New look AF relationship

[DNall]

I was working on something else & came across a statement that caused me to think about CAP.

I DO NOT want to rehash the same old discussions. I want to see how others correlate this to CAP, and try to give a fresh outside the box look at how our command structure is linked to AF, vs. corporate CAP, vs BOG/NEC/NB, vs executive director strong orgs... is there something to be learned from this statement is what I'm asking & if so what is that & what changes does it demand?

During the inter-war period, there arose another high school training program that in many respects resembled JROTC. It became known as the National Defense Cadet Corps (NDCC). The main difference between the competing programs centered on the amount of support they got from the federal government. Whereas JROTC units received instructors and uniforms from the Army, NDCC programs did not. Weapons and a few training aids were about all that NDCC schools could expect in the way of material assistance. Many NDCC units wanted to join the JROTC program but couldn't, due to a lack of funds to support JROTC expansion.

Since the supervision and funding of NDCC units rested almost entirely in the hands of local school authorities, the Army's ability to exert its influence over them was tenuous. Consequently, the Army exhibited less interest in the NDCC than it did the JROTC. NDCC took on a second class status and never attained the degree of military acceptance enjoyed by the JROTC. This lack of acceptance was evidenced by the fact that in 1939, only 34 NDCC units were in operation - a mere 27 percent of the JROTC total.

Full text: http://www.khsd.k12.ca.us/south/gied33/greg_underwood/JROTC_History.htm

[RiverAux]

I would put CAP somewhere in between the JROTC program and the NDCC.  AF does have some decent control over CAP's program compared to the NDCC, but not as much as JROTC.  I suspect CAP also gets a lot more support than the old NDCC, but it is hard to compare to JROTC since a lot of AF money in CAP goes towards stuff like planes which support the cadet program if not directly part of it. 

And, it doesn't necessarily follow that just because the service has strong oversight and control that the program itself is more successful and/or receives more monetary support.  The CG has firm control over CG Aux but their monetary support to individual units varies widely. 

[DNall]

And, it doesn't necessarily follow that just because the service has strong oversight and control that the program itself is more successful and/or receives more monetary support.  The CG has firm control over CG Aux but their monetary support to individual units varies widely. 

I'm not actually talking about monetary support. That's always going to be mission linked. They'll give you what they absolutely have to in order to accomplish the part of the mission they need you to do for them. Outside of that, you're always going to be on your own.

I'm really referring more to the relationship. As in... if CAP were more tightly controlled within the AF chain of command, what impact would that have on the overall relationship - in this case, given this historic example, what parallels would you draw & extend to CAP.

I firmly believe that the nature of that relationship in turn defines: the degree or confidence in CAP's competence/capability to do missions; and the exposure AF personnel have to CAP so that it's in the thought process when they're trying to find solutions. That in turn results in mission load, which results in additional support, monetary or otherwise.

[JayT]

And, it doesn't necessarily follow that just because the service has strong oversight and control that the program itself is more successful and/or receives more monetary support.  The CG has firm control over CG Aux but their monetary support to individual units varies widely. 

I'm not actually talking about monetary support. That's always going to be mission linked. They'll give you what they absolutely have to in order to accomplish the part of the mission they need you to do for them. Outside of that, you're always going to be on your own.

I'm really referring more to the relationship. As in... if CAP were more tightly controlled within the AF chain of command, what impact would that have on the overall relationship - in this case, given this historic example, what parallels would you draw & extend to CAP.

I firmly believe that the nature of that relationship in turn defines: the degree or confidence in CAP's competence/capability to do missions; and the exposure AF personnel have to CAP so that it's in the thought process when they're trying to find solutions. That in turn results in mission load, which results in additional support, monetary or otherwise.

I really couldn't see how the Air Force could tighten control of CAP, practical like.

Last time I checked, the Air Force just cut forty thousand spots.

I'm curious how you think the AF could 'tighten control' over CAP. Assign officers and NCOs to individual units? To Groups? To Wings? To Regions? More inspections by AF personnal who may have no previous experience with CAP?

For example, there's one unit in my Group who meets at an ANG base. They still have as many uniform problems, they still do drill incorrectly (RIGHT GUIDE FALL IN ON ME!!!!!!!), and while they do help out with the ANG unit, they sometimes miss out on local CAP stuff.

I think that CAP needs to start working from the bottem up.

[RiverAux]

I don't see a CAP more tightly controlled by the AF as being much different than what we have now. 

