How can CAP be more stable en re GOVERNMENT FINANCE?

[Major Carrales]

As we well know, Congressional and other Governmental political shenanigans (choosing to use the definition- "Silly or high-spirited behavior;") en re funding has caused major concern and disruption to CAP.

How can CAP, as a organization, create methods to deal with this that would insure that such behavior could not send such "waves" through the organization?

How can we work to finance things like Cadet O-FLIGHTS and UNIFORM PROGRAMS when funding is in question.  I guess the ultimate questions is, how can CAP survive without government funding? (although I don't want that to take over the thread)

[flyboy53]

I'm probably off base here, but I wonder if the solution is to do something like the Coast Guard Auxiliary and create a foundation that would self-fund our operations.

So many people think that federal cuts like the Sequester would only force the Air Force to depend more on the CAP. In reality, however, the the Air Force more closely guards its funding for its own programs.

[mwewing]

It seems to me that we could explore additional/alternative funding sources. This could include endowments or foundations that manage and grow donations that are made to us. We could explore grant opportunities in a variety of ways. We can also continue efforts to diversify our missions and provide services that are needed by state and local governments.

BUT there is some chance that these efforts may jeopardize our existing funding sources. I am not privy to any fine print that currently exists in connection with our funding, nor can I anticipate what restrictions might be placed on future revenue generated in any of the above ways. I still think they are good ideas to consider, we just need to be careful not to back ourselves into any corners.

The biggest thing we need is a comprehensive marketing strategy. We need a national approach with efforts at all levels of our organization. We cannot continue to rely on the limited time and resources of local volunteers to improve our image nationwide. No offense to the boy/girl scouts, but I think we have a much better program for young people in a variety of ways. Our biggest handicap is a pervasive lack of awareness that we even exist. This has been well documented, but very little activity seems to come from it. Increasing our name recognition and awareness of our missions is an essential first step in securing any large donations or endowments. Likewise it helps us market our missions to other potential customers at a more local level.

Securing grants is relatively easy if effort is made. We need leadership on this issue, that includes strategies at all levels of our organization. Money exists for us, especially when corporations and individuals can use us as a tax write off. We just need to advocate for ourselves in an organized and efficient manner.

Again, I think success depends on our ability to create a strong and positive image for ourselves with a marketing strategy. We need a strong national approach that can help direct region/wing/group/local efforts in an organized fashion.

[lordmonar]

Actually you can't.

Here is why.

Any organisation will spend as much as it can based on cash flow.  So even if we sought ways to self fund O-rides and other programs currently funded by federal dollars......either those federal dollars would just go away or they would be spent on other CAP programs.

Now....if we were to spend some big bucks and hire some full time fundraisers we could become fully self funded.....the question is do we really want to go down that route?

[Eclipse]

...how can CAP survive without government funding?

We can't, and we shouldn't.

CAP is a military auxiliary.  If Congress or the USAF decides we're not a good investment, then we shouldn't exist.

With that said, on a day-to-day basis, the effects of funding issues below wing level are minimal.  That doesn't last forever, and eventually trickles down,
but the lack of funding is far more interesting at the wing or above where staff have airplanes waiting for maintenance, vehicles needing tires, and
training frameworks to fulfill then at the unit level where nearly everything is self-funded.   And I also lump most encampments, NCSAs, and other similar
activities which also receive minimal national financial support.

I'd also hazard that were CAP to be stood down, good people at all levels would work to create something new with a funding model like the BSA, but it would not
likely include a program for adults, and would not be the same paradigm by a long shot.

[lordmonar]

Those were some of the issues I was pointing out.

If the Federal Government stoppped funding CAP......we would stop being CAP.

Some local units may hold together and form new organisation focused on what they were interested in. 
I would forsee a bunch of volunteer SAR pilot organisations forming....
I would forsee the cadet program simply disappearing as the BSA, the ACA and other organisations take up those kids.

Those who are in CAP for the sense of belonging will find other organisations to join.

