Delivering Positive Youth Development at a Residential Summer Sport Camp

Abstract

There is currently a lack of theoretically based research regarding positive youth development (PYD) and youth in recreational sport settings, including residential summer sport camps. This qualitative research study explored the ways in which positive developmental experiences are facilitated at a residential summer sport camp. Using a case study approach over an entire summer, interviews were conducted with summer camp leaders and camp management, focus groups were completed with campers and counselors in training, and observations were recorded as field notes. Data were first inductively and then deductively analyzed and results are situated within the 8 Settings Features of PYD programming. This camp context was deliberately structured to facilitate leaders’ provision of growth opportunities for campers. Leaders provided opportunities for growth through the development of supportive relationships with a variety of leaders, the presence of positive social norms, and opportunities for skill building. Findings from this study may have implications for sport administrators as well as day and residential summer camp directors regarding creating programs and environments rich with developmental opportunities for youth.

Keywords

positive youth development residential sport camp summer camp NRC 8 Settings Features

Introduction

Every summer, more than 10 million children attend a variety of day and residential camp programs in the United States (Henderson et al., 2007a). Garst, Browne, and Bialeschki (2011) described camp as more than a place, but rather somewhere, children receive benefits in their affective, cognitive, behavioral, physical, social, and spiritual domains. Although each camp or program may have its own individual goals or mission statements, many summer camps share a common vision of providing campers with fun and enjoyable experiences, and in some cases, preparation for a successful transition into adulthood. These camps may provide a valuable context for examining positive youth development (PYD) due to the nature of relationships created among campers and leaders during prolonged and intensive periods of time. However, there is a lack of research in summer sport camp contexts regarding the program qualities and climates which contribute to the positive development of campers. The current study sought to explore the ways in which PYD is facilitated at a residential summer sport camp.

PYD is a perspective of youth development that focuses on the goal of developing adolescents who are both healthy and happy, and on a pathway to a positive, productive, and satisfying adulthood (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). This perspective represents a shift from studying the development of children who are seen as “troubled youth” or who are deemed at risk, termed the “deficit view,” to now realizing the potential for the positive development of all children, termed the “strength-based approach” (Benson et al., 2006). Situated within a relational-developmental systems metatheoretical perspective (Overton, 2013), this strength-based approach views each young individual as possessing strengths that can be capitalized on in order to promote thriving (Lerner, Lerner, & Benson, 2011). Importantly, relational-developmental systems emphasize the idea that bidirectional relations between the person and the environment that are mutually beneficial can promote PYD among youth (Agans, Vest Ettekal, Erickson, & Lerner, 2016).

Researchers examining various youth development settings have sought to examine how youths’ out-of-school activity participation may be associated with PYD. Recently, Champine and colleagues (2016) found that the intensity and breadth of participation in out-of-school programs such as Boy Scouts of America, organized sports, band/music programs, or faith-based activities was not significantly associated with youths’ character development. However, Zarrett et al. (2009) found that youth who were highly engaged in multiple activities reported higher scores on indicators of PYD than youth involved only in sport. Researchers contend that simply participating in one or more youth development activities is not necessarily sufficient for youth to achieve positive developmental outcomes. That is, PYD should not be taken for granted as a result of merely participating in youth development programs, but rather the context of youth development activities must be examined to understand the social process of promoting PYD (Coakley, 2016). Benson, Scales, and Syvertsen (2011) noted that there is a need to understand how to build more asset-building environments for young people, and thus, it is important to examine the characteristics and processes of youth development in ecologically representative settings (Lerner & Callina, 2013).

Summer camps represent one out-of-school activity context that may exhibit several of the characteristics of PYD programs. Following a large national American Camp Association (ACA) study in 2002 and 2003, researchers reported findings regarding parents’, leaders’, and campers’ perceptions of youth developmental outcomes at summer camp (ACA, 2005; Henderson et al., 2007b; Thurber, Scanlin, Scheuler, & Henderson, 2007). Youth development was investigated using 10 constructs in four domains: positive identity (positive identity and independence), social skills (leadership, making friends, social comforts, peer relationships), physical and thinking skills (adventure/exploration, environmental awareness), and positive values and spiritual growth (positive values/decision making, spirituality). Parents perceived youth improvements in all 10 areas, with the largest effect sizes seen for positive identity, independence, making friends, peer relationships, and adventure and exploration (ACA, 2005; Henderson et al., 2007b). Thurber and colleagues (2007) also examined staff members’ views and found that counselors felt the largest gains were seen in campers’ physical and thinking skills (ACA, 2005; Thurber et al., 2007). Campers perceived personal growth in six areas: self-esteem, independence, leadership, friendship skills, adventure/exploration, and spirituality (ACA, 2005; Thurber et al., 2007). Overall, these studies revealed that parents, staff members, and campers perceived that campers experienced growth at camp, providing support for summer camps as a context for PYD.

There are several approaches to examining youth development programs and out-of-school activities to examine the features and characteristics that are thought to promote PYD (for reviews, see Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2004; Holt & Neely, 2011). In this study, we used the 8 Settings Features identified by the Roth and Brooks-Gunn, along with the American National Research Council (NRC; 2002), that are proposed to be necessary in a youth context in order for it to be considered a positive developmental setting (NRC, 2002). These features are physical and psychological safety, appropriate structure, supportive relationships, opportunities to belong, positive social norms, support for efficacy and mattering, opportunities for skill building, and integration of family, school, and community efforts (NRC, 2002). In particular, we sought to examine how these features manifested within a summer sport camp context and how leaders facilitated PYD among campers, according to these features.