I don't think we would get more ES missions because given our resources and capabilities I think we're doing as much as we can for them right now.  The real potential for mission growth is at the local and state level and the AF has done all it can to distance itself from such missions. 

Could we end up with more VSAF-type missions?  Yes, I think the CG/CG Aux is the prime example of that.

Would it affect cadet programs?  Maybe in squadrons near AF units, but since most are not, I don't see it much differently.  The AF is already pretty good about assisting in terms of encampments, etc. 

AE?  No difference. 

Where I see a more tightly controlled CAP being different is in terms of CAP administration.  If more of the ultimate decisions were made by the AF and we didn't have to follow a corporate model, I think some changes for the better could be made. 

However, the big assumption is that the AF WANTS more control of CAP.  Since it costs money to do more oversight, I don't think this is even on their radar given that they're cutting so many folks right now. 

[JayT]

I don't see a CAP more tightly controlled by the AF as being much different than what we have now. 

I don't think we would get more ES missions because given our resources and capabilities I think we're doing as much as we can for them right now.  The real potential for mission growth is at the local and state level and the AF has done all it can to distance itself from such missions. 

Could we end up with more VSAF-type missions?  Yes, I think the CG/CG Aux is the prime example of that.

Would it affect cadet programs?  Maybe in squadrons near AF units, but since most are not, I don't see it much differently.  The AF is already pretty good about assisting in terms of encampments, etc. 

AE?  No difference. 

Where I see a more tightly controlled CAP being different is in terms of CAP administration.  If more of the ultimate decisions were made by the AF and we didn't have to follow a corporate model, I think some changes for the better could be made. 

However, the big assumption is that the AF WANTS more control of CAP.  Since it costs money to do more oversight, I don't think this is even on their radar given that they're cutting so many folks right now. 

You said it best. A lot of people on this forum seem to think that there's some major Corporate conspiracy to keep us down. If the Air Force wanted more control, I think they could easily take it from the 'Corporate' guys.

[RiverAux]

Well, it actually wouldn't be easy -- they would have to go through Congress and if they were doing so over the objections of CAP (like the last time they tried), it might be tough. 

[JayT]

Well, it actually wouldn't be easy -- they would have to go through Congress and if they were doing so over the objections of CAP (like the last time they tried), it might be tough. 

So it's not worth it on there part?

[RiverAux]

The effort vs reward calculation probably results in a "no".

[DNall]

A lot of people on this forum seem to think that there's some major Corporate conspiracy to keep us down. If the Air Force wanted more control, I think they could easily take it from the 'Corporate' guys.

The AF has tried several times & generally been slapped down by Congress cause of whinny CAP members making a bunch of noise to their elected officials. If as military officer did that when their control of a program was threatened, they'd no longer be a military officer.

The motive of CAP leadership is always going to be to keep member numbers high, money coming in, and themselves in power. That doesn't necessarily equate to the ever changing needs of the AF and country. If you take that power away from CAP & return it to the AF, where it has been for most of our history, then I think CAP becomes a more responsive asset. The role of CAP leadership should be to take that direction, salute, execute, supervise, & report.

I don't think we would get more ES missions because given our resources and capabilities I think we're doing as much as we can for them right now.  The real potential for mission growth is at the local and state level and the AF has done all it can to distance itself from such missions.

This is kind of what I'm talking about. Yes, there are limits to our current equipment & capabilities, obviously. However, those capabilities are determined by our policy, and that's what I think gets fixed in this model.

If AF is fully in charge, do you think there's a big debate & multi-year resistance to NIMS? Or, do you think we're operationally reorg'd something like the comm TA says, resource typed, NIMS trained... all of which leads to being part of the FEMA mutual aid system.

Do you think we show up on a crash scene & don't provide medical care? Or, do you think we run recruiting effort to pick up more EMTs, offer scholarships to our members for the training, and have a system set up with an AF doctor serving as medical director executed via the on call emergency doc at Tyndall on the phone with AFRCC?

Now, minimal investment & you can strap light weight off the shelf FLIR on the side of most existing airframes for a minimal weight penalty. That's easy to do & opens up a serious amount of HLS type missions in addition to making us much more capable for SaR/DR.

Why doesn't that happen right now?

Cause right now, you're talking about boy scouts with airplanes & a bunch of common civilian pilots playing around in subsidized Cessnas so the AF isn't distracted by the unimportant stuff. Our folks aren't incompetent for what we do, but they also aren't the same as trusted trained military operators.

