camp experiences and developmental outcomes for youth

20
Camp Experiences and Developmental Outcomes for Youth M. Deborah Bialeschki, PhD a, * , Karla A. Henderson, PhD b , Penny A. James, MS b a American Camp Association, 5000 State Road 67 North, Martinsville, IN 46151, USA b Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, North Carolina State University, Box 8004 Biltmore, Raleigh, NC 27707, USA ‘‘I’m nicer, and I’m just a much better person in general.’’ ‘‘I’m not as shy as I was before camp.’’ ‘‘I am a different person with a more positive attitude.’’ ‘‘I am a lot more caring.’’ ‘‘I am certain I am not the only person with diabetes at camp and I don’t feel left out.’’ ‘‘I am more adventurous.’’ ‘‘I am more confident in doing new things.’’ ‘‘My social skills are better.’’ These direct quotes are from young people who responded to an open- ended question, ‘‘Are there ways you are different now because of what you learned or did at camp?’’ [1]. Many young people have had the oppor- tunity to attend camp over the past 150 years, and most youth have en- joyed their experiences. In the same study from which these quotes were elicited, campers were asked, ‘‘On a scale from 0 to 10, please rate your stay at camp by circling one of the numbers below (0 means terrible and 10 means excellent).’’ Campers’ overall average was 8.79. Obviously for these children, camp was viewed as a positive experience. Camp profes- sionals understand that camp needs to be enjoyable or children will not want to go, and parents will not want to send them; however, aside from the essential fun factor, camp experiences also offer positive develop- mental outcomes. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.D. Bialeschki). 1056-4993/07/$ - see front matter. Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.chc.2007.05.011 childpsych.theclinics.com Child Adolesc Psychiatric Clin N Am 16 (2007) 769–788

Upload: penny-a

Post on 28-Dec-2016

234 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Child Adolesc Psychiatric Clin N Am

16 (2007) 769–788

Camp Experiences and DevelopmentalOutcomes for Youth

M. Deborah Bialeschki, PhDa,*,Karla A. Henderson, PhDb, Penny A. James, MSb

aAmerican Camp Association, 5000 State Road 67 North, Martinsville, IN 46151, USAbDepartment of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, North Carolina State

University, Box 8004 Biltmore, Raleigh, NC 27707, USA

‘‘I’m nicer, and I’m just a much better person in general.’’‘‘I’m not as shy as I was before camp.’’

‘‘I am a different person with a more positive attitude.’’‘‘I am a lot more caring.’’‘‘I am certain I am not the only person with diabetes at camp and I don’t

feel left out.’’‘‘I am more adventurous.’’‘‘I am more confident in doing new things.’’

‘‘My social skills are better.’’

These direct quotes are from young people who responded to an open-ended question, ‘‘Are there ways you are different now because of whatyou learned or did at camp?’’ [1]. Many young people have had the oppor-tunity to attend camp over the past 150 years, and most youth have en-joyed their experiences. In the same study from which these quotes wereelicited, campers were asked, ‘‘On a scale from 0 to 10, please rate yourstay at camp by circling one of the numbers below (0 means terribleand 10 means excellent).’’ Campers’ overall average was 8.79. Obviouslyfor these children, camp was viewed as a positive experience. Camp profes-sionals understand that camp needs to be enjoyable or children will notwant to go, and parents will not want to send them; however, asidefrom the essential fun factor, camp experiences also offer positive develop-mental outcomes.

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M.D. Bialeschki).

1056-4993/07/$ - see front matter. Published by Elsevier Inc.

doi:10.1016/j.chc.2007.05.011 childpsych.theclinics.com

770 BIALESCHKI et al

Although the focus of this article is on developmental outcomes, the im-portance of camp settings in providing a positive climate for interventionwith youth must be acknowledged. Camps may be one of the largest orga-nized interventions for children in the United States other than schools andchurches. Large youth-serving organizations, such as the Girl Scouts, BoyScouts, and the YMCA, have many participants, but camp programs servean estimated 12 million campers each year. Therefore, camps have greatinfluence on many children and adults each year. In addition, many youthorganizations offer camp experiences as part of their ongoing programs be-cause they recognize the importance of camp in the lives of young people.Camps provide interventions in that camp staff members are trained tohelp youth change in positive ways. Camp offers sustained experiences, usu-ally in natural settings, that promote a ‘‘sense of community’’ or ‘‘family.’’Children are with camp staff for extended lengths of time (ie, usually 1–8weeks) and in the case of ‘‘resident’’ or ‘‘sleep-away camps’’ are under thecontinuous care of the camp staff. Because so many children are entrustedto the care of these camp professionals each year, an examination of the de-sirable outcomes from camp experiences is essential.

This article describes developmental outcomes that can occur at camp.Camp is not inherently good without purposeful and directed efforts bycamp professionals. Therefore, the authors discuss developmental theoriesthat underlie camp programs, the outcomes that have been examinedthrough research and the camp populations studied, and provide an over-view of the most recent research conducted by the American Camp Associ-ation (ACA) and other researchers to explore how ‘‘camp gives kids a worldof good.’’

Positive youth development

Youth development encompasses efforts to create organizations andcommunities for youth that provide the supports and opportunities neces-sary to move youth toward adulthood by going beyond just problem pre-vention [2]. Youth development specialists [3–7] have indicated that inaddition to academic competence, youth need to have opportunities togrow toward physical, emotional, civic, and social competence through sup-ports from family, community, and other institutions, including organizedcamp programs. Nicholson and colleagues [8] noted that youth developmentorganizations have a common commitment to young people’s physical,emotional, and educational growth. Evidence is mounting that well-designed, well-implemented youth-centered programs that consciously usea youth development model have positive outcomes for young people andtheir communities [9].

For developmental outcomes to be achieved, programs must be success-fully implemented and evaluated with an underpinning of theory [10]. Al-though not necessarily a single theory, a conceptualization of positive

771DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES FOR YOUTH

youth development provides a theoretic framework for examining the di-mensions that result in growth and development. The rationale for positiveyouth development, according to Lerner and colleagues [11], emanates fromcontemporary developmental systems theories that suggest change is a con-sequence of mutually influential relationships between the developing per-son and such aspects as biology, psychological characteristics, family,community, and culture.