Summer camps that are explicitly structured around sport activities may present a unique context for PYD due to an emphasis on peer interaction, cooperation, and competition, as well as structured coaching and skill development. Yet, to date, there have been only a few studies examining PYD within summer sport camps. Jones, Dunn, Holt, Sullivan, and Bloom (2011) investigated campers’ perceptions of PYD at a sport day camp, and while results did not show support for all the 5Cs (Lerner, 2005), there was support for the growth of pro-social values, and confidence and competence among camp attendees. Additional research used photo elicitation to examine which of the 8 Settings Features were most relevant and important for children at summer sport day camps (Strachan & Davies, 2014). Youth highly valued the supportive relationships created between themselves and their sport leaders as many took photos of their leaders and discussed their relationships as important in their lives. These studies represent initial efforts to examine PYD in summer sport camp settings; however, participants were enrolled in day camps, which may offer different opportunities for youth development compared with residential/overnight sport camps (e.g., during scheduled sport programming and “down-time” in the evenings in overnight programs). Thurber and colleagues (2007) noted that accredited summer camps may provide opportunities for PYD experiences for campers; however, there is currently no research specifically examining the facilitation or delivery of positive developmental experiences for youth at a residential summer sport camp.

Although there have been few theoretically based studies examining PYD at summer sport camps, research within other sport and physical activity contexts suggests that these settings can promote positive developmental outcomes among youth. For example, Bean and Forneris (2016) examined sport programming and PYD outcomes among 377 youth participating in a variety of community sport clubs, school programs, nonprofit organizations for at-risk youth, and community-based leadership programs. Intentionally structured programs scored higher on program quality and youth reported greater PYD outcomes (personal standards, friendships, emotional regulation, and pro-social values) than nonintentionally structured programs. In addition, a recent review and synthesis of the qualitative literature on PYD through sport suggests that PYD outcomes may be facilitated through both implicit and explicit processes in sport settings which promote a PYD climate characterized by empathetic relationships with adults, positive interactions with peers, and supportive parental involvement (Holt et al., 2017).

To date, there are only a few studies which have examined the 8 Settings Features within sport or camp settings; however, Fraser-Thomas, Côté, and Deakin (2005) outlined ways in which sport programs might fulfill these criteria. Fraser-Thomas et al. (2005) reported that with regard to physical and psychological safety, sport programs need to take place in safe physical facilities and provide an environment in which youngsters feel encouraged and respected. These programs should be appropriately structured, so that children and youth move from deliberate play to deliberate practice, as their sport skills and desires develop (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005). Supportive relationships could be promoted through a coach who enhances players’ psychological, social, and physical growth through sport participation (Conroy & Coatsworth, 2006). Opportunities to belong are found through meaningful inclusion in team activities (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005). Through appropriate sport programming, children and youth can also learn positive social norms and life skills such as sportspersonship, teamwork, and fair play. Coaches can support efficacy and mattering through structuring their program so that children have the chance to choose their level of involvement, thus providing a sense of empowerment (Mallett, 2005). Opportunities for skill building in sport allow children to grow and develop gross and fine motor skills in an encouraging and supportive context (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005). Finally, integration of family, school, and community efforts may be seen through parent and coach communication (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005). Building on this research, the present study is an in-depth examination of an ecologically representative setting (Lerner & Callina, 2013) to understand how leaders facilitate PYD within a summer sport camp setting.

In sum, researchers have called for additional studies examining the specific qualities of camps that result in positive outcomes for participants (Henderson et al., 2007b). Although researchers have begun to investigate PYD in summer sport day camps (Jones et al., 2011; Strachan & Davies, 2014), there is no published research to date that investigates PYD in overnight summer sport camps or camps that youth attend for longer periods of time. The summer camp setting is a rich and viable context for children’s developmental experiences, and leaders may be key in creating programs and environments that promote PYD opportunities. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to explore the ways in which positive developmental experiences are facilitated at a residential summer sport camp.

Method

This research employed an instrumental case study methodology (Stake, 1995). The camp chosen as the case for this research was purposefully selected because it was believed to provide rich information and examples of PYD at a residential summer sport camp that would lead to theoretical saturation (Patton, 2002). The case site for this research was a privately owned co-ed summer sport camp which had a stated goal of teaching life skills through sport. The camp employs approximately 75 coaches and counselors for a summer season (9 weeks + pre-season training) with 250 to 300 campers attending each week; some campers stay only 1 week and others stay for 2 or more. The property includes a privately owned lake, two baseball diamonds, two full size soccer fields, mountain biking trails, a rock-climbing wall, and a high ropes course. Campers stay in lakefront cabins and eat all meals in the dining hall or outdoor dining area, and they have the option to choose from three programs. First, the most popular program was the “all-sports” program, in which children participated in an introductory session, Sunday evening; three sport sessions daily, Monday to Thursday; and a closing session, Friday morning (total of 14 sessions). In this program, each of the 12 sport sessions had a unique focus on different sports such as soccer, lacrosse, mountain biking, and rock-climbing, and international sports such as cricket, rugby, or Australian Rules Football. There was also an “extreme” program available for a smaller group of approximately 30 older campers each week; this program focused specifically on building skills such as teamwork, communication, and positive sportsmanship through more “extreme” activities such as laser tag and dune buggies. A third program option was a soccer camp, which only ran for 1 week of summer.

Participants and Data

Following university research ethics board approval, camp staff were recruited by announcing the study at a staff orientation meeting. Camp staff were told about the purposes of the study, and interested individuals were invited to contact the researcher to participate in an interview. To recruit extreme program campers and counselors in training (CITs), the researcher met with individuals upon their arrival at camp and described the study to them and their parents. All participants completed informed consent forms prior to participating in the research; campers and CITs under the age of 18 provided informed assent and parental consent was also provided.

Participants were self-selected and included counselors, coaches, extreme program campers, CITs, and management staff. A total of 15 counselors and 15 coaches participated in start of season interviews; 15 coaches and 14 counselors participated in end of season interviews. Counseling and coaching staff (16 males, 14 females) ranged in age from 20 to 28 years old from the United States, England, Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, and Ireland. Seventeen staff members were new and 13 were returning staff members. Staff members were teachers, physical education instructors, or coaches in their home countries during the rest of the year. One had a post-graduate degree, 17 had completed university or college, 10 had completed some university/college (or were currently enrolled in university/college), one had completed high school, and one indicated “other” certification. A total of 16 campers from the extreme program and eight CITs participated in focus group interviews during the summer. Campers (eight males, eight females) and CITs (three males, five females) were 15 to 20 years old; all were from the United States. Campers were all recreational sport participants and some participated in at least one competitive sport at home. Management staff interviewed included the two Athletic Directors and the Staffing Director who ranged in age from 25 to 30 years old and were American and Australian.

