This is something I started back in 2003 and the dawn of the "P Thing That Cannot Be Mentioned".

I grab the membership numbers around mid-December before they start disenrolling members for non-payment of dues etc. I/we then watch the Magic Number bounce around Dec and Jan until it stabilizes around N-Train. Then we get a good approximation of the yearly loss.

So without further ado.

As of 16 Dec 2007 the Aux had:

28,980 active members defined as

3082 IQ
22690 BQ
3208 AX

The Aux failed to break the 30K barrier.

It also had 860 Applicants and 6,239 retired members.

I'll see if I can find the beginning of year number. It will be interesting to compare the year end loss to the membership enrollments during 2007.

Anyone want to place a friendly bet on 'how low will the Aux go'?

I see us at about 25k in two years assuming no dramatic remedial changes.

But comparing numbers now to numbers five years ago is disingenuous. That's like comparing 2008 dollars to 1978 dollars and calling them equal. IMO, even without radical change and redefinition and adopting a 21st century recruiting viewpoint, we should be at 40k with lackluster recruiting.

The population in general and the population of boaters, continues to grow, so many more potential recruits are available. Our worthy missions continue to grow, so we have many more untypical and broader appeal Auxiliary opportunities. The post 911 US awareness of diligence is much higher, more citizens aware and concerned, looking to help. And the post Katrina era has heightened awareness of the need for volunteers to supplement the government.

So I would estimate that with even break-even recruitment, our numbers should now be at plus 33%, just to keep up with "inflation". So my version of our results is that we're down about 50%.

And I have a sense that we’re going to see another big slump. There was an extraordinary effort made to retain members at the very end of the PSI cycle. There was a lot of begging, pleading and arm-twisting going on as most of our elected leadership were on the line for that retention effort. What’s that now, a year ago? And FL keeps talking about the seven year itch, which if true, will further hammer us.

FWIW,

I think I missed the peak and the Aux is already in the downhill slide of year end disenrollments.

I made a post on 02 Oct 2007 correcting a faulty claim that the Aux membership had exceeded 30,000 for 2007. The real active membership on 02 Oct was quoted as 29,306 - 326 more then currently reported by AuxData.

I also found a post that lets me back into the 07 Jan 07 Magic Numbers.

So this is as close to a year-end tally as I can get. At this point the Aux is up 2,015 members for 2007. Retirements are also up by 758 members. The Aux ends the year with the applicant pool down by 139 potential members from its beginning point.

Folks, if we are up 2000 members in one year, I would call that almost explosive growth for this sort of organization on a nationwide level. Sure, individual flotillas might pull off a year where they grow by 25% or more, but overall, something like 3% would probably be pretty darn good overall growth rate and it looks like we've exceeded that by a bit.

So, I think we should be fairly satisfied with these numbers.

I think that there is probably some flotillas that won't recruit younger members, and that is hurting the Auxiliary. Same thing is happening with alot of the veterans groups as well...

So, I think we should be fairly satisfied with these numbers.

Like many in the Aux you are declaring victory too soon - in this case about a month too soon. The Aux has always had a fairly good to excellent track record on recruitment. It is abysmal at retention. Since the Aux recruits all year, its membership number goes up all year long and everyone wants to sip the champaign early and often. Then January hits and the once a year disenrollments happen. That is the one and only time the Aux knows whether it will experience 'the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat'.

And since 2003 the retention problem has been worse then the historic average. As noted, we are still in the 7 year itch danger period for the 'pig in the python' 9/11 Cohort. And if you read the few district newsletters available on the web, many of them are concerned with a memberhsip (and facility) drop-off related to the "Plane Thing" and the new BCQP requirements.

A report out of the National Staff last year stated that with its retention problem the Aux is basicially turning over the entire membership every 10 years.

In Fifth District Northern Region, Division Nine has been disestablished. It's pretty hard to put a positive spin on that enrollment reality, although one could commend the decision to face the facts in this instance.

