Opinion on Unit Strength

[NIN]

That actually makes a lot of sense.

It used to be that we had "one group per county" (well, sort of) in MI Wing.

Southeastern Michigan had, as I remember, 4 groups:

Group III was Macomb County with 6 squadrons (One was a unit in St. Clair County, and later, one way up in Sanilac County, too)
Group II was Oakland County with (off the top of my head) 6 or 8 squadrons
Group XVI was Wayne County, but it might have just been western Wayne County, with 5-6 squadrons, etc..

The "less populous" areas of the state like out toward Lansing and such had a group to cover multiple counties and not every one had a squadron, even.

But certainly, one squadron per county with subordinate flights in populated areas *might* be a good alternative *especially* with decentralized things like testing.

I could use my county as an example:  Merrimack County has ~147,000 people.  That is ostensibly our "recruiting area" (although we pull a tiny bit from Hillsborough County). 

With the current size of our unit, we have 1 member for every 1250 residents in our county. Thats pretty good penetration, considering that the Wing as a whole is 1/2400 and Nationally we sit at 1/5800-ish.

Could my squadron stand to be smaller? Sure could. We're starting to bust at the seams in the Armory (not administratively.. physically).  So if we had, say, a cadet flight at the Boys & Girl Club right here in town with 4 or 5 officers managing the ops there on a Tuesday with 20 cadets, we could progbably support a cadet flight up the road in the town of Warner (about 20 minutes west northwest) with 5-10 cadets to start, and a third to the east in Chichester with another 10-15 cadets and 2-3 officers, each centering on easy transportation networks and population centers, and a school flight up in the city of Franklin at the north end of the county.

The idea would be to possibly expand each unit to the point where it could become its own squadron..  That might actually be helpful in the long run

[Garibaldi]

We meet in the basement of a church, have since 1962 or so. Historically, the unit has been small, goldfish syndrome and all. Spam and I would love to have the problem of finding enough space to accommodate a ton of new members, busting at the seams every Wednesday. Of course, that would mean having to move, finding new meeting space, etc. But with an active membership of around 15 cadets and 7 seniors we could stand to expand.

[Storm Chaser]

I think that's the typical size of many squadrons. One of the problems I see in the cadet side is that with 15 cadets, there's really only one flight. The cadet commander in most squadrons this size is really a flight commander. The more cadets in the squadron, the more opportunities for advancement and leadership.

[Spam]

Correction: as of this weeks calldown report, our unit has 31 active, out of 40 cadets on the books.  11 in A (Advanced) Flight, 12 in B (Basic Training) Flight, a 3 person cadet command element, and several cadet staff officers.

The nine inactive include cadets who have gone away to college, etc. as well as a few on academic or family leave. My consistent message is: CAP is third priority after your obligations to your higher priorities - your faith, your family, and your schoolwork. So, one of our C/CMSGTs for example is on leave due to his math grades.


V/R
Spam

[NIN]

I think that's the typical size of many squadrons. One of the problems I see in the cadet side is that with 15 cadets, there's really only one flight. The cadet commander in most squadrons this size is really a flight commander. The more cadets in the squadron, the more opportunities for advancement and leadership.

"Average" unit cadet strength is ~24 cadets.  Average unit senior strength is ~18 seniors.

[lordmonar]

Now the question is.....is 24 cadets good enough to provide a leadership lab that produces a Spaatz cadet?

Because that is the TARGET unit size for cadets.

[Eclipse]

Now the question is.....is 24 cadets good enough to provide a leadership lab that produces a Spaatz cadet?

I would say "yes", on the minimum, but it's not optimum, and the quality discussions would hing on
where in the progression chain those 24 are.

With Cadet Exe staff & line staff, that would be about two flights running at minimums.  All the important jobs would be available and
workable, but with no depth at position (which is an ongoing CAP issue), and it doesn't take much to collapse that plan down to one flight.

It should go without saying that it would require those 24 all be active.

[NC Hokie]

Now the question is.....is 24 cadets good enough to provide a leadership lab that produces a Spaatz cadet?

Because that is the TARGET unit size for cadets.

The QCUA metrics give additional credit to units with 35 or more cadets, so this may be NHQ's true target size.

FYI, only 15% of cadet units met this standard in the 2014/15 QCUA cycle.