Developmental theories have guided youth outcome measures. One ex-ample is the work done by Search Institute researchers who have eschewedthe problem-focused paradigm relative to youth and replaced it with a focuson human development [5]. The Search Institute has identified 40 assets orbuilding blocks that seem to be foundational for healthy and positive devel-opment in youth. These assets are grouped into two domains: internal andexternal. Internal assets include commitment to learning, positive values,social competencies, and positive identity. External assets include support,empowerment, boundaries and expectations, and constructive use of time.Further research has confirmed these categories with sixth to twelfth graders.This work has provided a script for mobilizing community approachesto long-term efforts focused on youth development. The Search Institutemodel also has provided a way to examine elements of positive youthdevelopment from a multilevel approach.

The work of the Search Institute [5] has been used extensively by otheryouth organizations striving to make camps effective in helping young peo-ple become successful adults [12]. For example, Girl Scouts of the USA de-veloped a tool kit with surveys to assist camp staff in examining assets, suchas feelings of belonging, helpfulness, independent living skills, leadership,and respect for others. The Boy Scouts of America contracted researchthat used the Search Institute model to focus on six elements: personalvalues and character, positive sense of self-worth and usefulness, caringand nurturing relationships with adults, desire to learn, productive and cre-ative use of time, and social adeptness. The YMCA of the USA also usedthe Search Institute model with camps and local Ys. The data collectedby these organizations provided benchmarks for camp applications. Camp-fire USA also used the Search Institute findings to assemble a tool kit tomeasure outcomes in local councils. These data are being compiled to pro-vide a national database for Campfire.

Other researchers have identified necessary elements and protective fac-tors that contribute to positive youth development in ways supplementalto the Search Institute model. Roth and Brooks-Gunn [13] and Lernerand colleagues [11] discussed five Cs of positive youth development thatshould be outcomes of youth programs: competence, confidence, character,connection, and caring. Lerner and colleagues [11] argued that these five Cshappen when youth programs offer positive and sustained adult–youth rela-tionships, youth skill-building activities, and opportunities for youth partic-ipation and leadership.

772 BIALESCHKI et al

A report prepared by the National Research Council and the Institute ofMedicine, Community Programs to Promote Youth Development, underlinedthe need to use a developmental framework to help youth acquire personaland social benefits [2]. Among the elements described in this report werephysical and psychologic safety, emotional moral support, supportive adultrelationships, opportunities to form close human relationships, a feeling ofbelonging and being valued, opportunities for skill building, personal effi-cacy, and opportunities to contribute to one’s community. Borden and col-leagues [14] summarized these ideas by stating that young people need toreceive supports, opportunities, and services to help them be competent,confident, connected, and contributing people of character.

Gambone and colleagues [4] further applied the outcomes identified inother studies and concluded that the common outcome areas were physicaland cognitive learning, social relationships, positive values, and positiveidentity. To make this information more usable for stakeholders, they cate-gorized the outcomes as developmental supports (eg, guidance, adult andpeer interaction, a sense of physical and emotional safety) or opportunities(eg, involvement in meaningful roles, input in decision making, leadershipinvolvement, sense of belonging, challenging and interesting experiences tobuild an array of skills) that provided the best operational definitions foryouth development outcomes. The Community Action Framework for YouthDevelopment [2] described how strategies, such as relationships, activities,and program structure, become the toolsdsimilar to what Baldwin and col-leagues [15] suggesteddfor reaching the intended outcomes identified. Otherresearch efforts by such organizations as 4-H [16] support Gambone andcolleagues’ [4] findings that stress the importance of the setting (eg, camps)in which outcomes related to positive youth development occur.

Research also has emerged related to how camps can serve as a modalityfor treatment for children who have chronic illnesses [17]. Camps addressingthese types of needs frequently are called ‘‘therapeutic’’ camps. Two lines ofresearch seem to correspond to differing philosophical conceptualizations ofwhat therapeutic means. One line of research, typically found in medical andpsychologic journal articles, focuses on segregated camps with a primary fo-cus on treatment outcomes [17,18]. Often, the benefits and contributions ofthe camp environment and camper’s experiences in the treatment milieu arenot examined. In these studies, camp is described often as a ‘‘controlled’’ en-vironment; however, camp usually conjures images of children running, yell-ing, playing, and laughing. Generally, controlling is restricted to safetymatters and respect for other living beings and the environment; however,camp is a convenient place for providing medical treatment and educationbecause children are more receptive to these interventions in the enjoyableenvironment that camps provide. A second philosophical line of researchgenerally emanates from fields such as education, recreation, and psychol-ogy that focus on the benefits and positive youth development of camp en-vironments for all children, irrespective of differing abilities, within the

773DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES FOR YOUTH

context of inclusive camp programs [19–21]. These differing philosophiescomplement one another while contributing valuable information aboutthe potential positive outcomes of camp experiences for all children with dis-abilities. The primary purpose of most camps, however, is not necessarilytherapeutic. Nevertheless, all camps can be therapeutic in terms of their ben-eficial contributions [22]. The authors acknowledge the need for camps thatfocus on clinical goals, but they also want to emphasize how more efforts areneeded to focus on the effectiveness, efficiency, value, and intentionality ofcamp experiences as they address youth and human development for allindividuals.

Measuring camp outcomes

The significant shift in youth development that has occurred in the past10 years involves the movement toward defining positive youth developmentand establishing a scientifically measurable set of characteristics. The youthdevelopment movement encompasses all areas of youth programming andservice provision, and camps are only benefiting as a result of the theoreticand methodological advancements accompanying research in youth devel-opment. Similarly, camp researchers who are interested in examining out-comes have contributed to create this growing body of knowledge. Theseresearchers are investigating the varied aspects of the camp experience to un-derstand the importance of the setting context, the role of staff and theirtraining, the importance of developmentally appropriate programs and ac-tivities for the campers, and the need to be intentional in goal setting thatresults in integrated strategies to reach desired outcomes.

Providing camp experiences does not automatically achieve intendedyouth development outcomes. The goals, program activities, staff attention,and physical and emotional safety of camps are what make outcomeachievement possible. For example, research conducted on the impact ofa summer day camp on the resiliency of disadvantaged youth found thatoutcome-based programs resulted in greater changes than did a traditionalcamp design with a variety of broad goals [23]. The organizational practice,which includes camp structures, policies, and activities, provides the frame-work for supports and opportunities leading to positive youth developmentoutcomes. Linkages between program elements and desired developmentaloutcomes are critically needed [15].