The primary sources of data were interviews with coaches, counselors, and management staff. Semistructured interviews were conducted at the onset of the season (early to mid-June), as well as at the end of the season (mid- to late August). An interview guide was created for the purpose of these interviews; however, interviews were loosely structured in order to create a conversational tone and to allow for probing questions to pursue different lines of inquiry as they arose (Patton, 2002). Interview topics included leadership styles, leaders’ strengths and weaknesses, examples of campers’ development, and camp environment and programming. Additional data were collected through interviews with management staff (camp administrators) and focus group interviews with older campers and CITs (as there were multiple interview guides, copies are available from the first author upon request).

Throughout the summer months, the first author was immersed in the camp setting as a participant-as-observer (Patton, 2002). Her role as a staff member provided her with an insider’s view of the camp setting which allowed her to interact with other staff members. Observations were collected and recorded as field notes, including anecdotes from personal and informal interactions with other staff members or campers, and interactions (both verbal and nonverbal) witnessed between staff members or between staff and children (Patton, 2002), direct quotations from staff members or campers, or descriptions of examples of PYD. As the researcher was working as a coach during the study, field notes were based on witnessing coaches and their interactions with campers and other staff. All general and role-specific training handbooks were also collected for content analysis to examine whether staff training materials appeared to cover information related to PYD. The field notes and handbook materials were used as supplementary data to contextualize the interview data and were also used to prompt conversations during the end-of-summer interviews with camp staff.

Data Analysis

Interviews were transcribed, producing 1,265 single spaced pages of transcripts. Data were organized and analyzed with the assistance of NVivo computer software. The early stages of data analysis began with an inductive thematic analysis, followed by a deductive analysis using the NRC 8 Settings Features (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). The NRC 8 Settings Features were used to provide a framework with which to analyze the provision of opportunities for growth among campers and the creation of the context in which campers’ and staff growth experiences were made possible. After initial inductive analysis, individual interviews with counselors, coaches, and management staff members and focus group interviews with CITs and campers were deductively analyzed using the 8 Settings Features framework in order to identify subthemes. First-cycle coding (Miles et al., 2014) was used to initially place data into the 8 Settings Features. Relevant information was then subjected to second-cycle coding to examine the data more closely and categorize it into more meaningful and specific subthemes (Miles et al., 2014). Field notes and documents were also deductively analyzed using the NRC 8 Settings Features and used to triangulate the data. All coding was completed solely by the first author, while the second author acted as a “critical friend” during the analysis process (Faulkner & Sparkes, 1999). Trustworthiness was enhanced through the prolonged engagement in the research setting, participant checks, and a reflexivity journal (Mayan, 2009). The first author spent a continuous 2½ months engaged in the research setting as participant observer (Patton, 2002) which demonstrates prolonged engagement (Creswell, 2013) as an indicator of trustworthiness for the study. The researcher also conducted participant checks (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) at the end of counselors’ and coaches’ second interview to verify and elaborate on the researcher’s interpretations of the developing themes from the first set of interviews.

Results

We present results regarding the camp environment and ways in which both management and leaders facilitated a context which promoted positive development among campers. The results are organized according to the 8 Settings Features (see also Table 1). We focus primarily on the facilitation of PYD opportunities, although we also indicate some of the types of growth reported by participants throughout the “Results” section.

Table 1.

Summary of NRC 8 Settings Features Within Summer Camp Environment.

NRC 8 Settings Features	Subtheme	Evidence (quotes or evidence from staff handbook)
1. Physical and psychological safety	Concern for campers’ physical and emotional safety	“They’re going to be safe with their counselors and coaches. They’re going to be respected.” (Coach 5) Handbook: Place the campers’ safety and well-being first at all times.
	Prevention of social cruelty and mental abuse	Handbook: The wounds that don’t bleed are always the most damaging.
	Safe space for staff growth	“I’ve been far from perfect this summer but any time I feel like I mess up I’m not worried about repercussions.” (Coach 3)
2. Appropriate structure	Inclusion of campers with special needs	“We adapted stuff, we did blind sports, just trying to encourage everyone [to participate].” (Coach 1)
	Create age appropriate activities	“Even having the same age you just . . . work . . . to what they need.” (Counselor 7)
	Ensure appropriate social interactions with campers	“You could have the most immature 15 year old that needs all the attention.” (Counselor 7)
	Camper-to-staff progression training	“We need to set out staff up for success in order for our campers to be successful.” (Staffing Director)
	Provide training regarding developmental stages	Handbook: developmental stages ages 6-9, 9-12, 12-14, and 14-16 with a description of the typical physical, mental, and social characteristics of children at each stage
	Programming and session structure	“I also think it was [extreme camp program] that changed them too. That helped them develop.” (Coach 4)
3. Supportive relationships	Facilitating campers’ relationships with each other	“Using the other campers to help her into the group . . . was really effective.” (Counselor 3)
	Leader-camper relationships: Making connections with individual campers	“ . . . having conversations each day so they know that I value them as a part of the cabin.” (Counselor 3) Handbook: Support all campers and allow them to reach higher goals and explore their abilities.
	Friendship vs. respect and authority	“[I] play that line pretty carefully. I don’t let much slip by and they know that.” (Counselor 8)
	Camper-peer relationships	“. . . it was a really strong, solid support system that I don’t know that she would have necessarily got at home.” (Coach 8)
	Counselor-camper relationships	“I think the counselors always have the best relationships.” (Coach 3)
	Supporting campers outside their comfort zone	“. . . pushing you out of your comfort zone is something that you do remember and you will take with you.” (Coach 9)
4. Opportunities to belong	Created accepting camp atmosphere	“[we] were doing something different and we were accepting ‘oh it’s okay to be different.’” (Counselor 9)
4. Opportunities to belong	Leaders’ responsibility to create accepting atmosphere	“ . . . they succeed at our camp because the staff are so accepting.” (Staffing Director)
5. Positive social norms	Teach and reinforce good behaviors	“When you’re really trying to teach them sportsmanship, highlight someone: they took themselves out of the game, it was really good to see.” (Coach 6)
	Staff as role models	“We play a huge role I think. In the way we carry ourselves, just how we are as people.” (Counselor 7) Handbook: We set a positive example for our campers.
	Campers as role models	“If they’re messing around then the younger kids are going to copy, that’s just nature.” (Counselor 2)
6. Support for efficacy and mattering	Provide campers with special roles	“Let’s say someone seemed left out or . . . upset about something, whatever number they guess I’ll be like ‘oh yeah, that was it! You get to do it!” (Counselor 6)
	Provide informal and formal recognition	“It’s good to reward kids that aren’t the obvious choice.” (Coach 13)
	Create an inclusive atmosphere	“It’s an unwritten thing: that you are to include everybody” (Counselor 12)
	Provide children with support	Handbook: Create a positive learning environment that . . . gives every camper the opportunity to walk away feeling like a winner.
	Provide staff with support	“We . . . really do focus in orientation to ensure that everyone does feel part of the team.” (Staffing Director)
7. Opportunities for skill building	Teaching life lessons through sport	“The sports method is purely the fact that we’re teaching them leadership and the lifelong skills through sports.” (Staffing Director) “When you lose you gotta learn from what mistakes you’ve made or learn from a better team.” (Coach 7)
	Provide opportunities for sportsmanship and teamwork	“They come here and they experience it: teamwork, communication, all this stuff that you need to actually function in the real world.” (Coach 8)“It probably comes back to the coaches . . . providing those opportunities to help them learn their skills—their sportsmanship.” (Coach 6)
	Provide opportunities for physical or sport skills	“ . . . the older kids, they tend to be a lot more focused on . . . the sport and the skills.” (Coach 11)“It’s a good solid amount of time . . . in the sport sessions to be able to grow and develop or even learn about a new skill or sport.” (Coach 11)
	Allow campers to take risks; outside comfort zone	“I’ve seen growth in terms of they have overcome fears and stuff.” (Counselor 5)
	Provide opportunities for leaders’ skill building	“I was looking at this as my education, rather than going to a university or a college.” (Coach 3)
8. Integration of family, school, and community efforts	Provide opportunity for transfer of skills	“I definitely think it’s enough to at least place that spark of this kind of mentality and positivity in someone.” (Counselor 8)
	Staff as one team or community	Handbook: It is extremely important that coaches and counselors communicate with one another about their campers.
	Partnering with parents	Handbook: Occasionally you may need to call a parent, either to let them know that their child is homesick, and/or to ask for some suggestions on how to help their child.

