Cohort Recruiting: Great Idea or Greatest Idea?

[NIN]

Participation tracking IS on the laundry list of applications that IT has on its plate.

As you can imagine, there are a myriad of other projects that keep the organization running that have different priority.

Its not as "low hanging fruit" as you'd think, in terms of application development, however.

However, I do agree with you that tracking member participation is both productive from an member operations standpoint ("so, Cadet Timmy, the cadet oath says 'participate actively in Civil Air Patrol activities' but I see here that you've been to 2 meetings in the last 8 weeks, and none of the unit activities since the beginning of the year.  You want to make C/MSgt, you need to participate, its right there in CAPR 52-16.") as well as a barometer for retention BEFORE retention becomes a problem.

Some units do the first part manually, using the print out sign-in sheets found in eServices.  Very handy, but still manually intensive for tracking and, considering the technologies available, really a no brainer for automation.

As far as participation tracking as a function of retention management:

I think everybody here can picture those members who become "retention losses" at the unit level who actually stopped participating 4-8 months before their membership is due for renewal. Units tend to notice a renewal date, but in a large majority of cases, the member didn't last out their full membership year. So waiting until the 30-60 days before renewal is, potentially 4-6 months too late and reaching out to your member at the 10 month mark is laughable.  "You want me to renew? I haven't even been there for 4 months and NOBODY NOTICED."

It is important to identify and act on drops in member participation early.  Especially around cadet participation, early ID of, say, a Phase I cadet who is not showing up to meetings or activities is a key aspect of helping either bring them back into the fold. Or it can help identify some unit environmental problem affecting retention.   But you do this sooner rather than months after they've stopped coming.

With participation tracking, as Eclipse said, it would put a tool in unit hands to help them track & manage member participation, and assist in early identification of potential "retention losses" when there is still an opportunity to re-engage the member while potential interest is still there.

If a "bulk data entry" method could be devised for this kind of a system in eServices, that would allow units to use various data collection methods (ticking boxes next to names on an entry screen, PC-attached barcode scanners or a smartphone-based barcode scanner app) to automate collection of CAPIDs for subsequent entry. This way a unit can speed the data collection process and upload at a later point (ie. when they are someplace with internet).   

I use my unit as an outlying example of how this kind of economy of scale would be helpful to us. We have no access to the Internet at our meeting location except when someone fires up a hotspot, and even that is kind of poor (bad signal in the armory).  At the same time, with around 60 cadets at every meeting, just "running the sign in sheet" takes a fair amount of time.  (I have finally gotten them to stop lining up single file... "there are five pages to the printed sign in sheet. Bust it up by last name and create 5 lines!")  A smartphone app that collects CAPID #s by scanning an ID card would be handy (or you can manually enter the number in the app) and then you could dump the resulting text file into a "meeting instance" either right there at the meeting (the data coverage is good enough for rudimentary eServices access.. it ain't fast, but a text file upload would be fast enough). Hand that app off to 5-6 members with smartphones at the meeting or activity and inside of 10 minutes everybody is "signed in."

If we provide the units with a report or on-screen display showing members and their participation levels (maybe as some sort of a graphic line per member?), suddenly the folks who haven't shown up in a couple weeks become *obvious*. Now you can concentrate your efforts on bringing wayward folks back into the fold.

I'm working with some officers on data analytics to start really examining these trends, and this would be, once there is a base of member participation data available, a boon to determine things like participation seasonality, "average time to loss" for members, etc.    And then there's the visibility to higher HQ of an important metric.


The bigger thing affecting retention is this:

At the end of the day, we know that the largest reasons people depart the organization are that their expectations aren't met, their efforts don't appear appreciated, they flat ran out of time, or poor leadership.

Way, way, way down at the bottom of that list is things like "over-emphasis on uniforms" or "byzantine regulations".

Much of this is a local leadership issue:  The CAP a new member got sold is not the CAP that exists in their neck of the woods.  There wasn't enough thanks distributed when things got done (or the same 3 people were doing the same 13 jobs), etc.

Sure, better commander training, among other things, will help this. 

Simplifying and streamlining the regs, that will help.