It would be sad.....but we (the members would move on).   What makes CAP different...is that we are the Offical Auxillary of the USAF.   If we are not funded by the USAF then the very crucial bond will be broken and over time we would drift apart.  The USAF will want something from us or we would want something from them and an impass would break our relationship.

We talk about how corporate CAP has become......think how bad it would be if we were self funded?

[bflynn]

We can't, and we shouldn't.

CAP is a military auxiliary.  If Congress or the USAF decides we're not a good investment, then we shouldn't exist.

So CAP that isn't an official military auxilary isn't worth having?

That's placing a lot of value on something over which we have no control.  We cannot force the Air Force to have us as an aux.  I think that's part of the tension between us and them right now - we really don't provide value to them, but we require resources from them. 

We think we need them far more than they think they need us.

[RiverAux]

Despite our technical status we always have been and always will be basically a creature of government and therefore subject to the vagaries of changing governmental priorities.  Outside of coming up with some sort of tax that is specifically dedicated by law to CAP (wildly unlikely and still subject to change), its something we just have to live with, just like the AF does. 

How much of a buffer does CAP have to deal with budget reductions -- not a whole lot.  I'm sure the AF isn't interested in us building up a huge "rainy day" fund. 

So, the best we can do is work at this a little bit around the edges and basically sell ourselves out to corporations interested in advertising to our members and others --- Boeing logos on CAP planes, giant Hertz stickers on our vans, the GE Smithville Cadet Squadron headquarters building, etc.

All of these are extremely distasteful and still wouldn't make up for major governmental cutbacks.

I think there are two possibilities
1)  CAP goes on with funding more or less like what we've had with ups and downs every so often.
2)  Someone decides to permanently save a lot of money by whacking CAP entirely from the federal budget and eliminating all mentions of CAP from federal law -- essentially cutting us entirely from federal government control.  In which case we're done for. 

[Eclipse]

We can't, and we shouldn't.

CAP is a military auxiliary.  If Congress or the USAF decides we're not a good investment, then we shouldn't exist.

So CAP that isn't an official military auxilary isn't worth having?

If CAP isn't a military auxiliary, it simply "isn't".

By far the majority of the operations of both the cadet and senior programs are not possible as a stand-alone fully civilian entity.

[mwewing]

Now....if we were to spend some big bucks and hire some full time fundraisers we could become fully self funded.....the question is do we really want to go down that route?

I am not suggesting that we hire full-time fundraisers. We can use our extremely capable unpaid professionals to meet our fundraising goals, but we need a comprehensive plan and clear objectives. We also need some resources with which to execute any plan.

I am also not suggesting that we use fundraising to become completely self-sufficient. Any fundraising initiatives should be to supplement our AF funding and should be designated for specific purposes in support of our missions. At the point that fundraising jeopardizes our AF funding, or takes away from our missions, it becomes counterproductive.

[bflynn]

If CAP isn't a military auxiliary, it simply "isn't".

By far the majority of the operations of both the cadet and senior programs are not possible as a stand-alone fully civilian entity.

I don't understand that statement.  Perhaps it would have been true in the past, but under the new governance structure, I see the Air Force's involvement with us is largely limited to an oversight role.  That is mainly because we get funding from the government and therefore some kind of oversight is needed.  If CAP were self-funding through endowments, federal funding and AF oversight would not be necessary.

There are many self-funding organizations out there that do service for the community.  It is defeatist to believe that CAP cannot be one of them if we choose to be.

[FlyTiger77]

If CAP isn't a military auxiliary, it simply "isn't".

By far the majority of the operations of both the cadet and senior programs are not possible as a stand-alone fully civilian entity.

I don't understand that statement.  Perhaps it would have been true in the past, but under the new governance structure, I see the Air Force's involvement with us is largely limited to an oversight role.  That is mainly because we get funding from the government and therefore some kind of oversight is needed.  If CAP were self-funding through endowments, federal funding and AF oversight would not be necessary.