Larson [24] noted the difficulty in conducting critical outcome research.Many factors influence outcomes related to these structures, policies, andactivities. Measuring and stating conclusively that a camping or recreationprogram causes a change in behavior is difficult. Even more difficult to mea-sure is how much change can occur in a short period of time, such as duringa 5-day camp experience. Researchers in youth development recognize thatmany factors may mitigate what happens to a young person. For example,measuring changes in youth is complicated because the rapid developmental

774 BIALESCHKI et al

changes that occur in the first 15 years of a child’s life are unprecedentedwhen compared with other age groups [25]. In addition, youth programs of-ten include a diverse group of individuals with varied racial, ethnic, or cul-tural backgrounds. Little is known about how outcomes are related toidentity characteristics. Empirically, correlations are useful but they donot imply how outcomes might occur. Experimental designs are difficultto undertake in camp settings because of the complexity of camp situationsas well as the issues with ‘‘control’’ noted above. Longitudinal studies in-cluding the measurement of dependent variables on multiple occasions areneeded, but these efforts often take a good deal of time and resources.The processes that underlie outcomes are important along with the recogni-tion of a wide range of qualities and competencies that contribute to theseoutcomes. In this initial stage of research, however, researchers have focusedon ascertaining what outcomes can and should be addressed through campexperiences. The next step is for rigorous research that will test whether par-ticipation in an activity, such as a camp experience, results in developmentaloutcomes and effects outside the activity itself.

Developmental outcomes examined

Listing the developmental outcomes that may result from camp experi-ences is not easy. Many benefits can occur. Often, positive changes occurin young people that were not definitive goals of the camp program; how-ever, several areas have received considerable examination in the literature.This part of the article reviews four of the primary outcomes that have beenexamined: self-constructs, social relationships, skill (ie, physical and cogni-tive) building, and spirituality.

Self-constructs

Issues related to the ‘‘self’’ have been measured in numerous camp stud-ies. Although psychologists point out that differences exist between theconstructs of self-esteem, self-confidence, self-identity, self-efficacy, andself-determination, they all deal with dimensions of the individual. For ex-ample, self-efficacy is a person’s perception of his or her ability to performa task. If individuals believe that they can do something, they are more likelyto succeed in the actual performance. Sekine [26] studied the self-efficacychanges of school children at a 1-week camping program compared withchildren who did not participate. This study revealed that the children atcamp showed significant gains in their locus of control and general self-efficacy. Once self-efficacy has been established, it often can be generalizedto other settings. Therefore, what happens at camp is expected to havesome type of carryover into life beyond the days spent at camp.

Readdick and Schaller [27] found that economically disadvantaged chil-dren scored significantly higher on a measure of self-esteem at the end of

775DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES FOR YOUTH

camp than at the beginning. Physical and social environmental features,such as contact with nature and having the same counselor as the year be-fore, supported increased self-esteem. A study of children’s manifest anxietyshowed that a 10-day camp experience significantly lowered their anxiety[28]. Another study by Allen and colleagues [23] discussed the impact ofan outcomes-based day camp on the self aspects of resiliency in disadvan-taged youth. Not only did the campers from the outcomes-based camphave significant positive changes in resiliency skills (ie, insight, indepen-dence, creativity, relationships, initiative, values orientation, and humor),they changed more than campers at traditional camps devoid of an articu-lated outcome-based program.

Children with disabilities also have been an important focus of researchrelated to self-constructs as well as other outcomes [29–31]. For example,Brannan and colleagues [32] found that across the country, youth withand without disabilities made significant growth in their outdoor skillsand personal development (eg, self-reliance, communications, and self-esteem) in resident 1-week camp and outdoor school programs. Self-reliance,or independence, was a predominant‘ outcome for youth. This study alsoshowed that although youth with disabilities gained independence, youthwithout disabilities also improved their social interactions and gaineda greater appreciation of people who were different than themselves. In an-other study of adolescents who had type 1 diabetes, self-determination the-ory was the basis for an approach used in the camp setting to help youngpeople manage their diabetes [30]. Other studies focused on the camp expe-rience of children who had asthma or diabetes [18,33]. Silvers and colleagues[34] found that self-management of asthma symptoms increased as a resultof the education and self-efficacy encouraged at camp. Parents also noted anincrease in their children’s self-confidence.

Longitudinal studies that focus on self-constructs in children are chal-lenging and rarely conducted, particularly in specialized settings like camps;however, a study of children from at-risk urban communities involved in anongoing, year-round program anchored in a 4-week residential summercamp experience explored the impact of the camp experience on anger man-agement and life effectiveness skills [35,36]. The fifth-grade cohort from 2001(N ¼ 54) was tracked with pre-, post-, and 6-month follow-up tests con-ducted over 4 years. The findings from the study supported the importanceof intentionality in camp programs; the outcome of angermanagement clearlyshowed positive improvement directly related to the camp experiencedyearlyand cumulatively throughout the study. The campers also demonstratedpositive gains in life effectiveness skills over these 4 years. The boys in thestudy showed more gains, particularly in managing anger.

Marsh [37] conducted a meta-analysis of 22 studies (mostly small sampleswithin individual camps) related to camp research addressing self-constructs(eg, self-esteem, self-confidence, and other aspects of self) over the past 30years. The results showed that camp had a positive influence on self in short

776 BIALESCHKI et al

periods of time across all age groups, but particularly among youngercampers. The other significant conclusion from Marsh’s analyses was thatcamps that focused on enhancing self-constructs were more likely to affectthem. He concluded that camps with intentional and deliberate goalsfocused on improving self-constructs were more likely to produce resultsthan camps that did not explicitly state these goals.

Social relationship outcomes

Although studying self-constructs is essential to enhancing youth devel-opment outcomes, these observed changes often occur as a direct result ofthe social context that camp experiences provide. Group living in the out-doors has been the hallmark of camping for the past 150 years. The devel-opment of social relationships is a key element of youth development. Ofall outcomes, social outcomes likely have been examined most frequentlyin camp research. Social skills involve caring and supportive relationshipswith adults and peers as well as communication, cooperation, closeness, con-nectedness, a sense of belonging, caring, and teamwork skills [2]. One benefitof camp is the way that it enables young people working with trained leadersto live and play together. Peer relationships focus on developing the meansfor making and keeping friends along with furthering a sense of belonging.Durall [38] found that young people who attend camp experienced benefi-cial factors that helped them move toward healthy social development. Ifthese changes did not occur, then the camp program has not been properlyfocused. Durall’s [38] study suggested that factors that can be fostered atcamp include cohesion, interpersonal learning, and altruism if these as-pects are the focus of the camp program.