Reducing the admin burden on the units, too (so you don't have the aforementioned three people having to do the "required" 13 jobs...).   

Doing a better job of explaining the specifics of the organization as it exists locally can improve the "You sold me a bill of goods!" complaint.

Onboarding members in an organized, consistent manner will reduce churn.

Finding ways for members to participate in a way thats not a "2nd full time job-level commitment," etc..

There's a lot here.

What are WE (locally) doing to improve our own retention in our own units?

[etodd]

I'm a new guy, less than a year now (since Oct.) and am currently a Transport Mission Pilot W/ G1000, O-Ride Pilot, Mission Scanner, Mission Observer and now working on the SQTR for Mission Pilot. Being self-employed gives me a 'little' flexibility such that I'm headed to Syracuse next month for a week of the escort mission as a MO. So yes, I'm fully involved in these ways, along with many in our Squadron.

As another has alluded to above, its the ones' with more 'open' schedules, especially retired folks, who have the time off that can make all these events, schools, SAREXs, etc. Young married folks with kids treasure the few days off they can get a year and usually would rather go on vacation with the kids.

We are a Composite and have a very active Cadet program.

All that being said .... outside of my pilot friends, I have to admit having trouble coming up with a 'hook' to get any of my non-pilot friends interested in visiting.  If its someone technically inclined I can talk about Communications , as we have a great group of folks in that area working with the radio nets. And if they like working with and teaching kids I can talk about the Cadet Programs.  But any of the other areas of CAP, at least in our Squadron is too sporadic, for the lack of a better word. I guess my point is that if they attend a Senior meeting 70% of the talk seems to be geared toward the airplane and pilots. Maybe another 20% geared toward radios and similar. Anyone visiting hearing all of that and not a pilot or interested in radios is not going to visit more than once or twice.

"I" enjoy our meetings, but I'm a pilot. They are always informative and we have various topics and power point or video presentations mixed in. But yes, its 90% airplanes. I hear of some Squadrons that have more 'hands on' activities during meeting times and get things signed off. We do that, occasionally.

Sorry as I ramble too long. Just thinking out loud as to how we could 'spice up' meetings somehow to make them more broad, covering more areas, so as to hit on something that might tickle a visitor's ear.

.

[dwb]

Off topic...

I'm headed to Syracuse next month for a week of the escort mission as a MO.

That's great to hear! The Reaper escort mission is a textbook example of using CAP as part of the Total Force. It took a long time to get that setup, but it's going great so far and I'm really excited to see it succeed.

The relationship between CAP and that ANG unit has been a model of CAP-USAF cooperation for a lot of years (IMHO). I was happy to do my part to nourish it when I was assigned to the Group HQ there.

[etodd]

Off topic...

I'm headed to Syracuse next month for a week of the escort mission as a MO.

That's great to hear! The Reaper escort mission is a textbook example of using CAP as part of the Total Force. It took a long time to get that setup, but it's going great so far and I'm really excited to see it succeed.

The relationship between CAP and that ANG unit has been a model of CAP-USAF cooperation for a lot of years (IMHO). I was happy to do my part to nourish it when I was assigned to the Group HQ there.

Its actually not off topic and is why I tied it to members who have the time to take off work and away from their families to do things like this. I think it could be part of an underlying strain in a Squadron. You have the clique (as it seems to others) that gets to go do these types of fun things while the others stay at home. How to create that type of fun and excitement for the other folks?


.

[TheSkyHornet]

Regarding the subject of tracking---

Our Commander puts the attendance of each meeting/activity into a spreadsheet which calculates percentage of attendance for mandatory unit activities and optional ones. He can look right at it and say "So-and-so only attends 43% of our meetings alone. Maybe they shouldn't hold such-and-such duty position if they can't be there."


But on the note of recruiting, and the point made about expectations not being met, that can be due to several factors. First off, there will always be those people that feel CAP is there to serve them and not the other way around. Yes, we all have a point where we want something in return. For many, that may be the satisfaction of doing a particular job. Who's to say? The reality is that some people feel they are above "all that stuff" and constantly remind you about it. Those are the ones I'm perfectly happy with weeding out.

