The following is taken from the D7 Strategic Plan, which was posted to the web June 2008.

page 9

quote:

District membership demographics show a large” median” membership (54%) in the 60 to 79 year old age bracket. These are also our more experienced members who are gradually phasing out of active participation thereby limiting our future ability to provide the expanded support levels we expect to be requested of us.

While this age group clearly contains the necessary skill sets, they are often unintentionally looked upon unfavorably by the younger aged active duty CG. As a result, they often become disillusioned by the apparent lack of need for their services and become inactive or even drop out completely.

We need, therefore, to develop specific recruiting and retention programs that both retain these valued resources and introduce a new, lower age group of members to fill the increasing support requirements.

quote:

The overriding comments heard from our membership regarding the “Gold Side” are “they don’t use us enough”, and “they have no concept of who we are”. The unmistakable strength we maintain is a sincere desire of our members to be involved, to help, and to make a difference. For whatever reasons, that has not been leveraged over past years into a joint, cooperative development of the application of Auxiliary skills and resources to augment Active Duty CG capabilities and requirements. Planning has been done by both groups, but at arms length and with little or no buy-in to each other’s plans. The “status quo” is beginning to change.

There is something that needs to be factored into the above Auxie complaint. It seems geared toward augmenting and/or surface/air ops. The Gold Side has never told the Silver to do less PE, VE or PV. Further, a lot of what the Gold side asks the Silver to do is the Infamous 'back-fill and support' ie paperwork and other admin tasks, not the 'tip of the spear' stuff the Aux claims to love or want to do.

This goes back to EngelJ's long lament about the Gold and Silver not really understanding what the role of the Aux is supposed to be.

The 'fix' for the above is on page 11:

quote:

Reduce our membership “Median Age” by ten (10) years over the next five (5) years

This is the 'plan' for that (note the lack of specifics):

quote:

o Use our “Marketing Team” (PS, PA and CS) to develop generational specific recruiting plans. (Gen-X, Boomer, etc.)
o Leverage the skills of National Staff
o Include representation from all areas and levels on the planning team
o Provide training to Flotilla and Division PS Staff to implement the plan

The average age of the Aux is 59.8. That is where it has been for at least 10 years. Nationally the Aux has been unable to budge its average age, if anything it may have gone up a decimal point or two after the PSI, which hit the youngsters the hardest. So what makes D7 think it can drop the median age 10 years in only 5 years?

I have to agree with the "back and fill" comment. In this AOR the emphasis is on working at Sector doing paperwork. Everything else is ancillary.

UHHH.. Is the D-7 retirement age going down? I agree it not going to happen but looks good on paper.

The average age posted was for the whole Aux, acitve members but also including the applicant pool.

By district and area:

LANTAREA East 59.7
1NR 58.5
1SR 55.1
5NR 60.0
5SR 60.3
7 62.3

LANTAREA West 61.0
8CR 57.6
8ER 58.8
8WR 57.6
9CR 58.1
9ER 67.7
9WR 69.6

PACAREA 58.8
11NR 59.7
11SR 59.6
13 58.9
14 56.7
17 54.3

A few interesting factoids from the above.

D7 contrary to rumor is not the 'oldest' district by average age. It ranks 3rd, behind 9WR and 9ER, out of 16 districts.

No district is currently at or below where D7 wants to be in 5 years, approximately 52.3. The closest is D17 with an average age two years higher.

quote:

Reduce our membership “Median Age” by ten (10) years over the next five (5) years

So here we go again. Year after year, generation after generation. The same old song that does not work.

"First "We Need to [fill in the blank) has been ground to death. I am so tired of hearing what we need to do, and then never, ever seeing a funded, supported, crystal clear, step-by-step plan to achieve what "We need to ..." That's all just bureaucratic dodge-ball speak.

But before we decide what it is we need to do, shouldn't we ask our membership what they feel we need to do?

The real scary stuff is that they really believe that by lowering the age, all will be well. News alert - this just in.... It's not the median age that's the problem here, it's the lack of National vision of the role of the Auxiliary and the unwillingness of our leaders to stand up and sell/insist on that to the USCG. If the USCG active don't get the Auxiliary role and see little relevance in oall the sixty year old members, well, too bad for them. We have our missions, we can do them well.