There are many self-funding organizations out there that do service for the community.  It is defeatist to believe that CAP cannot be one of them if we choose to be.

I tend to agree with BFlynn. Although CAP without designation as the USAF Auxilliary would look much different, it could still be a viable organization.

[Eclipse]

I tend to agree with BFlynn. Although CAP without designation as the USAF Auxilliary would look much different, it could still be a viable organization.

Maybe, but doubtful, especially at a national level.  And then viable doing "what"?

The OP asked about government financing, not USAF involvement, but assuming they are inextricably intertwined, which I believe they are,
then without the USAF, there is no CAP.

At the most basic level, despite all the wailing and gnashing about uniforms, our schizophrenic nature, blah, blah, the role the USAF
has in regards to our day-to-day operations, core missions, and functional legitimacy cannot be discounted.  Whether for those who have
never served, served and seek to continue their military association, or who wish to be part of an organization which has higher expectations
then "Pork County CERT", "Jim & Sally's SAR", or the "501(c)3 Cadets", the USAF affiliation is key to their initial and continued participation.

I would also put forth that while we certainly don't always hit the mark, the military culture of respect, core value of excellence, and
the day-to-day reality of the watchful eye of Big Brother Blue is what keeps us on track, and from degrading into "Condo Board SAR" or
"Pancake Breakfast Cadets".  Seeing how many of these types of organizations are run, their lack of real mission, and their "Flying Club"
adherence to rules, would leave a lot of us with more weekend free time.

Specifically Without the USAF:

No cadet program.
     No E3 for Mitchell
          Sure, "Other" could be ramped up in its place.  Good luck with that.  There are currently no nationally successful paramilitary cadet programs
without a straight-line connection to their parent service.   Everything else is either "working towards", or a very local brute-force effort with
mixed results.  Outside JROTC, there's nothing else like CAP.  I would point to the ACA as an example of a successful organization,
and they are working towards an affiliation with the Army, and their scope is regional at best.

No uniforms, no identity, no customs, no courtesies (and likely the pervasive TwitFace attitude that "everyone is equal").
No free uniforms for cadets.

No AFI-2701
     No access to military facilities and resources.
          Probably 1/2 the encampments dissolve overnight, the other 1/2 double in cost.
          1/4 to 1/3 of our units lose their home overnight.

No use of guard or state facilities.
     That kills another 20% of encampments and tosses out a number of Wing or other HQs.

No free landings at airports.

No 1AF support or involvement
     No military support missions
     No DR or "other"
          No Katrina, Challenger, Sandy, etc.

No O-Rides.
No Green Flag.
No GIIEP.
No Counter Narcotics Operations.

No national command and control infrastructure.  The internet makes these easier to create these days, but they
don't just "happen".

That's just stuff I can think of quickly.

I'd also guess no airplanes, vehicles, or radios, either, as the feds would likely liquidate the fleet and pile of toys
to low bidders through DRMO or similar - many of our members would get new airplanes, cheap,
a few units would try to buy them back and use them for a local club, and most would only be
seen occasionally with the old paint scheme parked on a ramp somewhere with the badges spray painted over.

On the "CAP" side, we wouldn't really even be "Civil" anymore, in the general sense, since that
connotates government connectivity.  We'd just be "Air Patrol", except no planes, no mission, and no cadets.

For those with a limited scope, not participating outside their home units, or to the many who would just as
soon as fly a club rental as "deal with all the military BS"  the USAF's impact on CAP might seem minimal,
but as you get out of the home units, participate in major activities, or work towards scope and mission,
you see they are inextricably linked to our existence.

There's plenty of room for "other", but there's no CAP without the USAF.

[lordmonar]

This is one of those situations where you are both right.

Yes.....we could keep CAP going if it had no affiliation with the USAF.

There are plenty of purely volunteer SAR (and and ground) and we could continue with a cadet program just fine.

We could even keep our "auxillary" relationship with the USAF with out their funding.