Secondly, you may have those individuals who got involved and just realized "You know, it's just not my thing. It's not that I don't like it, but it wasn't what I wanted it to be." These are often the people who really want to make something of CAP and they feel the system fights back. It could be due to non-conformance, but it can also be due to an inherent issue in CAP that makes many people feel like this organization has a lot of potential and way too many people standing in the way of achieving that.

That also ties in with my third scenario of the person that has no clue what they're getting into and just want something to do. These are the ones you're going to find are usually the easiest to recruit but the hardest to keep involved. You don't really need to sell the organization to them. But what happens is you don't spend the time making sure they sell themselves to you.

Recruiting needs to be done in a way that pushes the expectations of your unit on prospective members while promoting what it is you have to offer. You need to sell them the confidence that you are offering them purpose in what they do, and they need to sell you the willingness to provide purpose to the unit. Recruiting for numbers will just make your job more difficult if you don't get the quality. But also remember that this is not an organization with a line around the block to sign up. Don't sell yourself short just to get recruits in the door, but don't turn away every person that has something they can offer. It's a tough balance to find.

I will say that with cadets, it's much easier to recruit a group of cadets all at once. You hold an open house, people show up, maybe 50% of them actually stick around to join. But after that first year, only 50% of them may stick around for another year because you recruited a mass pool of people that realized this isn't their gig.

With seniors, you usually see that one or two people that pose an interest but maybe hesitate to sign up. They don't have deadlines. There's no training class starting on xx-xx date. To them, it's "I'll take my time; don't rush me."

[NIN]

Sorry as I ramble too long. Just thinking out loud as to how we could 'spice up' meetings somehow to make them more broad, covering more areas, so as to hit on something that might tickle a visitor's ear.

That wasn't a ramble, that was actually quite good.

Something I've been rolling around in my head is how CAP is a "fit for some people, but not others."

When we try to make CAP "all things for all people," I think we definitely sell ourselves short.  CAP is not a fit for everybody.

Part of that is ascertaining whether a person will be a good fit for the organization at the outset. 

"I just got my private pilot's license" guy is not the guy you "sell" mission flying to up front.

"Well, you can be an MO to start with in the right seat, and then once you have over 200 hrs PIC, move to the left seat as an MP.."

not "FREE FLYING! FREE FLYING!"

because then that guy is going to go "Where's my @#$%$% free flying?"

same goes for a guy who, say, runs a retail store and had 7 kids all under the age of 9.   That guy's time is not his own for the next 10 years or more.

"I can't be at a Thursday meeting, I work every weekend. I'm with my kids after 6pm..."

Again, recruiting for fit is a big aspect of this. 

[Eclipse]

Any commander who sells CAP to pilots with "free flying" and insinuates that it's possible in less then a calendar year
should be an ex-commander.

I purposely use the word "expectations" more then I do "opportunities" when recruiting, at least no one is surprised,
and so far I haven't had too much issue.  People value things which take effort to achieve or maintain.

[FW]

Again, recruiting for fit is a big aspect of this.

So true...  Unfortunately, even recruiting for fit will not guarantee success.  That occurs with good programs, consistently good leadership, and proper access to opportunities.  We have a long way to go before that happens.

[TheSkyHornet]

Sorry as I ramble too long. Just thinking out loud as to how we could 'spice up' meetings somehow to make them more broad, covering more areas, so as to hit on something that might tickle a visitor's ear.

That wasn't a ramble, that was actually quite good.

Something I've been rolling around in my head is how CAP is a "fit for some people, but not others."

When we try to make CAP "all things for all people," I think we definitely sell ourselves short.  CAP is not a fit for everybody.

Part of that is ascertaining whether a person will be a good fit for the organization at the outset. 

"I just got my private pilot's license" guy is not the guy you "sell" mission flying to up front.

"Well, you can be an MO to start with in the right seat, and then once you have over 200 hrs PIC, move to the left seat as an MP.."

not "FREE FLYING! FREE FLYING!"

because then that guy is going to go "Where's my @#$%$% free flying?"

same goes for a guy who, say, runs a retail store and had 7 kids all under the age of 9.   That guy's time is not his own for the next 10 years or more.

"I can't be at a Thursday meeting, I work every weekend. I'm with my kids after 6pm..."

