Here's a topic dear to my heart. What's the realistic numbers we could expect to retain (on average) in a healthy, happy, robust Auxiliary? An Auxiliary with a clear and reasonable set of programs and a single message to deliver to potential recruits.

There seems to be some kind of mental self-fulfilling prophesy at National about this. 30,000 seems to be the ultimate goal, with a current level of roughly 20,000.

I have always believed that the only limiting factor in our numbers should/would be our ability to effectively support and manage the numbers. Rapid growth can strain the best systems, and we don't have the best system.

I think it's more like 100,000. That's how compelling the Auxiliary experience could be to our younger generations, especially the now retiring (young) baby boomers.

But, we just have to stop shooting ourselves in the foot at every conceivable opportunity.

Last I saw our membership number was about 29K and never dipped below about 26K.

You're really asking two different questions:
1. How many members does the Auxiliary need to do everything the CG wants us to do?
2. How many members can the CG Aux realistically expect to maintain?

The answer to the first could easily be as high as 100K -- say the CG wanted an Aux boat patrolling from every flotilla every day of the week.

The answer to #2 is probably pretty close to what we have today, give or take 20%.

Before discussing a specific number some history might be of interest. The sources for the following are Tilley's book on the Auxiliary and the Tilley's on-line history.

Prior to 1969 the Aux had no membership target. In 1969 the Aux announced the Membership Growth Program with a long-term goal of 100,000. From my research the date of goal attainment was never stated. Later studies would imply this number was pulled out of thin air with no research behind it. Nevertheless, it remained official policy until 1976/77.

In 1976, the CG hired University Sciences Forum to study the Aux. Among many recommendations were that future membership drives should emphasize "quality over quantity" and a "progressively rising cap be placed on national membership." The proposed caps were 45K thru 1980, 50K thru 1985 and 60K thru 1990.

Tilley reports that the all-time (post WWII) membership level was 45,111 in 1976.

The quality over quantity concept was also the guiding principle of COMO Bolling Douglas, DCO7, the first female Comodore in the Aux. She phrased it as Non Multa Sed Multum (“Not many but much”).

All of the above is only a sidelight since Commandant Stiler wasn't happy with the USF report so he commissioned his own "Long Range Planning Board For the Coast Guard Auxiliary" led by CAPT Krainz to get a result more to his liking. Unfortuantely for the Commandant when Krainz reported in 1977 he largely endorsed the USF study. The main difference was that:

quote:

The Krainz board recommended that the Auxiliary abandon the old target of a hundred thousand members. Instead, it should "emphasize member training and qualifications in lieu of growth and [be allowed] to grow at whatever natural rate results.

Part of the reason for the above recommendation was:

quote:

During the prior decade (1970s note added) or so the Auxiliary had been expanding at a rate of about 5.7 percent per year. Some of that growth, however, had taken place only on paper. Flotillas felt pressured to bring in new members, many of whom rarely showed up for meetings or operations.

The "natural growth", which actually became a membership decline, philosophy lasted until the late 1980s. The CG had CAPT Hewell conduct yet another study in the late 1980s. This was prompted by Congressional concern over the decline in Aux membership following the 1984 BCQP and No Towing Policy debacles. The CG and Aux adopted a goal that for the Aux to meet the CG's requirement in the year 2000 and beyond it needed to grow at rate of 3% per year. Note this rate is 2.7% less the growth rate had been in the 1970s. But nevermind, the Aux was never able to grow at that rate and actually posted membership declines over most of the period 1988-2007. If the annual goal had been met the Aux year-end 2006 membership would have been 68,639 members.

For a review of historical membership numbers gleaned from Tilley's book, past issues of the Navigator and Breeze and significant events that might have influenced membership see USCG Aux Membership History. I have an update to that, which is trapped on the hard drive of my computer that crashed about 2 weeks ago. I hope to recover that soon.

The actual column are numbers gleaned from the sources mentioned. The projection column starts in 1988 and takes the 1988 membership number as its base. It then just increases at 3% a year. The shortfall column is the difference of the 3% Projection - Actual Membership. The last number column "Growth" is the plus/minus of actual membership from the previous actual membership if known.

I think it would be helpful in putting any Aux target in perspective to know the membership numbers of closely related organization. I will try and get the numbers for the USPS and the ARRL. Mayber RiverAux can get the CAP numbers (if you can, would you split them into cadets and seniors).

quote:

Posted Tue 21 August 2007 02:33 PM Hide Post
Last I saw our membership number was about 29K and never dipped below about 26K.