The 4-H organization has been particularly interested in social relation-ship outcomes. For example, Arnold and colleagues [39] studied Oregon res-idential 4-H campers and found that campers said meeting new people andnew friends was a result of camp. Campers also indicated that camp helpedthem to cooperate with others, talk to others more easily, work with othersas a team, and work through disagreements. Girls were more likely to learnto cooperate with others than were boys, although both said that theylearned that skill. Garst and Bruce [16] also studied more than 8000 4-Hcampers in Virginia and determined that making new friends was the num-ber one benefit of attending camp. Campers also believed that camp helpedthem to develop closer friendships with people they already knew, improvedtheir communication skills, and helped them to see the world beyond theirhometown. Research by Klem [40] studying campers and parents in Mis-souri 4-H associated with summer camp concluded that campers and par-ents believed that social and teamwork skills increased as a result ofinvolvement with the summer camp.

The development of social capital among children and adults has been anemerging issue in social science research. Yuen and colleagues [41] examined

777DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES FOR YOUTH

a camp experience for children as it resulted in cooperation and communi-cation and the development of a sense of community among the children.Camp provided a common ground for the children’s relationship buildingand the development of shared meanings at the camp because languageand culture were not the same for all the children. These researchers con-cluded that the social learning that occurred through camp experiencesled to building community and social capital in campers.

Social relationships also have been a big part of the studies of childrenwith disabilities. In a study of more than 2000 campers with mild to severedisabilities who were ages 7 to 21 years, Brannan and colleagues [32,42]found significant growth related to abilities to communicate with othersand engage in social interactions. Moreover, these social gains carriedover after the campers went home. Skill improvements included time spentin appropriate peer interaction and the development of a respect for others.Brookman and colleagues [43] experimented with including children whohad autism in an integrated camp. The results of their research demon-strated that the autistic children, who had varying levels of functioning,were able to participate successfully in camp activities with the assistanceof their aids. The typically developing campers and staff also learned aboutinteracting with children who had autism as a result of this camp.

Young people in camps designed for particular illnesses also experiencedgrowth in social development. For example, Cheung and colleagues [29] dis-covered that the quality of life of adolescents who had diabetes was im-proved greatly through the social support opportunities that they had incamp. In another study of children and adolescents with learning disabilitiesand psychosocial problems, camp was determined to be a way to encouragegains in social and emotional functioning [44]. Additionally, 34 adolescentsattending an oncology summer camp completed pre- and postcamp ques-tionnaires. These adolescents felt more similar to camp peers than tohome peers, and the peer comparisons were related to social acceptance,physical appearance, global self-worth, and loneliness [45]. A similar findingregarding the importance of a ‘‘peer community’’ was found in Goodwinand Staples’ [46] study of youth with disabilities. The camp provided a re-prieve for these campers from perceptions of disability isolation that re-sulted in gains in self-reliance and independence and an appreciation oftheir physical capabilities.

Briery and Rabian [47] examined psychosocial changes associated withparticipation in a pediatric summer camp. Their findings indicated signifi-cant improvement in attitudes toward illness and decreases in trait anxiety.Reductions in trait anxiety were indicative of social adjustment and copingabilities of the campers. New campers seemed to make more gains than re-turning campers, which suggested a need to continue to focus on the needsof returning campers and the importance of conducting longitudinal studies.The researchers speculated that the development of a true ‘‘peer group’’ thatfostered changes was an important underlying component of the experience.

778 BIALESCHKI et al

Camp also provided social development for children with disabilities andsiblings of children who had cancer [31,48]. Sidhu and colleagues [48] dis-covered that children who attended a camp focused on peer support re-ported greater social competence at the end of the camp session andlearned information that was important in understanding cancer and howthe siblings were affected. Packman and colleagues [31] used a combinationof quantitative and qualitative methods to uncover the positive changes inemotional and social experiences that could be measured when collectingboth forms of data.

Using a quasi-experimental design that compared campers with noncam-pers, Reefe [49] noted that campers increased more than noncampers overthe summer in the area of interpersonal skills, which included cooperation,trust, and communication. Dworken [50] discovered that campers believedthat they learned ‘‘people skills’’ at camp that would be helpful to themin other aspects of life. These campers commented that the skills theylearned at camp, such as leadership, communication, organization, and de-cision making, were critical to being able to work with other people. In laterresearch on social competencies, Dworken [51] interviewed parents andfound that parents perceived that their children demonstrated the greatestimprovement in the area of social competencies. Parents’ comments rangedfrom ‘‘my child learned to share experiences, open up in peer discussions,and make many new good friends with whom she still communicates’’ to‘‘he learned to get along with all kinds of people, to be more accepting,and he has a greater insight into people.’’

An interesting point that seems to emerge from this psychosocial researchin camps is the value of the camp experience as a context for social groupintervention [44,46,52]. Campers who would be marginalized in other set-tings had decreased feelings of isolation as well as increases in self-esteem,familial acceptance, personal security, and social skills. The parents of thecampers in this study also perceived positive changes in personal develop-ment and social skills in their children. The feelings of personal securityand familial acceptance were apparent at follow-up as were cooperationand self-control for younger campers.

Therefore, the social development outcomes research seems to suggest thatcamps offer extraordinary opportunities for young people to develop positivepeer relationships as well as beneficial relationships with adult camp staff. Thecamp experience that supports the development of positive relationships, es-pecially with adult staff, often is one of the few opportunities for a young per-son to find appropriate role models and mentors. More research, however, isneeded in this area as well as in other areas, such as skill building.

Skill-building outcomes

Skill building includes various elements of physical and cognitive devel-opment. The National Academy of Sciences [53] listed desired elements of

779DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES FOR YOUTH

youth programs, including opportunities for skill building and mastery. Skillbuilding encourages young people to expand their understanding andknowledge of themselves and their environment and to master specificnew and challenging concepts and skills. Eccles and Gootman [2] also iden-tified essential features of positive developmental settings that included op-portunities for skill building (ie, to learn physical, intellectual, psychologic,emotional, and social skills; exposure to intentional learning experiences).

Research about camping has indicated the essential value of camp activ-ities that are challenging to young people. Camp is a venue in which numer-ous out of the ordinary and interesting opportunities are available to youngpeople. For example, Arnold and colleagues [39] found that 4-H camperssaid that they learned new things that they liked to do and that campmade them want to try new things; girls were more likely than boys to learnnew things and to want to try new things. Similarly, Garst and Bruce [16]found that the second most often rated benefit or outcome of camp was de-veloping new skills in an activity area that campers enjoyed.