Again, recruiting for fit is a big aspect of this.

I made an argument similar to this just last night during a staff call.

Our CP is up and running quite well, but the senior side has dwindled for a while. So there's this big focus on how to recruit more seniors, to which I said "Well, what is it that they'll be doing?"

"Well, we want people to help us be able to recruit others."

"No, I mean, what is it that they'll be doing once they're on our roster, aside from telling other prospective recruits that they're having fun? What are they having fun doing?"

"Well, we want to get ES up---"

"Okay, hold up. What part of ES?"

"All of it. Let's get a ground team. Let's get a comms station. Let's figure out how to get members signed off as aircrew (we don't have a plane). There's also the AE program we want to have on the senior side."

"Okay, hang on....you're covering a lot of stuff, few of which is feasible right now. Why not focus on one thing? Like, ground team."

"Well, we want to recruit people who want to train with our ground team so we can have one."

"And?"


What I see is a major push to cover everything but not specify anything. I made the point that I'm glad I'm not part of the "senior program" as a CDC. I said the senior side is unbelievably boring, and that's the reality of it---no mercy on that statement. "You guys sit around the table and talk. That's all I see."

"Well, for a long time, the senior program was there to assist the cadet program."

"That's nonsense. I never once asked for their aid outside of any specific classes, like AE and Character Development. What do the seniors do when cadets are outside training? It seems like every senior gathering is a staff meeting."

"Well, that's what it is. We're planning---"

"You aren't planning anything. You're throwing out a bunch of ideas with people who put absolutely no effort into developing any of those ideas. Pick an objective and aim for it. Work on that. If you discover that you have some extra room to focus attention elsewhere at the same time, then look at other plans that won't take away resources from that main effort. You're going to end up being a senior program of people endlessly planning nothing."


What happens when a cadet tells me they can't commit to every meeting? It's totally fine. But know you won't hold a duty position if you can't be here to fulfill it. Feel free to come to activities. But you aren't in charge. And don't come back and say you're bored because you didn't get any work.


Recruit people who will commit and have a skill to bring, even if that skill is simply intellect. We can always teach more skills so long as this person is willing to try. But I don't have the time to be a college professor to new members. You're either going to work with me to learn the material, or I'm going to focus my attention elsewhere. This is neither a babysitting program for cadets nor seniors.

....Okay, now I'm ranting.

[Eclipse]

^ There's a lot of "yep" in this post.

Also, to FW's point, that's why recruiting needs to be over 100% of what is "needed" - maybe 2-300%, since there
will be churn on the FNGs.

[etodd]

"Well, we want to get ES up---"

"Okay, hold up. What part of ES?"

"All of it. Let's get a ground team. Let's get a comms station. Let's figure out how to get members signed off as aircrew (we don't have a plane). There's also the AE program we want to have on the senior side."

"Okay, hang on....you're covering a lot of stuff, few of which is feasible right now. Why not focus on one thing? Like, ground team."

"Well, we want to recruit people who want to train with our ground team so we can have one."

"And?"

What are grounds teams doing these days? With actual SAR dwindling, is a big push in the ground teams viable for new members who may train and then spend years never being called out?  The sporadic ELT in the hangar call. What are the future missions for CAP when the ELT calls finally stop?  (I'm asking ... I don't know)

What I do see ... are units helping with wildfires out west doing high bird, etc., ... aerial photos of flooding in the Carolina's and other places ... Reaper Drone escort services in NY. And more that I'm sure others could mention. All of those are more airplane centric. Is that the true direction of CAP over the next 10 years? If so .... who do we need to recruit for those types of jobs and what training will they need?

Someone said that some places are having trouble currently with Counter Drug Missions due to a lack of personnel qualified for CD. So maybe some emphasis could be put into specifically seeking out new recruits that would be interested in that and could work toward it, since you have to be in CAP for two years before eligibility.

I don't know. I guess I'm just saying there needs to be specific goals in mind when recruiting. Not just raw numbers.

.

[NIN]

I don't know. I guess I'm just saying there needs to be specific goals in mind when recruiting. Not just raw numbers.