Note. NCR = National Research Council.

Physical and Psychological Safety

The directors ensured caregivers created a safe environment for campers, and it was a clear expectation that campers would be returned to their parents in as good a condition or a better condition than when they were dropped off. The phrase “in loco parentis,” meaning “in the place of parents,” served to remind staff to provide a physically and psychologically safe environment to support campers’ development as well as their own. When asked about their roles in ensuring the physical and psychological safety of the campers, counselors acknowledged that they needed to create a welcoming and friendly environment and that their duty was to ensure the campers’ physical and psychological safety during their time at camp. Counselor 2 explained, “it’s a safe environment, a place for them to be themselves.” Coaches also perceived that their role was to ensure the campers’ safety. Coach 5 said, “they know that . . . they’re going to be safe with their counselors and coaches. They’re going to be respected.” Through the promotion of a psychologically safe space, campers felt they developed competence in sport skills: “I always explain to my friends that I’ve never tried cricket or rugby before I came here and now I have pretty much done almost every sport” (Camper 11), and campers also developed confidence in their interpersonal and social skills:

I used to really . . . st- st- st- . . . like that, really bad . . . I was so shy, I was scared what people would think of me. And then I just grew out of it coming here since you have to talk so much, introduce yourself to a bunch of people . . . I still have it a little bit—it’s never going to go away but . . . I’ve grown out of it so much, I would stutter in every sentence and I feel like [camp] has gotten rid of it. (CIT2)

Appropriate Structure

The camp staff promoted appropriate structure through developmentally appropriate sessions, tailoring sessions according to camper characteristics and providing opportunities for campers to become staff members through the CIT program. To ensure leaders understood the importance of appropriately structured sessions, the coaching handbook described a list of “Coach Responsibilities” including “ensure that the activities are suitable for the age, experience and ability of the campers.” Athletic Director 1 felt that campers had a more positive experience when sessions were structured to suit the group’s needs, coaches used the time for activities that promoted growth, and included a variety of games and activities. As the management staff were responsible for overseeing all programming and scheduling sessions, it was important for them to deliver different sessions that provided opportunities for growth for the campers. This Athletic Director also understood that coaching staff needed to be supported in their work and provided with optimal conditions to facilitate sessions so campers could develop their physical and sport skills. In cases where staff were not delivering structured sport sessions as intended, she noted, “[if coaches are] just sitting there chatting with them . . . it tells me that . . . we gave them the wrong age group or they’re just not suited for that.” She continued to say that she would provide coaches with additional training and support to deliver the structured sport sessions as intended with that specific age group.

Leaders were responsible for implementing appropriate structure with campers. In this summer sport camp setting, youth leaders had a variety of different opportunities to structure the programs, activities, and social interactions for the developmental levels of cabins and teams, as well as for individual campers within these groups. Leaders structured activities to include campers with special needs, chose age appropriate activities for their groups, and engaged in appropriate social interactions with campers. For example, coaches had the task of facilitating sport sessions that were inclusive of campers with physical disabilities. Coach 1 said “we had a . . . girl that . . . had struggled with sight. So we adapted stuff, we did blind sports, just trying to encourage everyone [to participate].” By structuring the session with activities that were inclusive for all children on this team and by encouraging all campers to participate, this leader appeared to understand the need to include all the campers and provide opportunities for belonging within the team. Appropriate structure was used to prevent behavioral issues (e.g., being disrespectful while a leader is speaking), to promote developmental outcomes, and to provide campers with a sense of enjoyment.