What I'm saying is we're capable of doing what we have been doing for the last 60 years, but we're not capable of much more significant then that, and the limiting factor isn't our planes. You give them a free hand and I think they start changing that.

VSAF I think will track toward CGAux model already, but I think AF presents some real unique opportunities that exceed what CG has to offer on that point. Particularly the new cyber command & working w/ 1AF.

Cadet programs & AE I think would shift focus to more explicitly answer the AF reason for sponsoring the program - that is about the recruiting pool, career familiarization, public support for air/space power; versus citizenship & back to the boy scouts with planes crap.

[RiverAux]

No, the AF is trying to limit its legal and finacial exposure by putting all the risks involved with doing missions for local and state governments on CAP the corporation and those agencies that request our help.  They're not all of a sudden going to start giving out a lot of AFRCC mission numbers for lost person searches just because they have better control of CAP.  They're still going to say, hey sheriff, if you want us to fly, you better pay up. 

I don't think that we're not getting FLIR because the AF doesn't trust CAP to operate it proficiently.  They spent a ton of money on ARCHER, which is infinetely more complex than FLIR. 

If AF is fully in charge, do you think there's a big debate & multi-year resistance to NIMS? Or, do you think we're operationally reorg'd something like the comm TA says, resource typed, NIMS trained... all of which leads to being part of the FEMA mutual aid system.

Sorry, don't buy it.  CG Aux is fully under control of the CG and CAP is light years ahead of CG Aux in actually using ICS even though CG Aux operational folks are way ahead of CAP members in taking ICS100/200/400/800.  Heck, even the CG isn't really all on board with NIMS yet.  Since the AF isn't going to be using NIMS to any great extent, I don't think they would have been pushing very hard on CAP to do it either.  I know this is a pet issue of yours, but CAP is no worse than most other volunteer agencies in this respect around the country and is ahead of some. 

VSAF I think will track toward CGAux model already, but I think AF presents some real unique opportunities that exceed what CG has to offer on that point. Particularly the new cyber command & working w/ 1AF.

I don't disagree, but don't see any significant relationship between AF control over CAP and this.  No matter what the CAP-AF relationship is, the AF will still have the same degree of control over volunteers participating in those or any future programs like that.  If they don't want an individual CAP member to play -- they won't. 

[Earhart1971]

MORE GASOLINE on the FIRE:

All,

The Vision I have for CAP, is CAP can Self Actualize itself;

by not living and dying with the Air Force Budget, and whatever level the Air Force is willing to fund our organization.

The Air Force is a Separate Service and almost a road block to the appropriate funding of CAP, if we have a accurate view of the current situation.

The Air Force wants to limit CAP or else why would they fund AFJROTC with 200 Million per year, an entity they totally control, and fund the CAP Cadet Program with 4 million per year.

The Air Force cannot control CAP, that is correct, and its good news. CAP is a Private Corporation. The Air Force if in control of CAP, would not change or improve our organization in my opinion.

Unfortunately, CAP does not have control of CAP at all times.

If National sends no money to my Squadron, we execute our Plan the way we see fit. And that is reality.

We choose to be a Cadet Squadron, we focus on the Cadet Program and the Cadet Program is what sells CAP.

If National had a Vision, this is what could be done:

Push the CAP Middle School Program - Cadet Program Elective in Middle Schools, and start them everywhere. A CAP Middle School with 150 Cadets, can draw volunteer Seniors on weekends from 100 miles away to support that kind of unit.

Push it hard until we have a large number of Middle School Squadrons, and keep going with that until we have say 300,000 Cadets in the School Program Nationwide. The funding would have to come from local School Districts for the Instructor at the start. Later with numbers, results, stats, the money will flow, politicians are not STUPID!

Then CAP can get Operations and Maintenance funding for the Cadet Program that makes sense, like about 200 Million Dollars a year.

Air Force would rather have an extra F-22, than give us 200 Million frankly, and the Air Force I hear is short 4 Billion this FY.

Congress is and always will be our funding source.

I would instead look to Congress, and HLS or the Dept of Education to provide funding.  The CAP Cadet Program helping the teenagers of America.

Still the Air Force would benefit, from a larger Cadet Program, whether the Air Force realizes it, or funds it, is not material to our Plan.

CAP can grow, but we need to stop accepting additional missions, without funding. Let's stop funding our program out of membership wallets.

We need to stop reimbursing HLS, and Border flights at 1980s rates, and yes start to pay pilots Per Diem, where a Pilot can afford to take off work a week, as if in the National Guard, and Fly an HLS/Border Mission one week duty schedule.