We actually have a slide in our presentation that talks about "What we're looking for" and each time we conduct a cohort, we concentrate on, say, pilots or CP folks, or ES-oriented people.

Unfortunately, ES is one of the areas where my unit has slipped in the last 5-6 years.  We do plenty of flying, sure, MP & MO training, etc, but there isn't really a legit ground SAR role for us in the state, so ground team is basically "all training and no call out."

I had a couple Hawk Mountain types in my sq until recently, and during our open house events, they'd get tapped to setup the "ES display."

Well, "ES display" might be overstating it a bit: it was the contents of their rucksacks all spread out on a table "junk on the bunk"-style, the one guy's "medic kit" spread out (I always laughed that he hauled around a blood pressure cuff and a C-collar), and then their carefully folded BDU shirts, ranger tabs prominent, and a collection of orange hats.

"Whats this?" I pointed at the uniforms.

"Oh, sir, that demonstrates ES!"

"Guys, that shirt folded up on the table demonstrates ES like my shoes demonstrate marching.  What about communications?  Urban DF?  Disaster Relief?  Humanitarian assistance?  Mission flying? Aerial reconnaissance?"

With each question their eyebrows arched higher, like this was the first time they'd ever heard these words.  "Oh, uh.. well, sir.."

The problem was: they were selling a swamp-tromping, litter-carrying, emergency aid-giving "emergency services" program.  A program that we not only didn't have in our unit or wing, but really don't even have nationally (the medical part for sure).

I had to guide these guys (over the course of a couple recruiting events) to a more realistic presentation of the ES program to prospective members.  If you listened to them, you got the impression that you were going to join CAP and be dashing over mountains to rescue lost hikers the next day.  Absolutely not the case, ever.

It took a little bit, but the Ground Team aspect of their display took a back seat to a laptop with a slideshow running showing _ALL_ the ES mission areas, maybe a DF & practice beacon on the table, cameras, radios, etc.  Not *just* a backboard and a carrot top.

[Brit_in_CAP]

I purposely use the word "expectations" more then I do "opportunities" when recruiting, at least no one is surprised,
and so far I haven't had too much issue.  People value things which take effort to achieve or maintain.

+1.  I always stress expectation to both prospective cadets and prospective Senior Members.  We also don't sell what we don't have....no aircraft at our unit, we're a Composite that's basically a cadet squadron and our GT assets are rarely called for.

[TheSkyHornet]

I purposely use the word "expectations" more then I do "opportunities" when recruiting, at least no one is surprised,
and so far I haven't had too much issue.  People value things which take effort to achieve or maintain.

+1.  I always stress expectation to both prospective cadets and prospective Senior Members.  We also don't sell what we don't have....no aircraft at our unit, we're a Composite that's basically a cadet squadron and our GT assets are rarely called for.

Very similar boat here, with the exception of not having a ground team up yet. We have two members who have GTM3 but that's it.

There's a lot of chatter in our senior program about how "historically, we all supported the cadet program." That's nonsense. That's an excuse as to why you haven't gotten your own plans drawn out and implemented.

Cadets don't need to be involved in every senior activity and vise versa (with the exception of CP officer staff, obviously). So I think it's a recruiting failure to right out address the interaction with cadets. If you're going to recruit new seniors to focus on SAR, don't talk to them about what their relationship will/won't be with cadets. They are separate programs. I think it scares off some of those gung-ho SAR guys who aren't so keen on working with teenagers because they don't understand how the cadet program interfaces. They don't want to be stuck being babysitters.

I have been asked if I would sit down with new prospective senior members and explain the CPPT process. So one of the first things I address is to say "The reason we need you to take this, even though you may not be working with cadets, is so that you are familiar of the safety and security protocols we have because we do have minors in the unit. As the Deputy Commander for Cadets, I need to be reassured that the other adults in this unit are educated on the do and don't policies we have. It's not just a matter of me keeping an eye on other seniors, but for other seniors to keep an eye on me and each other. Your goal will be to train to do whatever it is you are guiding toward, whether flying or search and rescue---whatever it is. My goal is to make sure my cadets conduct their activities safely at all times no matter who may be on the field with them." That's my spiel.