Source

Two of the flotillas are barely above the minimum to keep functioning. Maybe as a sign of the times, of all the time recorded by all of the flotillas in the division for 2007 67.2% was spent on Aux Admin.

That compares to 7% lead Marine Patrol Hours and 4.54% lead PV hours, the next highest two categories.

And do you think there might be a direct correlation between only 1.5% of the time being lead PE hours and the sad state of the division?

We also have an entire division that is on "death watch." The only thing that keeps it alive is the number of hours they spend in support of Sector. Since we have merged (?) with the Gold side, support hours are the "Holy Grail" of the auxiliary. Any other auxiliary endeavors are deemed unimportant.

FL, pick a side. you said disenrollments were already starting...

you said disenrollments were already starting...

Note the keyword you used - "starting" -not "finished". The major part of the disenrollments do not occur until after 31 Dec.

Take a look at some historic disenrollment numbers from 1997-2001. That is pre-"P" Thing and 9/11 Cohort. The lowest figure of disenrollments and deaths was 3531, more then enough to wipe out this year's recruitment. The highest figure, 4140, is almost double this year's recruitment.

A yogiism:

quote:

It ain't over until its over

and it ain't over until January.

Or as an opera fan might state:

quote:

It isn't over until the fat lady sings

and she has barely started warming up.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FL51D7,

It was Monday morning and the Magic Numbers hadn't been posted probably due to the holiday but as the The Mamas and The Papas sang

quote:

Oh Monday mornin' you gave me no warnin' of what was to be

Because by nightfall the Magic Numbers had been posted.

There are three tables below.

The first table compares this week (23-Dec-07) to our mid-Dec date of 16-Dec-07. This is the surrogate for the Aux peak enrollment for the year. As we move along the 16-Dec date will be kept.

The second table compares this week (23-Dec) to our best guess at the year begin number (7-Jan). The +/- here tells us if the Aux had a net gain or loss.

The bottom table is now fixed. It is the the Peak (16 Dec) data compared to the beginning of the year. It will be most valuable at the end of the exercise by comparing it to the final table 2.

Without further ado (because of cut and paste the column headers don't center over the columns but you should be able to figure it out):

Disenrollment Comparison
16-Dec-07 23-Dec-07 Difference
IQ 3082 2993 -89
BQ 22690 22556 -134
AX 3208 3189 -19
Total 28980 28738 -242

AP 860 846 -14
Retired 6,239 6247 8

Beginning of Year Comparison
7-Jan-07 23-Dec-07 Difference
IQ 2494 2993 499
BQ 21284 22556 1272
AX 3187 3189 2
Total 26965 28738 1773

AP 999 846 -153
Retired 5481 6247 766

Pre-Disenrollment (Peak) Year End
7-Jan-07 16-Dec-07 Difference
IQ 2494 3082 588
BQ 21284 22690 1406
AX 3187 3208 21
Total 26965 28980 2015

AP 999 860 -139
Retired 5481 6,239 758

Quality instead of Quantity!

Quality instead of Quantity!

For those with an affection for Latin:

quote:

Non Multa Sed Multum

or "Not many but much". That was also the motto used by Como Bolling Douglas in her inaugural address in the 7th District Breeze in 1979. Como Douglas was the first female to reach the rank of DCO.

Her statement was rather heretical at the time. The Aux's enrollment stood at about 46,000, up from 26,576 in 1970. Many thought that the Aux may have finally recovered from its deliberate draw-down after WWII and be headed to the 100,000 mark of membership.

Como Douglas was sounding a warning (I read that article and her subsequent 7 more as DCO) about growth for the sake of growth. She stated she would prefer a smaller organization of qualified and committed members then a large organization of what we call today 'the fog-a-mirror members'. That was absolute heresy in its day and may explain why Como Douglas never progressed further in the organization. She would serve honorably and well for several more decades. She retired about 2 years ago after 40+ years of service.

Como Douglas believed that if the quality and committment were there then the numbers would come - maybe slowly but the organization would grow.

