developed and implemented the Quality Unit Awards to recognize and encourage successful cadet and composite units.

For CP, "its all about Tuesday night."

And that came about because of strategic vision from our senior leadership. 

And perhaps coincidentally, cadet membership has increased over 10% since we began focusing on meeting nights.

Ned Lee
CP Enthusiast.

[A.Member]

(And as Ned said, there can never be "enough" cadets, since some of the mission is growing the corps)

It's interesting that you and particularly Ned, given his profession, say that. 

When I read Title 36 of the U.S. Code, this is what I see:

The purposes of the corporation are as follows:
        (1) To provide an organization to -
          (A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in
        contributing their efforts, services, and resources in
        developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and
          (B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary
        contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.

        (2) To provide aviation education and training especially to
      its senior and cadet members.
        (3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local
      communities.
        (4) To provide an organization of private citizens with
      adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national
      emergencies.
        (5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its
      noncombat programs and missions.

Which part is the states our mission is to grow membership?   And to which level shall we grow it?