Coaches also referred to the different structure of the extreme camp and all sports programs that allowed for campers’ development. Coach 4 discussed the growth experienced by a few older campers as a result of the different leadership opportunities and team-building activities in the extreme program: “I also think it was [the extreme camp program] that changed them too. That helped them develop . . . I think [the sports program] is great, it gives kids confidence but [extreme camp program] just pushes them that little bit more.”

Supportive Relationships

Management staff discussed the importance of creating a context of supportive relationships between campers and leaders, and they also emphasized the importance of creating supportive relationships between staff at all levels to enable them to promote developmental outcomes among the campers. The leaders (coaches and counselors) also discussed the importance of developing social relationships among campers. Thus, developing supportive relationships at all levels of camp (between campers, between leaders, and between leaders and management staff) was critical to promoting positive developmental outcomes among campers.

Relationships that campers created with leaders were of the utmost importance because these supportive relationships provided a foundation for campers’ growth experiences. Within the coach handbook, it said, “We want the participants to be able to feel comfortable in taking a safe chance or attempting something they have never tried . . . Support all campers and allow them to reach higher goals and explore their abilities.” It was clear that the leaders at camp understood the importance of and their role in creating an environment of supportive relationships in order to help children thrive and succeed. Leaders discussed their role in facilitating campers’ relationships with each other, making connections with individual campers, and the distinction of friendship versus respect and authority. For example, Coach 5 explained, “if a girl is ‘weird’ and not getting along with the kids, it’s a matter of going out of your way to find some way for that camper to make a connection with someone.” Through the creation of supportive relationships with others, participants reported that campers developed caring and compassion for others. For example, CIT2 described an instance with one camper who had been at camp for a few summers and helped other girls in her cabin who were homesick to try and ensure that all the girls in her cabin had a positive experience at camp.

There was also evidence that the campers’ relationships with counselors were stronger than their relationships with coaches; however, coaches had the opportunity to support campers outside their comfort zones in a variety of sport and physical activity settings. Camp was a challenging time for many children as they were faced with opportunities to move outside their social, emotional, and physical comfort zones. For example, campers were supported to move outside their social and emotional comfort zones by making new friends and becoming more independent from their parents and families. The most common example of campers moving outside their physical comfort zone was by facing their fears at the waterfront and climbing tower. Only coaches discussed this theme, possibly because counselors were not with campers during sport sessions, when campers typically had these opportunities. Coach 9 described an experience with a camper at the climbing tower:

I remember a girl coming down and . . . saying “thank you so much” and in her evaluation writing “[coach] was super supportive and helped me up the rock wall,” which obviously was something she remembered a week later, so . . . pushing you out of your comfort zone is something that you do remember and will take with you.

CIT4 also described how he became more confident at camp as a result of supportive relationships with camp staff over several years:

. . . when I was young I was . . . a shy chubby kid. That’s who I was when I was younger and the counselors always brought the real me out of myself . . . I had [coach] for 5 years as a coach and he’s still my role model as a counselor today. He really helped me out, getting me out of my shell. (CIT4)

Although there was a focus on leaders creating supportive relationships with campers, occasionally this was challenging for leaders to achieve, and some campers had negative experiences while at camp. For example, a young boy with special needs had been attending camp for multiple summers. Many leaders as well as the camp directors felt that this camper had been making gains in regard to his independence and social development and, in particular, with his interactions with other campers. However, during the summer that the present study took place, this camper did not stay for the 2 weeks he was registered for and left early; anecdotal evidence showed a leader working closely with him throughout the first week, but the leader was unable to support the camper to stay for a full 2 weeks. It is not clear why the camper chose to leave, but in some cases, children faced challenges while at camp that leaders were not able to appropriately support them through. Leaders may have found it challenging to develop supportive relationships with all campers. This was observed as an example of a leader attempting to develop a supportive relationship with a camper but being unsuccessful in supporting the camper adequately.

Opportunities to Belong

This feature was evident in the context of camp in a variety of ways: through the accepting atmosphere, leaders’ responsibility to facilitate the positive environment and ensure all campers felt a sense of belonging at camp, and through providing an atmosphere of belonging for leaders. At this sport camp, feelings of positivity and inclusion created an environment in which campers were free to be themselves. These types of sentiments were evident during the orientation period among management staff and leaders, and reinforced with leaders and campers throughout the summer. As Counselor 3 explained, “we really respect and value everybody’s individuality and we . . . want [campers] to be themselves and we want them to be able to be who they are and feel comfortable.” Counselors and coaches explained that they attempted to create a sense of belonging for all campers, regardless of their sporting ability. Counselors mostly discussed accepting children’s differences, while coaches related this concept to sport sessions. Many coaches discussed campers’ self-belief and sense of belonging not only at camp, but in the broader world as well. Coach 11 said, “I definitely want them . . . to believe in themselves. To know that they can be who they want to be.”

Positive Social Norms

Camp directors were responsible for impressing upon the leaders that they were role models for the campers in all aspects of their behaviors including their dress, attitudes, and actions. This created a context of positive social norms, and older campers were also positioned as role models for the younger children who attended camp. As this was a sport camp, there was a particular emphasis on values such as sportsmanship and teamwork both for staff and campers. In order to promote social norms among staff members, the staff handbook explicitly stated that “staff should epitomize what is acceptable in proper speech, conduct, values, and morals.” Within the following section, it continued, “Remember that children copy you” and “All staff are viewed as role models. We set a positive example for our campers.” Counselor 8 discussed her role as a returning staff member in setting positive social norms for campers and for other staff:

. . . I think I had to display . . . at least a certain leadership or a certain reference point for other staff to abide by . . . so that they could get an idea of what’s expected of them. I guess one of my strong points is hopefully having been able to do that without . . . expecting too much from the staff or coming off as . . . obnoxious or a know it all. It was just trying to lead by example and do the best that I can to . . . be a good counselor and just hoping that rubs off on other staff.

This camp was sometimes referred to as a “bubble” which contained unique, positive social norms, and some first-time campers may not have been aware of what the socially accepted behaviors were in this particular environment. Thus, it was important that there were multiple examples of these social norms available for all campers.