Look, we don't need to be "more like them" by appearing younger and hence, more like them. That does not work. We do not need to keep trying to stick our noses under the USCG mission blanket. They have their missions and we, should we ever decide to actually get with it, have our missions. And it's what they (the USCG) wants us to do anyway. It only gets awkward when we try to push into their world.

Our Auxiliary missions are very relevant. We could be standing up and proudly pointing to RBS missions as a singularly stellar example of making a difference to our country. But oh no, we want to shuffle paperwork and get patted on the head occasionally by the USCG. We suck up the platitudes like "we couldn't do it without you" like we're dying pof thirst in the desert and the USFG has the water supply.

But we just keep running our heads into the "we must be more like them" wall and bouncing off, forever I guess.

Step 1: Stop recruiting from the retirement/assisted living communities... Start recruiting from colleges, universities, and active employment centers frequented by the younger crowd.

Not all of us have one foot in the grave, nor can simply "fog a mirror". There are very active (operations -- oh, the horror!) roles available for Auxiliarists can play to provide assistance to the AD USCG. D8CR Diraux commented on one such example in the latest issue of "Behind the Eighth"...

Too many times, I've heard members of elderly stature exclaim, "we're not young enough to do that". Well, if that is the case -- do what you can at your age and step aside (rather than create a self-fulfilling obstacle) to the younger members who can.

Another poster is asking for input to the Diversity Council. Yes, we should make sure that opportunities exist for the older or physically challenged members. But do not forget that diversity just as equally should include opportunities for the younger members and prospects to do things (tasks requiring physical ability) more in line to actively assist the AD & Reserves when appropriate.

Relationships are the key. Develop a relationship with the local Station or Sector and seek out the opportunities. Once the personnel become familiar with you -- and your capabilities, you would be surprised at the extent and level of involvment available to serve as an Auxie. I know I continue to be amazed at the acceptance and tasking provided to me from the AIRSTA and Sector.

Bottom line -- if you are going to play the role of "grumpy old man", no -- they will not want you around, much less include you in mission tasking...

And we have to ask ourselves, as we do every time this discussion comes up - who is going to recruit the vast hordes (no kidding - vast hordes are needed to reduce the avg age by 10 years) of super young (also no kidding - you cannot recruit at the new avg age to move the avg age to that number - you must recruit even younger).

The legendary and/or infamous 'grumpy old men'. It is doubtful. The Aux was running a very truthful advertising campaign a while back - "Just like us". Members do tend to recruit people just like themselves - so the 'grumpy old men' aren't likely to recruit youngsters. Nor are they likely to be hanging out where the youngsters are.

That leaves the youngsters themselves - you know those hot heads who only want to do action stuff - not the milk toast stuff to run a flotilla - like recruiting. And there aren't enough of them anyway.

Here are the number of members (active plus applicants) in the 3 youngest age groups. There are 1059 flotillas. The third number is the ratio of youngsters to flotillas.

Age Group Nbr
17-29 1351 1.3
30-39 1753 1.7
40-49 3.9

Since the report is a D7 report, here are the same numbers for D7 which has 104 flotillas.

17-29 231 2.2
30-39 253 2.4
40-49 630 6.0

So once again we come full circle. There aren't enough youth to do the recruiting for people 'just like them'. Nor do they want to do it - they joined for the 'action' stuff.

The 'grumpy old men' will tend to recruit more 'grumpy old men'. Besides - they aren't likely to want to recruit more youngsters who do nothing but keep insulting them.

So as EngelJ pointed out - we once again have a plan with no substance, no actionable items and pretty much on its surface is doomed to failure. But it sure looks good when you send it to the Gold Side.

Also notice the time frame - 5 years. Neither the DCO nor the VCO will be in district office when it comes time to see if the plan was fulfilled. One of the RCOs, who probably had nothing to do with putting the plan together might be in the final year of his DCO tour.

And that is just the recruiting side. Once the youngsters are in, they have to be trained or else they vote with their feet. And the Aux does a lousy job of MT.

There is another way to try and make the avg age lower - drive out the oldsters. There appears to have been some success with that approach with the aviation maintenance thing and BCQP changes. However, the P-thing backfired. Proportionally more youths left then seniors - leaving the Aux even 'older' then it was before.

It can be done. Recently, a detachment was formed on a college campus in Division 8 of D8CR. All of the members with the exception of the "faculty advisor" are in their 20s...

The possibility of charter into a stand-alone Flotilla is certainly probable.