Camps also were an important site for skill building for children withphysical and cognitive disabilities [20,54]. Brannan and colleagues[32,42,55] found significant growth in achievement when activities were con-ducted as outdoor experiences. Campers with more severe disabilities alsoreported enjoyment and achievement when participating in these camp ac-tivities. For children who had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder,Hupp and Reitman [20] found that learning sports skills and positive sport-ing behavior through the camp program boosted the social competence ofthe campers and provided benefits associated with physical activities. Forsome of the campers, the camp provided an opportunity to participate insports when parents previously had discouraged participation because ofpotentially negative social consequences of disruptive or uncooperativebehaviors.

This research supports the importance of skill-building activities as a mo-dality for camp programs; however, more examination and analysis areneeded to better understand what makes an activity interesting and chal-lenging and how young people can transfer the challenge that they encoun-tered in camp to their daily lives.

Spiritual outcomes

As determined by Catalano and colleagues [56], one of the objectives ofpositive youth development is ‘‘fostering spirituality.’’ Although they notedthat a good definition for spirituality does not exist, they acknowledged thatrelationships relative to moral development as well as social connectionswere tied to spirituality. In simplest terms, religion is defined as an organizedand institutional group experience with accepted faiths and beliefs, whereasspirituality can be described as a personal belief in something greater thanoneself [57]. Spiritual development also has been described as a personal

780 BIALESCHKI et al

inner sense of the world and the role that an individual has in it [58].Spiritual well-being may be an outcome that might occur in recreationactivities, such as camping [59], although the research in this area limited.Search Institute recently committed resources to the exploration of theimportance of spirituality in the development of young people (www.spiritualdevelopmentcenter.org).

Several researchers, however, have examined spirituality’s dimensions incamp, resulting in a variety of findings. Chenery [60] suggested that campprofessionals have ‘‘an opportunity and a responsibility to become sanctuar-ies for the nurturance of spiritual growth and empowerment.’’ Good andWilloughby [61] found that religiosity (ie, church attendance) was moresalient for adolescents than spirituality (ie, personal beliefs in God or ahigher power). Sweatman and Heintzman [62] discovered through qualitativedata that four themes were associated with adolescents’ experience of spiri-tuality in camp: camp setting, time alone, social experiences, and positivefeelings. In addition, Yust [63] described the difficulties associated with cre-ating a camp environment that facilitates children’s spiritual experiences.Although far fewer studies have been done about spiritual outcomes incamps, most findings indicate the importance of aspects of spirituality inmany camps, but these results occur most markedly in the religiously affil-iated camps. These camps often offer an intentional focus on the moral de-velopment of their campers that resonates well with the young people andtheir parents.

As more religiously affiliated programs explore their connections to theenvironment and nature, the role of spirituality in some camps may becomeeven more apparent. Even in secular camp programs, the role of nature ina person’s life and the opportunities for reflection in an outdoor settingmay provide a platform for the further spiritual development of youngpeople.

American Camp Association’s commitment to outcomes measurement

As we have shown, many researchers have examined elements of campand the developmental outcomes for youth. Many individuals also have per-sonally experienced the value of camp. Only recently, however, has nationalrepresentative research been conducted that examines the developmentaloutcomes of camp experiences. ACA has renewed its commitment to thefoundational aspects of the camp experience through its positive youth de-velopment focus. In addition, ACA has identified research as a central com-ponent necessary to understand camp’s value and to improve the quality ofcamping. Camp’s unique opportunity for community living away fromhome in an outdoor recreational setting seems to accelerate youth develop-ment beyond what would be expected by maturation alone.

Two national studies directed by staff and volunteers in the ACA werefunded by membership donations and support from the Lilly Endowment

781DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES FOR YOUTH

Inc. to measure developmental outcomes that resulted from camp experi-ences. The overall results of these two studies showed that the areas thatcamp influenced most strongly were social skills, physical and thinkingskills, positive identity, and spirituality (mostly for those camps that hadthis outcome as a goal). Camps were particularly good at providing support-ive relationships but had the most room to grow when providing physicallyand emotionally safe spaces and opportunities for youth involvement (eg,leadership and decision making).

Youth development outcomes of the camp experience

The first study about outcomes, ‘‘Youth Development Outcomes of theCamp Experience’’ [1], provided a starting point for describing developmen-tal outcomes at camp. New multidimensional self-, parent-, and staff-reportquestionnaires were carefully constructed and pilot tested [64]. Data werecollected from a national representative sample to ascertain whether devel-opmental change occurred in key developmental domains and whether somecamp attributes (eg, supervision ratios, program elements, staff training)were associated with change in outcomes.

Children’s self-reports indicated statistically significant growth from pre-camp to postcamp in 4 of the 10 constructs measured, although most effectsizes were small. Adventure and exploration showed the largest change frompre- to posttest. Self-esteem, independence, leadership, friendship skills, en-vironmental awareness, and spirituality were other areas in which significantchange occurred. Children’s self-reports at the 6-month follow-up indicatedthat gains realized at camp were mostly maintained. In the case of indepen-dence, leadership, social comfort, and peer relationships, additional statisti-cally significant gains occurred over postcamp levels.

Parents’ reports on their children indicated statistically significant growthfrom precamp to postcamp in all 10 of the constructs measured. Parents’ re-ports on their children at the 6-month follow-up also indicated that gainsrealized at camp were mostly maintained. An additional statistically signif-icant gain was seen in the area of leadership by the parents beyond post-camp levels.

Camp counselors’ reports on their campers also indicated statistically sig-nificant growth from the second day of camp until the penultimate day in allfour of the developmental domains measured: positive identity, social skills,physical and thinking skills, and positive values and spirituality. Effect sizeswere modest, with physical and thinking skills showing the largest effect.

As predicted, children whose self-report scores were lowest at precampshowed the greatest gains from precamp to postcamp. Campers who startedout with the lowest scores gained the most. Those children who started outhigh may have encountered a ceiling effect because of the nature of the mea-surements used. Only a modest relationship was found between growthat camp and children’s enjoyment of the experience [65]. Therefore,

782 BIALESCHKI et al

developmental growth and enjoyment were not necessarily related. Thisfinding is important for camp professionals; although having fun is impor-tant for children, a director cannot assume that a ‘‘fun’’ camp experienceautomatically results in positive youth development outcomes. These out-comes are a result of intentional programming, focused staff training, anda commitment to offering growth opportunities for children who come tocamp.