Counselors’ and coaches’ responses regarding the establishment of positive social norms included three subthemes: teaching and reinforcing good behaviors, publicly acknowledging these behaviors, and providing positive reinforcement and praise. Counselors discussed the need to explicitly teach positive behaviors to campers early on in the week, such as saying “please” and “thank you” to food service staff, respecting other campers’ property, and cleaning up after yourself in the cabin. If campers were not explicitly told the rules and expectations at camp, they would not have been aware of when they were behaving inappropriately. Counselors also explained that they strategically identified well-behaved campers as exemplars to remind misbehaving campers of what was expected. The hope was that the other campers would change their behaviors to be in accordance with what was socially accepted at camp. As Counselor 4 explained, “I call on the kid who is doing something right, like ‘thanks for X, Y, Z’ so that way I don’t have to say ‘no don’t do that’ [to the misbehaving camper].” By focusing on campers’ strengths rather than weaknesses and publicly identifying displays of good behavior, this counselor used a fundamental principle of PYD.

Support for Efficacy and Mattering

This feature emphasizes the importance of leaders ensuring every child felt that they were an important and respected member of the group. Within this camp setting, each camper was a member of two distinct groups: a cabin and a sports team. The respective group leaders had many opportunities to facilitate a sense of efficacy and mattering by providing campers with specific roles and through informal and formal recognition of campers’ appropriate behaviors. For example, coaches used team-building activities to ensure that all campers were contributing to their group and by providing some campers with leadership roles within these activities. As Coach 9 explained, these games were ones that “ . . . you actually physically and emotionally cannot win . . . without someone else’s help. You need everyone on the team.” Coaches used these games as tools to provide the group with a sense of unity and to give each camper a feeling of importance within the team. Coaches and counselors also recognized campers’ appropriate behaviors to support their efficacy and mattering. For example, Coach 2 said,

I do like to impress on my teams that everyone has something to give. And everyone . . . no mater how big or small their contribution is . . . the group or the team would not be the same without everyone in it.

Camp management also created a context in which there was a focus on support for staff members’ efficacy and mattering. The Staffing Director explained how everyone was important in making the camp function. She said, “so much of our camp comes from the ‘miscellaneous staff,’ so whether it’s the recreation, photographers, office . . . support staff, food service . . . it’s really important for us to make sure everyone is feeling part of the team.” She described the management staff’s desire to ensure that every single staff member was aware of their role and how they fit into the overall functioning and success of the camp. Thus, providing support for efficacy and mattering was identified as an important feature among campers and among leaders.

Opportunities for Skill Building

Members of this camp prided themselves on the fact that the overall context of camp created opportunities for skill building for campers and staff. Management felt that while campers were learning sport and life skills, staff were also developing skills such as leadership, teamwork, and public speaking for use in a working environment. Staff members had opportunities to build these skills starting in the initial training period and continuing throughout the summer. While counselors typically dealt with more unexpected child care related situations (such as physical sickness and homesickness), coaches had opportunities to learn different teaching techniques that could be used in their work at home. Coach 3 explained his reason for coming to camp: “I was looking at this as my education, rather than going to a university or a college . . . I don’t feel there’s anything better. You couldn’t learn how to do this in a classroom in my opinion.”

Counselors and coaches both discussed how they attempted to facilitate skill-building opportunities for campers; however, through observations and interviews, it seemed that coaches had a larger role in providing these opportunities for campers. Coaches discussed how they helped campers learn life lessons and develop sportsmanship and teamwork, physical or sport skills, and opportunities for self-improvement or identity discovery, while counselors only discussed life lessons and self-improvement or identity discovery. Coach 6 discussed the importance of the coaches’ roles within the team when he said they must provide “those opportunities to help them learn their skills—their sportsmanship, putting an emphasis on it at the start of the week and really promoting it throughout the week.” The quote supports the notion that the sport leaders needed to make their expectations of behavior clear at the beginning of the week and select games and activities that provided the campers with opportunity to display these positive behaviors throughout the sport sessions.

Integration of Family, School, and Community Efforts

Some leaders attempted to provide campers with opportunities to think of how they could integrate their experiences at camp into their everyday lives at home, including encouraging the camper to transfer their new skills to other programs they participated in or in their social interactions with peers at school. However, this theme was among the least frequently discussed within the interviews. Coach 3 said, “It shouldn’t end here! . . . Take things like respect, sportsmanship, inclusion . . . take all that back with you and . . . don’t turn it off.” Camper 5 described the impact of his camp experiences when he said “it’s . . . helped me grow as a person more than anything else in my life.” He said that transferring his experiences at camp to his home life made him a better person:

I feel like one year at [camp] you get the sportsmanship but now at this point . . . I don’t just do that at camp. That’s how I live my entire life. Just because . . . I’ve been here for so long, it wouldn’t make sense for me to do it here and not do it anywhere else.

Discussion

The present study is one of the first to investigate the 8 Settings Features (NRC, 2002) within a residential summer sport camp program, and the present findings provide evidence for the ways in which the camp structure and the activities of camp staff reflected the 8 Settings Features (NRC, 2002). Although there was evidence of all 8 Settings Features within the sport camp, the least frequently discussed feature in this case study was that of integration of family, school, and community efforts. This may be due to the fact that this camp offered 1-week sessions and many children often returned to their families after this short stay, and as such, there were not many opportunities for parents and significant others to be involved in the various camp programs in this case study. The camp in the present study is unlike other residential summer camps where children may stay for 4- or 8-week programs and parents can attend visitation days at various points throughout the summer. Thus, there may have been limited opportunity for the integration of camp programming with the campers’ families due to the structure of the camp setting. Despite this limitation, counselors reported taking notes of campers’ achievements and successes throughout the week in order to discuss children’s strengths, tell stories, and share specific, individual comments with parents when campers were picked up. With increased communication between leaders at camp and children’s caregivers, it is possible that parents would be able to reinforce and aid in the transfer of skills and values learned at camp to children’s everyday lives. Future research should focus on strategies to facilitate connections between children’s residential camps and their family, schools, and communities, particularly at short-term residential camps.