Within 5 years of Como Douglas' statement, the 1984 BCQP and "No Tow" Policy would come to be and the Auxiliary membership would tank to 32,000.

The interesting thing about the quality vs quantity arguement is how Nat changes its mind. During the "P-thing" that cannot be mentioned, Nat was hot and heavy that every member had to be 'saved' or retained. Then was all was said and done and about 30% of the membership was gone - well according to the then NACO the Aux didn't need those members anyway.

That wasn't the first time, nor will it be the last time, that Nat has vacillatd like that. The Chronicles record the same thing going on back in 1984. And if as many suspect, the "Plane-thing" and then new BCQP requirements decimate the aviation and boat programs - we will hear the same thing all over again.

Despite the fact that some of the old-timers are still complaining about the 1984 policy changes, not to mention the shift from the khaki uniform, there is a lot of activity in surface ops. The new BCQP will be accepted by new crew as "normal" after a while they'll wonder what the big deal is.
Providing that QEs are available for the 3 year interval, things will probably work out.
We had a few cox'ns write letters to the OTO resigning their positions, ostensibly as a protest. That's their business, however, it would have been more palatable to me had they mentored new people as their replacements rather than being didactic.
The first thing I did as FC and DCP was to request the "living dead" to recruit their replacements, not many did. Perhaps these people, having done nothing except pay dues for so long, forgot that other people still do the job.

I don't think the boatcrew change is anywhere near significant enough to cause any noticable membership problems. Jeez, if coxswains resigned their position over something as benign as this, I'm not sure I would have wanted to work with them in the first place.

These guys had both been on the job for a long time, I think they just wanted to make bagging it a statement rather than just going REYR. Since they are still active in other programs it isn't as if they are completely gone.
Knowing how these things work out, I wouldn't be surprised to see either of them at a helm next summer. Both are current in their quals and the "letter of resignation" is meaningless.

quote:

Quality instead of Quantity!

I think we need to be very careful when we advocate this position. What is quality and how do we measure it?

Is a boat crew obsessed division with all emphasis placed in the BCQP going to recognize quality in the few who man the annual boat show booth every year? Is the one lonely member who works the Marine Dealer Visitor Program seen as quality? What about those members who gave thousands of hours in the past, but now are relatively inactive? Are members who do not participate because of a badly disfunctional and entrenched leadership to be considered less quality? Are members who are limited in their ability to participate because they have become old, sick or who are physically handicapped considered lower quality?

I would rather we had many from which to choose and motivate rather than a few we flog or burn-out. I would rather we offer a much broader spectrum of available participation and let members find their own level of comfortable participation.

I have never understood why people get upset about having low-participation members. If nothing else they are financially contributing to the organization. If they only stand 1 watch at a boatshow or do the minimum number to retain VE qualification, thats fine by me. Thats more than they would do if they were sitting at home watching tv.

As we've seen over and over again, even fairly active members are not going to be the guys responsible for most of the work anyway. At the national level, the guy who does 30 hours of patrols isn't really all that much better than the guy who only did 6 since it was the few people that did 500 hours of patrols that were actually responsible for most of the on-water time anyway.

The Magic Numbers for 30 Dec 2007:

Disenrollment Comparison
Status 16-Dec-07 30-Dec-07 Difference
IQ 3082 2983 -99
BQ 22690 22494 -196
AX 3208 3178 -30
Total 28980 28655 -325

AP 860 858 -2
Retired 6,239 6297 58

Beginning of Year Comparison
Status 7-Jan-07 30-Dec-07 Difference
IQ 2494 2983 489
BQ 21284 22494 1210
AX 3187 3178 -9
Total 26965 28655 1690

AP 999 858 -141
Retired 5481 6297 816

Pre-Disenrollment (Peak) Year End
Status 7-Jan-07 16-Dec-07 Difference
IQ 2494 3082 588
BQ 21284 22690 1406
AX 3187 3208 21
Total 26965 28980 2015

AP 999 860 -139
Retired 5481 6,239 758