Children’s and parents’ responses to additional items on the postcampversions of the questionnaires illuminated some additional positive out-comes. For example, 75% of children and 69% of parents agreed ‘‘a lot’’with the statement ‘‘Camp helped [me/my child] make new friends’’; 69%of children and 58% of parents agreed ‘‘a lot’’ with the statement ‘‘Camphelped [me/my child] get to know kids who are different from [me/him/her]’’; and 65% of children and 73% of parents agreed ‘‘a lot’’ with thestatement ‘‘The people at camp helped [me/my child] feel good about [my-self/him/herself].’’ About 76% of children indicated that they had learnedsomething new at camp, and a similar percentage (71%) indicated thatthey improved their skills in some area while they were at camp. Seventypercent of parents reported that their children were noticeably more confi-dent and had more self-esteem after camp, whereas 18% said that their chil-dren had better social skills. Some of the quotes used at the beginning of thisarticle also highlight the outcomes that campers perceived.

In summary, ‘‘Youth Development Outcomes of the Camp Experience’’provided some confirmation of the conventional wisdom concerning thevalue of camp as a developmental growth experience. The convergence ofopinion among children, parents, and staff provided scientific validity thatcamp is not only fun, but also is enriching and educational. The strengthsof the study’s design included attendance and immersion of all participantsin an organized nationally accredited program of activity, use of multiplereporters, and assessments that included preprogram, postprogram, andfollow-up data collection. These design elements were improvements overprevious studies about youth development in camps, which often have mea-sured participants’ attitudes and behaviors at a single time point. The struc-tural factors (eg, program design, training content) or child characteristics(eg, temperament, adjustment) that might further predict growth experi-ences at camp were not determined, however.

Developmental supports and opportunities of youths’ experiencesat camp

After the first national study of outcomes demonstrated that importantdevelopmental changes occurred in youth at camp, the next step was to de-fine the developmental processes further. A second study about supportsand opportunities in camp programs, ‘‘Developmental Supports and Oppor-tunities of Youths’ Experiences at Camp’’ [66], was undertaken. This study

783DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES FOR YOUTH

focused more specifically on how intentional youth development might oc-cur when using a community action framework [4] applied to camp settings.In this second national study, ACA researchers sought to discover howyouth viewed their experience at camp. The first step in this two-part studywas designed to provide benchmark data on four domains of developmentalsupports and opportunities at camp: supportive relationships, safety, youthinvolvement, and skill building. The purpose of this research was to under-stand how youth participants viewed the provision of developmental sup-ports and opportunities in the camp setting. Researchers also wanted todiscover how the developmental quality of camp experiences varied bytype of camp and characteristics of the camper as well as what contributedmost to optimal camp experiences so that the next phase of the study couldfocus on program improvement.

Thebenchmark results of this second studywerepresented in fourparts: over-all results, camp type results, camper characteristics results, and factors associ-ated with campers’ optimal experiences. First, the overall results showed thatoptimal levels of supports and opportunities were highest for the domain of sup-portive relationships, followedby skill building and safety. The optimal levels ofsupportive relationships and skill building at these 80 representative camps ex-ceeded the averages of other community-based organizations and schools thathad been studied by Youth Development Strategies, Inc. Levels of youth in-volvementdand especially decision making and youth leadershipdfell belowcamp directors’ expectations, with 39% of the campers reporting insufficientlevels of involvement. This finding was similar to youth involvement levels inother community-based youth organizations.

Multivariate analyses (ie, logistic regressions) were performed to deter-mine which camp and camper characteristics correlated most stronglywith optimal experiences at camp by holding all other factors constant.The camp characteristics that were associated more strongly with high pro-portions of optimal experiences included being a resident (‘‘sleep-away’’)camp, being an all-boys camp, offering a session of 4 weeks or more, andbeing an independent for-profit camp, a religious camp, or an agencycamp versus an independent nonprofit camp. Holding all other factors con-stant, the camper characteristics that were associated more strongly withhigh levels of optimal experiences in the four supports and opportunitiesareas included being a girl, being white, being older (14–18 years), and hav-ing spent multiple summers (4 or more years) at camp.

The second phase of this study focused on a program-improvement pro-cess that assessed significant changes in the levels of supports and opportu-nities of the participating camps [67]. Camps designed and implementedstrategies to target particular areas of supports and opportunities. The find-ings from this second phase showed significant positive changes in 83% ofthe participating camps. The most improvement was evident when campsimplemented program-improvement strategies in a holistic and integratedapproach within their organizational structures, policies, and activities.

784 BIALESCHKI et al

The ‘‘Developmental Supports and Opportunities of Youths’ Experiencesat Camp’’ was an important second step in ACA’s ongoing research pro-gram. This second national study included a large national representativesample, used a refined and validated instrument, and theoretically wasgrounded in youth development research. Sometimes the importance ofself-report measures is minimized; however, this study helped to illuminatethe experience of camp through the eyes of youth, who are the central stake-holders related to camp experiences and the growth and development thatthey experience. Despite some limitations, these ACA studies were invalu-able in further describing the experiences and outcomes associated withyouth going to camp. ACA research in progress continues to explore howsystematic interventions in the form of program-improvement possibilitiesmight be linked to these optimal experiences as well as effective staff-trainingstrategies that promote positive youth development in their campers.

Summary

Research has been conducted in camps for decades; however, most campresearch has been descriptive and has contributed little beyond its applica-tion to the specific camp setting under study. Many of the evaluation studiesundertaken have been helpful to individual camps in program planning, butsatisfaction with camp does not necessarily relate to positive youth develop-ment outcomes. Although more research needs to be undertaken, somebroad conclusions can be made about developmental outcomes and camps.

First, although camps are not inherently good for every child, camp ex-periences have the potential to provide a safe environment where mostyouth can build skills and bond with peers and adults. Most children andyouth experience positive outcomes. Not every camp provides optimal expe-riences all of the time for every child, but camps are an important setting forpositive youth development.

Second, although campers bring different characteristics to their experi-ences and camps have a variety of purposes and missions, day and residentcamps can provide necessary supports and opportunities for key develop-mental outcomes to be realized by most participants. The growth observedand reported at camps varies by individual and by camp in ways that are notunderstood fully; however, these outcomes point to increases in positiveidentity, social skills, physical and thinking skills, and positive values andspirituality.