A unique finding of this study is in regard to how leaders created supportive relationships with campers, specifically by supporting them to move outside of their comfort zone. As previously discussed, this may involve supporting campers to move outside of their social, emotional, or physical comfort zone, including making new friends and facing their fears at the waterfront or climbing tower, and by encouraging campers to become more independent and complete tasks such as making their beds, cleaning their cabin, or getting prepared for session on their own or in a small group. These opportunities for development appear to reflect both “adult-driven” and “youth-driven” approaches to development (Larson, Walker, & Pearce, 2005), as the camp staff delivered structured activities and created opportunities for youth to engage in active learning with peers. Summer camps may be a particularly fruitful setting for intentionally structuring adult- and youth-led PYD experiences, as they engage older campers and young adults to act as mentors for younger campers. This approach reflects Deutsch’s (2008) tri-level role modeling structure which provides support to leaders from adults while enabling them to act as role models for younger campers, encouraging growth among all members at the camp.

Another key implication of this research concerns the finding that the broader camp context was structured to promote positive development for coaches and counselors, as well as for campers. Management emphasized the importance of staff development, and leaders described ways in which they internalized the positive social norms of the camp environment, which may have helped to contribute to the modeling of behaviors to promote growth among campers. Whereas most research on PYD has examined the ways in which youth grow and develop within particular contexts, the present research also draws attention to the ways that leaders also grow and develop as a result of working with youth, which reflects mutually beneficial individual ⇔ individual interactions within a relational-developmental systems approach (Agans et al., 2016). Thus, the findings of this research suggest that a PYD climate (Holt et al., 2017) or a tri-level structure for role modeling (Deutsch, 2008) may hold benefits for youth as well as for adults and emerging adults within a youth development setting.

While it is generally thought that more time spent in youth development settings is important for promoting greater PYD, a key question concerns how much and how long youth need to participate in order to achieve positive outcomes (Simpkins, 2015). It is unknown whether a relatively brief stay at a residential summer sport camp compensates or complements youths’ participation in year-round development activities. Furthermore, developmental gains may vary depending on the child’s age (Zarrett et al., 2009), and in keeping with a relational systems approach, it is important to consider changes in developmental regulations over time (Agans et al., 2016). In the present study, youth reported that they perceived positive development over several years of attending camp and through developing positive relationships with peers and leaders at camp. The residential/overnight aspect of the camp meant that important developmental events may have occurred in the evenings during recreational events and competitions, as well as during downtime. Thus, the summer sport camp setting may offer a brief but intensive opportunity for youth to achieve gains in positive developmental outcomes. Longitudinal designs examining developmental outcomes among multiyear attendees would be useful to determine whether summer camp acts as a “booster” to amplify PYD outcomes above and beyond participation in regular year-round activities, as it is thought that PYD is likely to be greatest “when multiple ecologies support and nourish assets” (Benson et al., 2011, p. 225).

As PYD outcomes are thought to be influenced by policies and distal ecological factors (Holt et al., 2017), the findings from this study may help to influence policies for organizations that certify and oversee summer camps. For example, accreditation requirements related to PYD, staff hiring practices, and staff training can have an indirect but still important influence on the developing child. It may be beneficial for national camp organizations to consider including accreditation standards concerning the curriculum used within summer camps to explicitly emphasize strategies for promoting PYD in staff training and materials, such as those used by Bean and Forneris (2016) in their assessment of sport program quality and PYD. It is not known how much time is devoted to instructing leaders how to intentionally create a welcoming and supportive environment that encourages and facilitates growth for campers. It would be beneficial to include this information in the initial training period and reinforce it throughout the summer during ongoing training. For example, an explicit discussion of the 8 Settings Features during staff orientation and instructions about how to implement these features may serve to create more opportunities for development for both campers and staff. Because establishing positive social norms among staff members may support campers’ development, camp administrators may seek to include standards for minimum numbers of returning staff members in order to ensure the philosophy, and values of a specific camp are promoted for new staff members and reinforced in training and during the summer.

A strength of this study was that it used a case study methodology that permitted an investigation of the entire camp setting in delivering PYD experiences for campers, in addition to interviews with campers and leaders about their perceptions of growth. However, as the first author was a participant observer and had previously worked at the camp, additional challenges were present in the current study. The first author felt it was impossible to remove herself from her previous experiences and knowledge of the residential summer sport camp context and the case site in particular and thus her personal biases were present. Even though insider knowledge of the camp and organization was beneficial to present an emic perspective of the context (Patton, 2002), the first author’s dual role as a researcher and staff member may have led staff to view her as an expert on youth development at camp. Thus, camp staff may have acted in socially desirable ways when interacting with campers in her presence; the first author only witnessed one negative experience and very few negative experiences were reported throughout the interviews. It is also likely that negative experiences (i.e., homesickness, inappropriate behavior, bullying) were dealt with privately between leaders, campers, and management, so as to avoid negatively affecting other campers’ experiences. Finally, it is also important to acknowledge that the participants self-selected to participate in this study, and many participants were older campers who had attended this camp for multiple years and had positive appraisals to offer. Thus, the positive experiences reported by campers and staff may not be representative of all youths’ experiences at camp. Future studies in this area should attempt to recruit individuals with a variety of positive and negative experiences.

Experimental studies that involve explicitly training staff about PYD and the 8 Settings Features may be beneficial to determine whether such education can effectively promote PYD at camp. In keeping with a relational-developmental systems approach, it will also be imperative to determine for whom these gains are most likely to be observed (e.g., Which individuals are likely to benefit most from these camp experiences? Lerner & Callina, 2013). Key research priorities include a systematic analysis of the camp features which contribute to sustained PYD among campers, an examination of leadership training programs that are associated with increases in campers’ PYD, and the implementation and evaluation of theoretically based interventions to explicitly promote PYD among campers. Results from future studies may be used to inform many types of camps including day or residential, and general or sport,camps. Ultimately with additional research of this type, modifications can be made to camp programs that will promote greater PYD experiences within summer camp settings.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Victoria Povilaitis is currently completing her PhD at the University of Utah. She conducted this research while completing her MSc at the University of Toronto, where she studied youth development in residential summer sport camp. She hopes to bring research to practice as she continues to work as a professional in the camp industry. She aims to continue investigating staff training and the facilitation of opportunities for positive outcomes for youth at camp.