[Eclipse]

So I think it's a recruiting failure to right out address the interaction with cadets. If you're going to recruit new seniors to focus on SAR, don't talk to them about what their relationship will/won't be with cadets. They are separate programs. I think it scares off some of those gung-ho SAR guys who aren't so keen on working with teenagers because they don't understand how the cadet program interfaces. They don't want to be stuck being babysitters.

They aren't supposed to be, and frankly few "gung ho SAR guys" are a fit for CAP.  Either ops tempo isn't high enough or their flashing lights won't fit through the door.
Further, GTM have and should expect to have cadets on the team.  Pilots should expect to fly O-rides.

"This is CAP, we have adolescent members, if that's an issue, there are other fine organizations that can utilize your skills."

[DakRadz]

Eclipse, there is a difference between a babysitter and working with cadets. And I believe you've acknowledged that above.

I'd wager Sky Hornet is merely saying that, like most things, we should be careful how we present our image to ensure there are not misconceptions. But then, he can answer for himself.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[Майор Хаткевич]

In regards to attendance tracking...Copy the safety module. Expect it to be done online every week, and output the same reports. Easy, and useful.

[etodd]

Keeping in mind how much FEMA and other agencies are using us for photography services of various types and for those Squadrons with airplanes ... how about actively looking in your area for existing photographers as possible new recruits? A new senior member can ramp up very quickly in that role especially if they are already a pro or experienced amateur photographer. GES and Mission Scanner are the only pre-req to start working on the AP SQTR Worksheet. They can then fly often with pilots doing AP Profile proficiency flights.

Surely there are other specific examples like this where you can target someone and actually get them working quickly.


.

[TheSkyHornet]

Eclipse, there is a difference between a babysitter and working with cadets. And I believe you've acknowledged that above.

I'd wager Sky Hornet is merely saying that, like most things, we should be careful how we present our image to ensure there are not misconceptions. But then, he can answer for himself.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

That was precisely my point, Sir.

The SP and CP are entirely separate programs, except during those joint training exercises and potential live events. But SAR is not a function of Cadet Programs. It may be a CAP mission, but it's not a cadet mandate. Just the same, most senior units don't go hardcore in teaching AE in the classroom. It's a very cadet-heavy function even thought it's one of the missions that can apply to everyone.

There will be people that maybe don't mind being around "kids," but they aren't here to babysit anyone. And they shouldn't be put into a position where they feel like they have to.

Frankly, I find far too many seniors, often former cadets themselves, feel that they have some tie to the Cadet Program when the case is completely opposite. They don't have much authority in their own chain of command, or in their personal life, so they like to toss cadets around and make them work for them. I've seen plenty of new seniors join CAP---some either move as far away from the Cadet Program as they can, or some join Comms or ES but can't help and try to interface into cadet activities.

Overall, if a unit is going to try and recruit senior members to train in ES, Comms, or Air Ops, they need to focus on recruiting specific roles and not constantly bring up the Cadet Program. They'll interface over time. And I'm VERY hesitant/skeptical of any brand-new senior member interacting with the CP to begin with for the sake of how complex it is and the protocols we need to make sure we enforce.

I do agree, however, that any senior member whom a cadet says "Who is that guy?" when they have been in the same unit for 5 years has obviously not been a very approachable person. I see quite a few Majors and Lieutenant Colonels that C/2d Lts will go "What does that guy even do?" The Cadet Program is very observant as to what goes on in the senior program, and there's a reason why cadets often feel like the seniors in CAP "don't care" about their program. That's a bold truth.

[RNOfficer]

Recruiting is not the problem in CAP. Retention is the problem with one-fourth of Senior members not renewing each year.

They are both problems, and I daresay the former is currently in a greater state of stress than the latter.

I'm sorry to disagree but I believe retention is the greater problem. When a member leaves, all that experience and training is lost. Further, the loss often creates one more dissatisfied former CAP member who can discourage others from joining. I can't count the number of times I've spoken to pilots who previously were in the CAP and express their dislike of the organization.

Some may claim that these drop-outs were not really committed so the organization is better without them. That's not my experience - - almost everyone I've known to quit, during my 18 year membership, had a clearly articulated reason to leave, usually related to poor command decisions or personnel practices..