[lordmonar]

I'm suggesting that NHQ may not really have a cohesive concept of optimum unit size. 

Don't get me wrong the QCUA is a good program.   

I'm just asking the questions here.   What is the right sized unit?  What is the bench mark before some one has to step in and bail them out?   What is the bench mark when we should split a unit into smaller units.   

Is it a fixed number. Is is a situational number?   How does that number fit into the cadet program as written in 52-16?   

Does the Quality unit award and squadron of merit and squadron of distinction support these aims and goals?   Does TLC and UCC training reflect these goals?  Does the SUI program reflect these goals?

[Spaceman3750]

[...]
I'm just asking the questions here.   What is the right sized unit?  What is the bench mark before some one has to step in and bail them out?   What is the bench mark when we should split a unit into smaller units.   

Is it a fixed number. Is is a situational number?   How does that number fit into the cadet program as written in 52-16? 
[...]

There's probably not a good answer that fits every community in every wing nationwide. This is where good commanders are supposed to help.

[lordmonar]

How is a good commander supposed to know, if we don't even have good guide lines of what the notional cadet program is supposed to look like. 

This is what NIN is asking about.  How does the wing recruiting officer know when a unit is struggling?

[NCRblues]

How does the wing recruiting officer know when a unit is struggling?

It helps if the Wing has one that is engadged at all, or a CC that is willing to have a realistic conversation about the units in question.

[Garibaldi]

How is a good commander supposed to know, if we don't even have good guide lines of what the notional cadet program is supposed to look like. 

This is what NIN is asking about.  How does the wing recruiting officer know when a unit is struggling?

Just my .02, but if he notices something along the lines of loss of members, lack of progress, units staying at the same strength year after year, varying membership rates when new CC's come and go, lack of higher milestone awards, lack of PD advancement, lack of recruiting, general malaise...things like Spam mentioned earlier with regards to the unit with 3 cadets and 2 senior officers. I've been to units with a large cadet population that weren't doing anything but AE, because their CDC and AE officer were the same person. I've been to units smaller in size that were accomplishing all 3 missions and churning out quality cadets. It runs the gamut, but it starts being an issue when the unit crosses someone's radar. There have been units here in GAWG shut down or combined with another because of lack of progress or churn or whatever. If the wing officer (recruiting/retention, group commander, cadet programs officer) isn't visiting his subordinate units then that's a serious problem. S/he should be in the field, not just flying a desk once a month, churning out "let's do this thing and it'll be epic" emails without follow up. I'm not saying go visit every unit every week, but make an effort and show that you are invested in the lives of the units.

You can't see the problems unless you get out of the office.

[Eclipse]

How is a good commander supposed to know, if we don't even have good guide lines of what the notional cadet program is supposed to look like.

We have >excellent< guidelines, just no one pays them any mind, including most CC's.  QCUA = 35, my experience says 50.
Some would argue 25, but we all know charter minimums are laughable and unworkable, and when a unit hits those, they are probably dead,
especially if they pass an FY that way.

Anyone with the experience and chops to actually >be< a CC, knows this answer, anything else is an excuse, however
we don't pick CC's based on experience and program knowledge, we pick them based on presence and respiration.

And as discussed in the OE thread, we aren't even discussing how to grow them on a national level, primarily because when
you're spending all your time on patching holes below the water line, what color the deck chairs are painted is fairly irrelevant.
(Except that in CAP, there's a LOT of time spent on the deck chairs, too, especially the colors).

How does the wing recruiting officer know when a unit is struggling?

Anything other then "recruiting", isn't the RRO's job, that's what the Commanders are for.
There's little they can do for "retention", either, beyond reporting - but that >is< what they are supposed to do.

Report trends, color statistics, and perhaps make some calls into the whys a unit's number are dropping precipitously,
then report that to the CC.  However if the CC is actually learning anything from the RRO as first-hand info, he's baked.

And this is another reason term limits are "good", there's a Venti on the bar that says nearly every wing has at least one unit
with a term-limit+ CC sitting at minimums or below, that everyone in the wing knows has been dead for years that no one end "because".
Terms limits force those issues, or at least they are supposed to.

You can't see the problems unless you get out of the office.