I can only imagine if a similar endeavor were attempted at the local 4-year University in my coastal community -- it could tap into a group of young people that would become involved and yes, some would shift over to AD or Reserve... Think of it as a sort of ROTC for the USCG. The possibities are unlimited if people have the desire to make it happen -- rather than just B&M about how the organization is "graying out".

quote:

Think of it as a sort of ROTC for the USCG. The possibities are unlimited if people have the desire to make it happen

Well, again, that's not our mission. Nor is it a mission that the USCG has expressed any interest in us doing.

Why don't we try and do the missions we are specifically designated to do and which we not doing well at all?

Why don't we recruit with those missions clearly leading as what's expected of our new recruits and let the potential members decide bnefore they join?

quote:

Originally posted by FL51D7:

quote:

Reduce our membership “Median Age” by ten (10) years over the next five (5) years

It's easy to spout this stuff when there are no consequences attached to failure. And similarly no indication nor incentive for any buy-in by the people who would have to do the actual work and develop the programs to make this a reality. In the corporate world if the plans weren't fully in place after year one with clear indications of at least 80% of goal being acheivable on schedule by year 2. Someone would be pounding the pavement.

Anyone want to guess if any part of this will end up in the local DIRAUX's performance objectives?

quote:

Originally posted by ENGELJ:

quote:

Think of it as a sort of ROTC for the USCG. The possibities are unlimited if people have the desire to make it happen

Well, again, that's not our mission. Nor is it a mission that the USCG has expressed any interest in us doing.

Why don't we try and do the missions we are specifically designated to do and which we not doing well at all?

Why don't we recruit with those missions clearly leading as what's expected of our new recruits and let the potential members decide bnefore they join?

It's a side benefit ENGELJ -- not a primary objective. Getting younger people in the organization, involved in the programs, with increased awareness of recreational boating safety are all primary objectives. Should some find themselves attracted to the AD or Reserve side of the house through the process -- it is a secondary benefit.

Oh, and yes -- recruiting for the USCGA, AD, and Reserves is a mission that Auxiliarists can pursue. Thus, why we have Auxies trained in recruiting who wear the USCG Recruiter badge on their uniforms -- as well as the Auxiliary ribbon for USCG Recruiting Service in addition to that awarded for Auxiliary recruiting service...

Sometimes I think the root of negativity and objections to thinking outside the box by older Auxies is attributed to fear/resentment of those younger (aka, gray/blue hair disease).

Fly&scuba:

quote:

Think of it as a sort of ROTC for the USCG. The possibities are unlimited if people have the desire to make it happen

ENGELJ:

quote:

Well, again, that's not our mission. Nor is it a mission that the USCG has expressed any interest in us doing. Why don't we try and do the missions we are specifically designated to do and which we not doing well at all? Why don't we recruit with those missions clearly leading as what's expected of our new recruits and let the potential members decide bnefore they join?

fly&scuba:

quote:

It's a side benefit ENGELJ -- not a primary objective. Getting younger people in the organization, involved in the programs, with increased awareness of recreational boating safety are all primary objectives. Should some find themselves attracted to the AD or Reserve side of the house through the process -- it is a secondary benefit.

The AD doesnt go into ROTC looking to recruit. People get recruited into ROTC. ROTC is an officer TRAINING program. I agree with ENGELJ: stay focused on improving our present missions. Auxiliary recruiting of younger members from colleges is an excellent idea.

I think Fly was saying that if we recruited younger members on college campuses that it might result in an influx of members.... some of whom may join the AD/reserves after college.

I don't think he was insinuating that the AUX should start USCG ROTC detachments....

quote:

Fly&scuba wrote:
I can only imagine if a similar endeavor were attempted at the local 4-year University in my coastal community -- it could tap into a group of young people that would become involved and yes, some would shift over to AD or Reserve... Think of it as a sort of ROTC for the USCG.

Well, what Fly wrote was to start a program that would include elements similar to an ROTC program. And, as ROTC is a TRAINING program for the active duty, then that is specifically not an Auxiliary mission. And its not an Auxiliary mission to recruit Auxiliary members who MAY join the Reserves or AD.