You're really asking two different questions:
1. How many members does the Auxiliary need to do everything the CG wants us to do?
2. How many members can the CG Aux realistically expect to maintain?

The answer to the first could easily be as high as 100K -- say the CG wanted an Aux boat patrolling from every flotilla every day of the week.

The answer to #2 is probably pretty close to what we have today, give or take 20%.

quote:

Last I saw our membership number was about 29K and never dipped below about 26K.

You're really asking two different questions:
1. How many members does the Auxiliary need to do everything the CG wants us to do?
2. How many members can the CG Aux realistically expect to maintain?

The answer to the first could easily be as high as 100K -- say the CG wanted an Aux boat patrolling from every flotilla every day of the week.

The answer to #2 is probably pretty close to what we have today, give or take 20%.

I have to keep bringing this point up. Except in the case of operations (direct USCG support) the USCG does not unilaterally dfine the rest of our missions. It's up the the Auxiliary to evaluate, define and operate the non-operations, non-direct support missions within the boundaries of our Congressional mandate. The USCG has pretty much handed us the whole Boating Safety mission and said, get on with it, we're out of this side of the business.

The Auxiliary still operates on "please tell us what to do" instead of "here's what we're going to do".

The USCG doesn't concern themselves with how many members we have except in the context of accomplishing our missions. Can we do the job? Both the direct support / operations missions which directly effect every USCG unit and are USCG's primary focus (but these should constitute about 20% of what we do) and the broad Boating Safety and Environmental missions (our primary function which should be about 80% of what we do) and which we are not doing well at all.

It's into this broad and depleted 80% mission area that we could recruit a wide variety of concerned citizens that do not lean towards the para-military aspects on the Axuiliary.

It's my observation that we force ourselves into the USCG operationa side, always searching for more ways we can supplement their operations even if they don't see the need for us there.

But we are not fulfilling the area that the USCG senior cadre really wants us to do, which is what they no longer do or never did, but is still part of the USCG overall mission mandate... Boating Safety.

For comparison purposes:

USPS
About 44,143 adult members. About 100 are Sustaining Members. A Sustaining Member has paid up his national dues for life. He only has to pay district and squadron dues. I am a Sustaining Member. About 3,000 are Life Members. Life members earned 25 (or more) Merit Marks and are excused from National dues. Most districts and squadrons also waive dues for Life Members. You can only earn 1 Merit Mark a year so a Life Member also had to be a member for 25 years.

There are about 33 apprentice (kids), 75 Sea Scout and 524 Junior Family members for a total of about 632 kids as members.

Total membership is 44,775.

USPS has uniforms but most members don't wear them. Bridge officers may wear them to meetings - it depends on local custom and the officer's attitude. Uniforms are supposedly more commonly seen at district and national functions. Many members will wear civilian attire at formal functions and meetings and squadron logoed shirts (polo and other) and ball caps at informal functions. The squadron logoed merchandise is really the de facto uniform for the USPS.

USPS has dues that vary by district and squadron and my experience is that they are higher then the Aux.

Entry requirement: pass a boating course - however there is a two year trial that suspends this requirement at local option.

There are advanced grade and elective courses that the members pays for. Fees usually range from $25 to $65 depending on course.

Bills itself as "America's Boating Club". The USPS is very proud of its yacht club heritage as well as its public service. Public service includes PE, VE, PV, chart updating, tidal surveys and various other projects.

Based on info from Wayne, the average age of the USPS is 10 years higher then the Aux.

American Radio Relay League (ARRL)

Current ARRL membership is approximately 156,000. That number has been climbing since the elimination of Morse Code as a requirement to get an amateur license.

Dues are about $39/yr which includes a subscrition to QST.

No uniforms. However, members of the subset or affiliated groups: ARES/RACES, SkyWarn etc. may wear polo shirts and hats when deployed.

Most members hold an amateur radio license. Recent requirements for ARES/RACES are they complete all or part of ICS100/200/700/800 series. The ARRL EMCOMM courses are also recommended for ARES/RACES. SkyWarn participation requires a 3 hour course with a 3 hours advanced course recommended.

Average age is unknown but is probably similar to USCGAux and USPS. Number of youth members is unknown.

quote:

. . . some history might be of interest.

Thanks FL. Very interesting and helpful.