Third, the growth observed and reported at camps seems to be greaterthan would be expected by maturation alone. Camps may be an underrecog-nized developmental setting in which young people find the desired supportsand opportunities that contribute to positive development. This outdoorlaboratory provides youth development researchers a chance to further ex-plore issues around staff training of youth workers, test processes that resultin ‘‘best practices,’’ and generate theoretic advancements with practical

785DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES FOR YOUTH

applications. The information learned in camps may have linkages to otherorganizations, just as the developmental theories and the positive youth de-velopment emphasis have informed camp research.

Finally, in any examination of developmental outcomes, intentionalitymust be considered. Camp programs must be designed with particular goalsand objectives in mind (ie, deliberate programming to address the benefits ofcamping is needed). In addition, leaders must be trained to know what theintended outcomes of the camp experience are and how to implement pro-grams to address those outcomes. A further challenge relates to how to mea-sure those outcomes. For camping to produce outcomes, camp programshave the potential to address psychologic, social, physical, and spiritual do-mains if those areas are the intended goals. Professionals working with campshould determine the areas that they wish to address based on their mission,goals, and values. Further, people with disabilities can experience the sameoutcomes from the camp experience as other individuals; however, morework is necessary to integrate the goals of clinicians, who wish to evaluatetreatment interventions, and those of camp professionals, who are focusedon preserving the sanctity of the camp experience. For all children, the suc-cess of camp in achieving outcomes makes matching of the camp experienceto the needs of the child integral.

Opportunities for positive youth development that result in desired out-comes for young people are a critical concern for all of society. Throughvarious research efforts, the camp experience was shown to play an impor-tant role in this developmental process. The ACA slogans of ‘‘enrichinglives, building tomorrows’’ and ‘‘camp gives kids a world of good’’ are in-dicative of its commitment to providing quality experiences that enhanceand promote the best in each child’s development and that will culminatein a future filled with hope and possibility.

References

[1] American Camp Association. Directions: youth development outcomes of the camp experi-

ence. Available at: http://www.acacamps.org/research. Accessed May 30, 2006.

[2] Eccles J, Gootman JA, editors. Community programs to promote youth development.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002. p. 1–432.

[3] Center for YouthDevelopment Policy andResearch.What is youth development? Available

at: http://cyd.aed.org/whatis.html. Accessed January 15, 2007.

[4] GamboneMA,KlemAM,Connell JP. Finding out what matters for youth: testing key links

in a community action framework for youth development. Available at: http://www.ydsi.

org/YDSI/pdf/Whatmatters.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2007.

[5] LeffertN, BensonPL, Scales PC, et al.Developmental assets:measurement and prediction of

risk behaviors among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science 2006;2(4):209–30.

[6] Pittman K, Irby M, Ferber T. Unfinished business: further reflections on a decade of pro-

moting youth investment. p. 1–40. Available at: http://www.forumforyouthinvestment.

org/unfinishedbusiness.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2006.

[7] Witt PA. Youth development: going to the next level. Parks & Recreation 2002;37(3):52–9.

786 BIALESCHKI et al

[8] Nicholson HJ, Collins C, Holmer H. Youth as people: the protective aspects of youth devel-

opment in after-school settings. TheAnnals of theAmericanAcademyof Political and Social

Science 2004;591:55–71.

[9] National Collaboration for Youth. Making a difference in the lives of youth. Washington,

DC: National Human Services Assembly; 2006.

[10] Peterson C. Positive development: realizing the potential of youth. The Annals of the Amer-

ican Academy of Political and Social Science 2004;591:202–20.

[11] Lerner RM, Lerner JV, Almerigi J, et al. Positive youth development: a view of the issues.

Journal of Early Adolescence 2005;25(1):10–6.

[12] Dworken B. Do camps make a difference? Camping Magazine 2001;74(5):41–3.

[13] Roth JL, Brooks-Gunn J. What exactly is a youth development program? Answers from re-

search and practice. Applied Developmental Science 2003;7:94–111.

[14] Borden L, Wilson-Ahlstrom A, Jones K, et al. Bridging the gap between research and

practice. The forum for youth development. Available at: http://www.forumfyi.org/Files/

BridgingGap. Accessed June 13, 2005.

[15] Baldwin C, Caldwell L, Witt P. Deliberate programming with logic models: from theory to

outcomes. In: Caldwell L, Witt P, editors. Youth development and recreation services. State

College (PA): Venture Publishing; 2005. p. 219–40.

[16] Garst BA, Bruce FA. Identifying 4-H camping outcomes using a standardized evaluation

process across multiple 4-H educational centers. Journal of Extension 2006;1–9. Available

at: http://www.joe.org/joe.2003june/rb2.shtml. Accessed May 11, 2006.

[17] Hunter HL, Rosnov DL, Koontz D, et al. Camping programs for children with chronic ill-

ness as a modality for recreation, treatment, and evaluation: an example of a mission-based

program evaluation of a diabetes camp. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings

2006;13(1):67–80.

[18] Kelly CS, Shield SW, Gowen MA, et al. Outcomes analysis of a summer asthma camp.

J Asthma 1998;35(2):165–71.

[19] Brannan S, Fullerton A, Arick JR, et al. Including youth with disabilities in outdoor pro-

grams. Best practices, outcomes, and resources. Champaign (IL): Sagamore Publishing;

2003.

[20] Hupp SDA, Reitman D. Improving sports skills and sportsmanship in children diagnosed

with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Child and Family Behavior Therapy 1999;

21(3):35–51.

[21] Sable JR. Efficacy of physical integration, disability awareness, and adventure programming

on adolescents’ acceptance of individuals with disabilities. Ther Recreation J 1995;29(3):

206–17.

[22] Berman DS, Davis-Berman J. Therapeutic uses of outdoor education. ERIC Digest 2000.

ED No. ED448011. p. 1–6.

[23] Allen LR, Cox J, Cooper NL. The impact of a summer day camp on the resiliency of disad-

vantaged youths. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance 2006;77(1):17–23.

[24] Larson RW. Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist

2000;55(1):170–83.

[25] Sengstock MC, Hwalek M. Issues to be considered in evaluating programs for children and

youth. New Designs for Youth Development 1999;15(2):8–12.

[26] Sekine A. The effect of camp experience upon the locus of control and general self-efficacy of

school children. Bulletin of Institute of Health and Sports Sciences 1994;17:177–83.

[27] Readdick CA, Schaller GR. Summer camp and self-esteem of school-age inner-city children.

Percept Mot Skills 2005;101:121–30.

[28] Rawson HE, Barnett R. Changes in children’s manifest anxiety in a therapeutic short-term

camping experience: an exploratory study. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 1993;27(1):

22–32.