Absolutely.  Having made that mistake myself, this is 100% true.

[lordmonar]

I think that what's I'm getting.

I don't see 52-16 guidelines on unit size is very clear at all.

There is certainly not any sort of cohesive understanding of what the numbers should be.

I agree that a really viable program would be around 50 active cadets.  But that's not written down anywhere.

And once again we are back to argument of what the heck WING and GROUP leadership is supposed to be doing for the squadrons.

If Wing is not there to help out squadrons....then why do we have them?

Sure....sure....it's the squadron commander's job.   But if/when a commander is getting burned out, over his/her head, not performing to standards....it is wing/group's job to step in, re-educate, assist and other wise "fix" the problem.

So I go back to my question......where are the bench marks to show that a squadron is Failing, Marginal, Satisfactory, Outstanding?
What tools do we have for the squadron commander to know when he needs to shift his focus on one area of the program vs another area?

And this is not about the deck chairs.....these are in fact fundamental questions.

What objective criteria does a squadron commander have to gauge if he is doing his job?
Not the SUI I dotting/T crossing....but really running an effective program.

I know it is not taught anywhere in the 52-16.
The QCUA gives us some sort of guidelines....but they are sort of just arbitrary as far as I can tell.....good ideas, but no regulatory backing and to a point not backed by any of the supporting training or publications. 
No where is our Emergency Services manning levels clear stated.  And there are no metrics to gauge how you are doing except the NHQ stated goal of getting 200 hours on each air frame.

My point to of this toward the Recruiting and Retention aspect is that we FIRST need clear mission taskings at the unit level (what you are going to do, how often and how much) and that drives the manning and equipment needs of the unit.

Once those are in place......all the rest fall into place.   If your unit is tasked to provide CP to 50 students then you know that they are successful when they got 50 cadets.   When they drop to 30 then that is when the commander and higher head quarters knows that they need to step in and help out.   If once that happens it drops below 20 we know that the program is no longer viable and drastic action is needed.

Same sort of thing needs to be done on the ES and AE and any other aspect we can think of.

Right now....we got little guidance.  We got pick and choose missions.  We got little to no wing/group involvement in squadron activities.

This is not to say that NHQ or other higher headquarters are screwing up by the numbers.  It just means we that we (all of us) get caught up in the weeds that we can't see beyond next quarter let alone next year.

[/rant]

[Spaceman3750]

Emergency services manning levels will be dictated by the operations tempo of your wing and the needs of the agencies you support, which should inform the wing's emergency services [training] plan, into which all subordinate plans should feed. In other words - there's no national minimum, and there's no need for a national minimum - it CAN and SHOULD be driven by local leaders.

[RiverAux]

My rule of thumb is that you have a decent chance of maintaining 1 CAP member per 1,000 residents in most towns of 10-50K.  That ratio can be beat, at least in the short run, with a super-active person doing the recruiting, but probably isn't sustainable for very long. 

Once you get into larger cities of 50K+ I think the potential to have multiple units is certainly possible, but it doesn't seem to happen very often in practice.  Things get thrown out of whack when you start talking about major metropolitan areas where there is more than enough population to support a whole lot of units, and perhaps they did in WWII, but now they mostly seem to have just a few. 

[lordmonar]

yes....I agree.  But who dictates to the units what their portion of that manning and training is supposed to be?

[Eclipse]

To Lord's points, I would argue that the SUI is / was intended for the purpose of unit temperatures, but poor implementation,
poor execution, and poor training and understanding, have come together to make it literally the opposite of its intended purpose.

A quarterly "dipstick check" (take that term any way you like), coupled with an annual self-eval, plus the formal inspections should be more then
enough to keep a unit on track, but no one reads the second page, nor do upstream commanders take that information and turn it into
marching orders.

Start with manning.  Run a wing level report into Excel and find every CC who's got more then one job.
find out why and fix most of them (sometimes there are legit reasons, those are the exceptions).

Rinse, repeat.  But that never gets done.

So I have to agree, this situation, like every other problem in CAP, returns to the lack of management from above.
Not "leadership", that's an entirely different conversation, management.

CAP commanders are held to a full-time pseudo-military / pseudo-governmental execution standard for promotions and awards, but
the organization is run like a part-time social club.   Experience shows this isn't working.