Maybe fly was just brain-storming. No problem. I like the idea of looking to colleges for younger Auxiliary membership. That is a great way to get new, younger members. And we could use some new blood, to try and get more results in RBS, which according to the Commandant, IS one of our missions.

baloo has my intent correct. Don't fixate on the ROTC term -- thus why I put the words "sort of" in front of it. If we attract younger members into the Aux and they decide they like what they see and expand their involvement into Reserve or Active Duty -- then the Aux effort at targeting youth has served a secondary benefit in exposing young men and women to "team Coast Guard" and all the training the Aux can bestow upon a member prior to them entering the reserve or AD role...

Down the road, an added benefit to the Aux is that these young people will eventually become OICs and COs of units -- with a positive (hopefully) reflection in their memory of the Aux and what services it can provide to their missions.

Thus, why I implemented a program with the USCG Liasion (an O-6) to NAS Pensacola to place USCG flight students-in-waiting on board my aircraft for AUXAIR missions when space allows. These young officers (many fresh out of the USCGA)-- some having never flown previously -- love the opportunity to obtain situational awareness in the cockpit without the normal (intense) pressures associated with the military flight training they are about to undertake. See the smiles?







Now, when these officers become the OPS, XOs, & COs of AIRSTAs in 15-20 years -- do you think they are going to have a positive memory of their first few hours of "stick time" in an AUXAIR aircraft -- and a positive impression of the Auxiliary? I'm betting on it!

Yes, our membership needs to stop protecting "turf" and only thinking of recruiting people "just like me" -- and expand the demographics of the membership. If I have the opportunity to recruit an Auxie who may eventually become AD or Reserve USCG, I'll do it in a heartbeat. To fail to harvest that opportunity is extremely short-sighted and part of the reason we are where we are as an organization right now. Post 9/11, many younger and middle-aged adults sought out ways to serve their country while they maintained their previous professional careers (I was one of those).

Sadly, when many were exposed to the drudgery of long-winded staff officer reports in Flotilla meetings -- talk of great plans but little to no action because many older members were content to sit in a chair and gripe but do nothing to impart the knowledge of age and experience upon those new younger members....they left the organization. I had several say to me in informal "exit interviews" that they felt unaccepted by the older members who only wanted to use the organization as a social club, and were down-right turned off by the petty squabbles and negative attitudes from many of the "grumpy old men". Those comments burned into my memory when I was a simple bilge mouse. I made a committment to do things when I could -- as a future appointed or elected officer if bestowed upon me -- to change those norms in my Flotilla and in the mission activities I chose to become involved in.

For the most part, I've been successful as a Flotilla Commander. However, a segment of the "good ol' boy" mentality has remained. Thus, the detachment that was formed earlier this year has reached the point of being chartered as a new Flotilla next month. Where do you think the membership lines are drawn?

Officially, it is being billed as a geographical decision. However, when one looks closer at who will be staying with the "old" Flotilla -- the majority are the "older" members.

Good for you FlyScuba.. Your absolutley right. Reach out to the young right now. If anyone has read anything about this current generation they will find that many have compared this generation to the Greatest Generation. They are T E A M players have been their entire lives.

We should be starting in 8th grade with their introductio to the USCG & Aux. WE are the most under-represented group out there amoung the young.

BZ, Flyandscuba.

Just a comment about the "young/old" dichotomy between the gold and silver sides. Sector Detroit got a new Captain recently. He took a tour of the supporting units. He visited Aux Op Station Alpena this past Monday. The gold side had 2 regulars and about 5 "summer stock" reservists at the meeting to meet the new commander. The Auxiliary was encouraged to turn out in force. There were maybe 10 "grumpy old men" in the room. One of the reservists quipped: "If you guys are all here, who is passing out shopping carts at Wal-Mart?"

Robert Carr
Aux Op Station Alpena

quote:

While this age group clearly contains the necessary skill sets, they are often unintentionally looked upon unfavorably by the younger aged active duty CG.

There are several things that could be said about this statement:
1. Is the CG actually limiting Auxie participation in legitimate Auxie missions? If so, is this because the Coasties involved think the Auxies involved are too old to do the job? And if so, are the Auxies actually too old or physically incapable of doing the job? I don't think there is much hard evidence about any of this, so the goal of trying to change our demographics may be based on unproven assumptions. However, if some of this is true, then it is just as much a Coastie problem as an Auxie problem.

2. Or is this entirely an Auxie misperception of the situation? Are they mad about not getting to do things that probably aren't appropriate in the first place?

I pick #2