Katherine A. Tamminen is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education at the University of Toronto. Her research examines the sport experiences of youth athletes as well as the influence of parents and coaches on young athletes’ sport participation and enjoyment. She also conducts research on stress, coping, and emotions among athletes.

References

Agans

J. P.

Vest Ettekal

Erickson

Lerner

R. M.

(2016). Positive youth development through sport: A relational developmental systems approach. In Holt

N. L.

(Ed.), Positive youth development through sport (2nd ed., pp. 34-33). New York, NY: Routledge.

American Camp Association. (2005). Directions: The youth development outcomes of the camp experience (YDOCE) study. Martinsville, IN: Author.

Bean

Forneris

(2016): Examining the importance of intentionally structuring the youth sport context to facilitate positive youth development. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 28(4), 410-425. doi:10.1080/10413200.2016.1164764

Benson

P. L.

Scales

P. C.

Hamilton

S. F.

Sesma

Hong

K. L.

Roehlkepartain

E. C.

(2006). Positive youth development so far: Core hypotheses and their implications for policy and practice. Search Institute Insights & Evidence, 3(1), 1-13.

Benson

P. L.

Scales

P. C.

Syversten

A. K.

(2011). The contribution of the developmental assets framework to positive youth development theory and practice. In Lerner

R. M.

Lerner

J. V.

Benson

J. B.

(Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 198-232). London, England: Elsevier.

Catalano

R. F.

Berglund

M. L.

Ryan

J. A. M.

Lonczak

H. S.

Hawkins

(2004). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 98-124. doi:10.1177/0002716203260102

Champine

R. B.

Wang

Ferris

K. A.

Hershberg

R. M.

Erickson

Johnson

B. R.

Lerner

R. M.

(2016). Exploring the out-of-school time program ecology of Boy Scouts. Research in Human Development, 13, 97-110. doi:10.1080/15427609.2016.1165487

Coakley

(2016). Positive youth development through sport: Myths, beliefs, and realities. In Holt

N. L.

(Ed.), Positive youth development through sport (2nd ed., pp. 21-33). New York, NY: Routledge.

Conroy

D. E.

Coatsworth

(2006). Coach training as a strategy for promoting youth social development. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 128-144.

10.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

11.

Deutsch

N. L.

(2008). Pride in the projects: Teens building identities in urban contexts. New York City: New York University Press.

12.

Faulkner

Sparkes

(1999). Exercise as therapy for schizophrenia: An ethnographic study. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21, 52-69.

13.

Fraser-Thomas

J. L.

Côté

Deakin

(2005). Youth sport programs: An avenue to foster positive youth development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 19-40.

14.

Garst

B. A.

Browne

L. P.

Bialeschki

M. D.

(2011). Youth development and the camp experience. New Directions for Youth Development, 130, 73-87. doi:10.1002/yd.398

15.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

16.

Henderson

K. A.

Bialeschki

M. D.

Scanlin

M. M.

Thurber

C. A.

Scheuler

Marsh

P. E.

(2007a). Components of camp experiences for positive youth development. Journal of Youth Development, 1(3), 1-12.

17.

Henderson

K. A.

Scheuler

Bialeschki

M. D.

Scanlin

M. M.

Thurber

C. A.

(2007b). Summer camp experiences: Parental perceptions of youth development outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 987-1007. doi:10.1177/019513X07301428

18.

Holt

N. L.

Neely

K. C.

(2011). Positive youth development through sport: A review. Revista de iberoamericana de psicología del ejercicio y el deporte/Latin American Journal on Exercise and Sport Psychology, 6, 299-316.

19.

Holt

N. L.

Neely

K. C.

Slater

Camiré

Fraser-Thomas

MacDonald

. . . Tamminen

K. A.

(2017). A grounded theory of positive youth development through sport based on results from a qualitative meta-study. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 1-49. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2016.1180704

20.

Jones

M. I.

Dunn

J. G.

Holt

N. L.

Sullivan

P. J.

Bloom

G. A.

(2011). Exploring the “5Cs” of positive youth development in sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 34, 250-267.

21.

Larson

Walker

Pearce

(2005). A comparison of youth-driven and adult-driven youth programs: Balancing inputs from youth and adults. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 57-74. doi:10.1002/jcop.20035

22.

Lerner

R. M.

(2005). Promoting positive youth development: Theoretical and empirical bases. Washington, DC: National Academics of Science.

23.

Lerner

R. M.

Callina

K. S.

(2013). Relational developmental systems theories and the ecological validity of experimental designs. Human Development, 56, 372-380.

24.

Lerner

R. M.

Lerner

J. V.

Benson

J. B.

(2011). Positive youth development: Research and applications for promoting thriving in adolescence. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 41, 1-17.

25.

Mallett

(2005). Self-determination theory: A case study of evidence-based coaching. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 417-429.

26.

Mayan

M. J.

(2009). Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

27.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

28.

National Research Council. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

29.

Overton

W. F.

(2013). A new paradigm for developmental science: Relationism and relational-developmental systems. Applied Developmental Science, 17, 94-107.

30.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

31.

Roth

J. L.

Brooks-Gunn

(2000). What do adolescents need for healthy development?: Implications for youth policy. Society for Research in Child Development Social Policy Report, 14(1), 3-20.

32.

Simpkins

S. D.

(2015). When and how does participating in an organized after-school activity matter? Applied Developmental Science, 19, 121-126.

33.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

34.

Strachan

Davies

(2014). Click! Using photo elicitation to explore youth experiences and positive youth development in sport. Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health, 7, 170-191. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2013.867410

35.

Thurber

C. A.

Scanlin

M. M.

Scheuler

Henderson

K. A.

(2007). Youth development outcomes of the camp experience: Evidence for multidimensional growth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 241-254. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9142-6

36.

Zarrett

Fay

Carrano

Phelph

Lerner

R. M.

(2009). More than child’s play: Variable-and pattern-centered approaches for examining effects of sports participation on youth development. Developmental Psychology, 45, 368-382.