As of the 2006 annual report (for numbers at end of Sept 2006), CAP had 33,331 officers (senior members) and 22,558 cadets for a total of 55,889. My personal belief is that CAP could really use about another 10,000 active members. Not because we're not meeting all our missions needs, but to make the bench a little deeper to make absolutely sure we have enough people on hand when needed.

As part of the discussion the following are the Monday membership numbers (the Magic Number thread is now locked for some reason). The differences are compared to 07 Jan 07, which I think was the low point.

IQ 2,919 +425
BQ 22,576 +1292
AX 3,261 +74

Total 28,756 +1791

AP 1,026 +27
Retired 6,106 +625

A few thoughts related to the original question. Organizations like the ARRL and USPS draw from a similar demographic as the Aux. Their numbers suggest that, in theory, the Aux is capable of a higher membership then it has ever had.

However, the Aux's history mitigates against that. If you look at the pattern in the membership numbers you will notice what should be an alarming fact. The Aux's membership pattern is saw toothed shaped. However, each succedding peak is less then its predecessor. If the pattern holds then the Aux's next peak will be under the 37,000 of the last peak. Further, if past patterns hold true the Aux will stagnate or decline at its current level for about a decade before it begins its new climb.

You don't need to take my word for that - even if it is based on the data. Read the last chapter of Tilley's book. I had already come to the conclusiongs above before I read Tilley's book. He talks about a decade of stagnation and decline at the end of the 1990s. If it hadn't been for 9/11/01, the stagnation would probably still be on-going. Instead, the Aux got a blip in the membership - a blip that is reaching the deadly 5-7 year 'itch' period this year.

With the theory and reality out of the way, what would it take to create the "healthy, happy, robust Auxiliary" "with a clear and reasonable set of programs and a single message" that would bring in those big nums?

It's well past time to get a Universal National Service bill enacted, which would include the option of a two-year stint in organizations such as the CG AUX. Such proposed legislation has been introduced in recent years but has gone nowhere, for reasons I don't fully understand.

for reasons I don't fully understand.

It is simple. Since the close of the Vietnam War America's parents and its military have opposed a draft - the real name of Universal National Service.

Without going into the pro or con of the current wars, I will tell you this - and the Republicans know it better then anyone else - start a draft now and the ensuing anti-war movement will dwarf what you saw in the late '60s and '70s. A lot of today's pro-war or neutral faction would evaporate if it meant their Little Johnny or Little Janie got sent to the sandbox do to a draft. And that is one reason the prime sponsors of the Universal National Service bill have been and are Democrats. It is an attempt to embarass the President.

FWIW the current bill is H.R. 393. Rangel, D-NY is the sponsor this year, as he has the been the last several years. Unlike last year, this year there are only 2 co-sponsors.

Not to fear - this will die in committee.

Naw, it's not that simple. I've been assigned to stand-by duty on several Selective Service System boards (including an Alternative Service Appeals board) over the last 20 years, so I'm familiar with some of the political ramifications.
One of the reasons why national service doesn't fly is logistics--who would keep track of who signs up for what type of service and whether they complete their commitments satisfactorily? Also, the armed forces would have even more competition finding competent recruits if young people could receive educational and other benefits pursuing other national service options.

I was drafted in 1958. At that time it was a matter of "many are called but few are chosen."
Married men with children were exempt. College students were able to get deferments. Anyone else was doomed. Today, we have the Internet. Everytime a scion of the rich and wealthy gets deferred it will be on the Internet. The draft will be exposed for what it has always been since it's inception, a fraud. The draft has never been and never will be equitable. Money talks.

quote:

Originally posted by FL51D7:
Based on info from Wayne, the average age of the USPS is 10 years higher then the Aux.

This cannot be right, there is no way that the average age of a USPS member is 100 years old!

Anyone else was doomed.

By the mid-60s even the middle class could avoid the draft if it wanted to.

Remember the Draft Dodger Rag by Phil Ochs?

quote:

Oh, I'm just a typical American boy from a typical American town
I believe in God and Senator Dodd and a-keepin' old Castro down
And when it came my time to serve I knew "better dead than red"
But when I got to my old draft board, buddy, this is what I said:

Sarge, I'm only eighteen, I got a ruptured spleen
And I always carry a purse
I got eyes like a bat, and my feet are flat, and my asthma's getting worse
Yes, think of my career, my sweetheart dear, and my poor old invalid aunt
Besides, I ain't no fool, I'm a-goin' to school
And I'm working in a DEE-fense plant