At best the Air Force will give moral support, and be a partner, but not a funding source for growth. Our Country and our youth would benefit with a larger Cadet Program, and from there every other goal  CAP may have as a vision flows.

It can all start at the Cadet Program.

By the way, I was in the Air Force, I understand the Air Force, and I would only approach the Air Force in a position of strength, after we reach step one, after we become the largest Cadet Program in the United States.

Any Questions or Comments?

[RiverAux]

I'm not sure thats the best strategy and would seem to harken back to the program that DNALL brought up at the beginning of this thread -- because they didn't really have a strong sponsor, they didn't survive.  Who  in the world besides the AF has any interest in helping fund an aviation-centric military cadet program? 

[Earhart1971]

Local Funding is being used at the moment.

Somebody in CAP needs to be able to Sell this to Congress.

There is a Congressional Squadron, is it just a flying club or what?

[FW]

Gentlemen, you've struck a nerve.

Prior to 1994, the Air Force played a much larger roll in CAP affairs.  But, because of a major reduction in personnel, we have the current system in place.
And, it wasn't the CAP who asked for the changes.

There were major differences between then and now.  First, there was no real cadet program support, except for assigned mandays at cadet encampments or some special activities.  Second, funding for training missions was smaller on a percentage of budget.  Third, we had airlift for cadets and seniors to national activities. Fourth, CAP-USAF personell attached to the respective wings only provided oversight when it was convenient.  I remember serving on wing staff in those days.  The LO and LNCO were never around and were almost impossible to contact.  Also, I remember contacting national many times to get assistance with vehicle maint. or aircraft maint. support; let's just say the system is more responsive to the membership now.  

Since 2000, CAP has undergone significant changes.  For the first time, the SECAF is an active participant in CAP affairs through the 4 members of the BoG he appoints.  Also, he plays a part in the appointment of 3 additional members.  Like it or not,  it's the BoG who governs CAP.   Also, for the last 5 years, there has been a department under the CSAF that handles "Auxiliary Affairs" .  Believe it or not, we have more support now than at any time since WW2.

CAP-USAF's current main function is to make sure we adhere to our Cooperative Agreement and Statement of Work.  That's really all they do.  We may argue about details however, that's about it.  

After "9/11", CAP went "back to its roots".  More national agencies have requested our assistance than ever before.  Our aircraft fleet is newer, more sophisticated and better maintained than ever.  Our cadet programs our supported better now than at any time; especially with enhanced corporate sponsorships.  And, if you would like to compare our cadet program with JRAFROTC, fine.  To me, it is like comparing apples and spinach.  
BTW; $200m for AFJROTC?  That's for what?  Uniforms and salaries for instructors.
The program is in financial trouble and are looking for ways to improve their  financial standing (received from a reliable source).

The motivation of the "CAP Leadership" is to maintain the highest quality organization possible.  Yes, a large membership is desirable.   But leadership's main goal is to be accountable to the organization and its members.   "Good Governance" is the phrase of the day.  Our current commander is very serious in insuring the best qualified individuals hold leadership positions and that this becomes ingrained in our "culture".  

Then there is "NIMS".  At the last NB meeting,  the board accepted NIMS as our training standard.   It's a done deal.  After 2009,  if you didn't pass NIMS, you lose your certification and you can watch from the sidelines.  The AF had nothing to do with this decision.  

Providing medical care,  give me a break,  we've went over this in several past threads.  Basically, if you want to add CAP to your malpractice insurance,  go for it.  Just make sure it's for about $100m.  If you make an error, CAP gets sued.  We'll use your insurance and everyone is satisfied.  And don't think for a minute congress will change anything which will make them more liable than they currently are.  Remember, 90% of the money we get is from the taxpayer,  not the AF.

School Program?  So far there are 2000 cadets in this program.  We dedicated $25k for administrative assistance this year.  The school districts give salaries to teachers who are also members.  Then there is the "Junior Cadet" initiative.  Phase 2 would be to get more funds from DOE for expanding the program.  

IMHO, the AF can and will not do anything which will "enhance" our capabilities.  
Only a well trained and motivated membership with an inspired and dedicated leaderhip, and our friends in congress will make it happen.  While we are not there yet, we are on the right track.  We have the vision, we have a stratigic plan and, yes, we have a business plan.

Now, I'm going to take a deep breath, relax and enjoy life in the fast lane.  