[29] CheungR, CuretonVY, CanhamDL. Quality of life in adolescents with type 1 diabetes who

participate in diabetes camp. J Sch Nurs 2006;22(1):53–8.

787DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES FOR YOUTH

[30] Hill E, Sibthorp J. Autonomy support at diabetes camp: a self determination theory ap-

proach to therapeutic recreation. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 2006;40(2):107–25.

[31] Packman W, Greenhalgh J, Chesterman B, et al. Siblings of pediatric cancer patients: the

quantitative and qualitative nature of quality of life. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology

2005;23(1):87–108.

[32] Brannan S, Arick J, Fullerton A, et al. Inclusive outdoor programs benefit youth. Camping

Magazine 2000;73(1):26–9.

[33] Rosenbloom AL. Why diabetes camp? Clinical Pediatrics 2001;40(9):511–6.

[34] SilversWS, HolbreichM, Go S, et al. Champ camp: the Colorado Children’s Asthma Camp

experience. J Asthma 1992;29(2):121–35.

[35] BialeschkiMD, Lyons K. Four years atMorry’s Camp: a longitudinal study of youth devel-

opment outcomes of the Morry’s Camp. New York: Morry’s Camp; 2005.

[36] Bialeschki MD, Sibthorp J, Ellis G. Intentionality and targeted youth development outcomes:

fouryearsatMorry’sCamp.2006LeisureResearchSymposium[abstracts].Ashburn (VA):Na-

tional Recreation and Park Association; 2006.

[37] Marsh P. Does camp enhance self-esteem? Camping Magazine 1999;72(6):36–40.

[38] Durall JK. Curative factors in the camp experience: promoting developmental growth.

Camping Magazine 1997;70(1):25–7.

[39] ArnoldME, Bourdeau VD, Nagele J. Fun and friendship in the natural world: the impact of

Oregon 4-H residential camping programs on girl and boy campers. Available at: http://

www.joe.org/joe.2005december/rbl.shtml. Accessed May 11, 2006.

[40] KlemM. An evaluation of the effectiveness of life skill development inMissouri’s 4-H youth

resident summer camps.Available at: http://www.acacamps.org/research/symposium/klem/

pdf. Accessed May 29, 2006.

[41] Yuen FC, Pedlar A,Mannell RC. Building community and social capital through children’s

leisure in the context of an international camp. Journal of Leisure Research 2005;37(4):

494–518.

[42] Brannan S, Arick J, Fullerton A. Inclusionary practices: a nationwide survey of mainstream

camps serving all youth. Camping Magazine 1997;70(1):32–4.

[43] Brookman L, Boettcher M, Klein E, et al. Facilitating social interactions in a community

summer camp setting for children with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions

2003;5(4):249–52.

[44] Mishna F, Michalski J, Cummings R. Camps as social work interventions: returning to our

roots. Soc Work Groups 2001;24(3,4):153–71.

[45] Meltzer LJ, Rourke MT. Oncology summer camp: benefits of social comparison. Child

Health Care 2005;34(4):305–14.

[46] Goodwin DL, Staples K. The meaning of summer camp experiences to youths with disabil-

ities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 2005;22(2):160–78.

[47] Briery BG, Rabian B. Psychosocial changes associated with participation in a pediatric sum-

mer camp. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 1999;24(2):183–90.

[48] Sidhu R, Passmore A, Baker D. The effectiveness of a peer support camp for siblings of chil-

dren with cancer. Pediatric Blood & Cancer 2006;47:580–8.

[49] Reefe K. The effects of an intentionally focused residential summer camp experience on the

social skill development of pre-adolescent youth. Available at: http://www.acacamps.org/

research/symposium/reefe/pdf. Accessed May 29, 2006.

[50] Dworken BS. Campers speak: New England youth share ideas on societal issues. Camping

Magazine 1999;72(5):30–4.

[51] Dworken BS. Research reveals the assets of camp. Camping Magazine 2001;74(5):40–3.

[52] Michalski JH,Mishna F,Worthington C, et al. Amulti-method impact evaluation of a ther-

apeutic summer camp program. Child Adol Social Work 2003;20(1):53–76.

[53] National Academy of Sciences. Community programs to promote youth development.

Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences; 2001.

788 BIALESCHKI et al

[54] MillerM. Camps bring adventure to children with cancer. Journal of National Cancer Insti-

tute 2000;92(20):1638–40.

[55] Brannan S, Arick J, Fullerton A. The impact of residential camp programs on campers with

disabilities. National Camp Evaluation Project (NCEP): 1993–1996. Available at: http://

www.bradwoods.org/ncep/resbr2.html. Accessed May 29, 2006.

[56] Catalano RF, Berglund ML, Ryan MAM, et al. Positive youth development in the United

States: research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Available

at: http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050015a.html. Accessed January 14,

2006.

[57] Henderson KA. Rediscovering spirituality. Camping Magazine 1993;65(4):23–7.

[58] Friedman D. Encouraging religious and spiritual identity. Camping Magazine 1997;70(1):

22–4.

[59] Heintzman P. Leisure and spiritual well-being relationships: a qualitative study. Society Leis

2000;23(1):41–69.

[60] CheneryMF. 1984. Nurturing the human spirit in camping. CampingMagazine 1984;57(1):

21–8.

[61] GoodM,Willoughby T. The role of spirituality versus religiosity in adolescent psychosocial

adjustment. J Youth Adol 2006;35(1):39–53.

[62] SweatmanMM,Heintzman P. The perceived impact of outdoor residential camp experience

on the spirituality of youth. World Leisure J 2004;46(1):23–31.

[63] Yust K. Creating an idyllic world for children’s spiritual formation. Int J Children’s Spiritu-

ality 2006;11(1):177–88.

[64] HendersonKA, Thurber CA,Whitaker LS, et al. Development and application of a camper

growth index for youth. J Exp Ed 2006;29(1):1–17.

[65] Thurber CA, Schueler LW, Scanlin M, et al. Youth development outcomes of the camp ex-

perience: evidence for multidimensional growth. J Youth Adol 2007;36:241–54.

[66] American Camp Association. Inspirations: developmental supports and opportunities

for youths’ experiences at camp. Available at: http://www.acacamps.org/research/

Inspirations.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2007.

[67] American Camp Association. Innovations: improving youth experiences in summer pro-

grams. 2006. Available at: http://www.acacamps.org/research/innovations.php. Accessed

January 26, 2007.