But.......as Eclipse pointed out......it would be a lot of hard work.   Each wing, group and unit would have to work to establish local relationships with their government ES counterparts.....we drop off the national SAR Plan.   Our relationship with the USAF would get even more strained and because we are CAP......with all the problems that go along with that.......it would not be long before we drifted apart (if not outright thrown off base!).

The fundraising side of things would have to become a major focus of our organisation.   The ARC, BSA, Girl Scouts spend a lot of their time and money just raising money, which would change the nature of our organisation.

It could be done......but most likely it we would probably fall apart and only hold on in a few pockets where the effort returns higher profits.

[bflynn]

And then viable doing "what"?

That's the question with or without the Air Force, isn't it?

[Eclipse]

And then viable doing "what"?

That's the question with or without the Air Force, isn't it?

No, at least not today.

We have a Congressionally mandated mission and from the perspective of the USAF and Congress we are still a sound bargain.

We are currently a tool box for the USAF.  It's possible, like many other USAF tools and projects that we could get mothballed, but
that doesn't mean anyone else would be able to make good use of the organization.

That it might become "other" isn't relevant to that is is now, or the fact that absent government funding and USAF affiliation is won't "be".

[Major Carrales]

I have been gone from this forum for over a year...and still, there are people who, in my opinion, seem to downplay the importance of CAP.  CAP means a lot to me.  It does good work.   

Why people on this forum seek to knock it at every turn, pine for it's dissolution or otherwise question it's validity and, yet, take the time to come here and post a reply or read it religiously is beyond me.

My question was meant to mitigate the issues that arise from FUNDING GAPS, be they at the end of the FISCAL year due to slow actions by Congress to approve an annual budget or some special case like the sequestration.  Not to call into question the validity of CAP or to debate its draw down.

[Eclipse]

My question was meant to mitigate the issues that arise from FUNDING GAPS, be they at the end of the FISCAL year due to slow actions by Congress to approve an annual budget or some special case like the sequestration. 

Fair enough, but I don't see how that's possible.

Congress provides primarily capital dollars, operational (mission) funding, vehicle O&M, plus salary and benefits for paid staff.

None of that could come from member donations.

The kinds of things we could use donated funds for are already essentially self-funded.

[RiverAux]

I have been gone from this forum for over a year...and still, there are people who, in my opinion, seem to downplay the importance of CAP.  CAP means a lot to me.  It does good work.   

Why people on this forum seek to knock it at every turn, pine for it's dissolution or otherwise question it's validity and, yet, take the time to come here and post a reply or read it religiously is beyond me.

I don't see any of those issues in any of the replies in this thread.

My question was meant to mitigate the issues that arise from FUNDING GAPS, be they at the end of the FISCAL year due to slow actions by Congress to approve an annual budget or some special case like the sequestration. 

And I think what most people are saying is that there aren't any real viable options available to CAP to make up for significant decreases in funding provided by the federal government.  If they cut funds, CAP programs will be accordingly reduced. 

Unless some ex-CAP cadet who happens to be a billionaire comes along in that situation, we're going to be out of luck. 

Of course, this depends entirely on the scale of the decrease which can't be predicted.  Minor decreases aren't going to be a big enough concern to cause major changes in CAP efforts to find money.  A major decrease is likely to be so severe that other sources just aren't going to be able to make it up. 

About the only area where I think we could make up for federal cutbacks relates to ES work that we might be able to get funding for from the states -- though since most of them are still in fiscal crises, this seems unlikely. 

[Major Carrales]

I don't see any of those issues in any of the replies in this thread.

BFLYNN's quote to Eclipse would show otherwise.

bflynn wrote on on April 01, 2013, 11:23:16 PM following this quote of Eclipse...

Quote from: Eclipse on April 01, 2013, 12:10:44 PM
And then viable doing "what"?

He replied...

That's the question with or without the Air Force, isn't it?

A critical reading of that would insinuate that he doubts the viability of CAP as it exists now as well as if that bond did not exist.  If not, explain what he meant...and if not that, then let him explain it.