[Earhart1971]

Reply, the CAP Cadet Program,is funded with 4 Million FY 2006 dollars, probably no increases from there over say 3 or 4%.

That is NOTHING! Its a TIP!

AFJROTC is losing funding yes, the Air Force is looking for covering 4 Billion.

Comparing a one Mission Cadet AFJROTC Program with the CAP Multi Mission Plus and a Cadet Program is not a Apples and Oranges comparison.

It EXPOSES the Problems with CAP and the Air Force.

You have a Plan, maybe, but its NOT FUNDED.

Your Plan is better "Leadership" translation, more funding of CAP  out CAP membership wallets.

After 9/11 CAP lost a chance that will probably never come again. CAP was badly needed. Money was there, we could have asked for the Moon and the Stars, and gotten it.

We accepted new Missions, and New Aircraft, New expenses, with out adequate and reasonable requests for  minimum funding for the entire program and our goals and vision.

There were no goals except short term survival. CAP has been on life Support funding, and has been accepting and taking on more and more missions. Only to the stress of the membership.


All of this clearly without any concept of were we really are financially.

[Earhart1971]

I firmly believe that the nature of that relationship in turn defines: the degree or confidence in CAP's competence/capability to do missions; and the exposure AF personnel have to CAP so that it's in the thought process when they're trying to find solutions. That in turn results in mission load, which results in additional support, monetary or otherwise.

Since 9/11 CAP has gained funding yes, but only in direct support for our additional missions. AT THE BARE MINIMUM.

Gaining New Equipment while good, on the surface, adds to our stress. We have to man Airplanes with Pilots.

We could fly 100s of thousands of hours, on the current funding and BURN OUT EVERY possible pilot we can possibly recruit. Then WHAT?

Here is how 9/11 and aftermath should have been approached by the CAP Leadership at National.

National HQ should have had a Figure for funding ALL our Missions, that allows us to add missions and keep membership from churning, and gain membership, and instead of having to recruit, how about, interviewing prospects that want to join CAP.

The Minimum figure should have been 100 Million Dollars, double our current budget.

That should have been the BASE LINE, with increases for additional equipment, per diem and going to a semi National Guard like organization back in 2001.

And you need volunteers for National Disasters like Katrina, another opportunity missed. That could have been an opportunity to fund the Cadet Program at say 50 Million a year, for the Cadet Program, with increases. Yes, we can provide Cadets for handing out water, and damage assessment. We can rotate them out of each Wing, take them out of school for a week. Fund the Cadet Program with real money for a change!

Seriously, we missed these opportunities. Why?

[Earhart1971]

I was working on something else & came across a statement that caused me to think about CAP.

During the inter-war period, there arose another high school training program that in many respects resembled JROTC. It became known as the National Defense Cadet Corps (NDCC). The main difference between the competing programs centered on the amount of support they got from the federal government. Whereas JROTC units received instructors and uniforms from the Army, NDCC programs did not. Weapons and a few training aids were about all that NDCC schools could expect in the way of material assistance. Many NDCC units wanted to join the JROTC program but couldn't, due to a lack of funds to support JROTC expansion.

Since the supervision and funding of NDCC units rested almost entirely in the hands of local school authorities, the Army's ability to exert its influence over them was tenuous. Consequently, the Army exhibited less interest in the NDCC than it did the JROTC. NDCC took on a second class status and never attained the degree of military acceptance enjoyed by the JROTC. This lack of acceptance was evidenced by the fact that in 1939, only 34 NDCC units were in operation - a mere 27 percent of the JROTC total.

Full text: http://www.khsd.k12.ca.us/south/gied33/greg_underwood/JROTC_History.htm

The Answers to CAP and the future can be gained by studying the JROTC Program, as it is now. There are opportunities for CAP. CAP can help JROTC and vice versa.

I have personally interviewed 5 local JROTC Instructors, and at some point I may expand on that in a new thread. They were open honest and I got a lot of good information.

One thing I will say, is JROTC is also struggling. Some units at High Schools with 3000 students have less than 100 Cadets.

I also found one AFJROTC Unit that had 350 Cadets, that is the largest unit I came across.

I think its partially the School Districts suffering with problems with kids (the ones that want to join JROTC) are having to go to rehab courses for math and reading instead of being allowed to select JROTC as an elective class. They cannot take JROTC. They need academic rehab first.

That was one of the things the JROTC Instructors told me.

Other things came up, and I did find ways CAP can benefit from some of the information I gained. I might start a thread on that some time.