Human Resources Standards, HR

I am glad to hear that the wording in HR1B will be broadened to include other non-ACA endorsed educational options for directors. There are so many valuable learning opportunities available today that we should keep the wording broad enough to encompass them all.

While I am in agreement with the spirit of standard HR1B, I remain concerned about the 15 CE units proposed. As much as I would love to be able to provide the funds and the time for the camp director to fulfill this proposed requirement, as a nonprofit camp, it is simply not realistic. In addition, many of the valuable trainings attended by staff do not offer CE units. Perhaps the standard should require a certain number of hours of training instead of CE units.

With regard to HR18, I agree with many of the comments above in that bullying does not warrant it's own standard. There are countless other behavioral issues that camps deal with in addition to bullying. HR17 should be the place where these are addressed.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Christie Ko
Executive Director
Fiver Children's Foundation (Camp Fiver)
New York

Regarding HR 1B Director Continuing Ed - I think your heart is in the right place but limiting the director to only ACA Competencies and course approved by ACA is limiting the growth of Camp Directors. There are so many other varied opportunities for Camp Director Growth ranging from local colleges, other professional organizations and other business, legal entities, local govt, and other camps. Why limit what can be learned?

RegardingHR 18 Bullying Policy - I can appreciate the legal urgency for policy regarding this current hot topic, but couldn't bullying behavior be addressed in HR 17? A separate Standsrd seem redundant.

The standards should certainly make sure that each camp has informed policy and practices with respect to bullying. However, the level of documentation required here seems oppressive to me and should be toned down.

There are many ways for Camp Directors to improve their skills and capabilities. It seems self-surving (and unwieldy) for the ACA to feel that such improvements must be certified by ACA.

As for the HR 18 - bullying standard, I believe this is placing too much import, and in a negative way, to a single issue of camper behavior, when there are many that we address each day, every summer. To place a specific definition of bullying and specific sanctions, ramifications etc, is not necessary and sets a bad precedence. There are standards on behavior management that suffice as guidelines for addressing bullying. This seems to be an over-reaction rather than a thoughtful guideline.

I know this standard already exists, but as we are trying to consolidate, could this be rolled into another standard, perhaps HR-11 Diversity or another bullet point in HR-16 (which is probably where the anti-bullying language should also go). Thanks.

New HR-18 seems like an over-reaching response to something. There are already several standards that address training in this area. To add a new standard about managing this one narrow area of camper behavior and place such a high level of compliance demonstration against it seems over the top. Requiring 2 written documentation compliance demonstrations, 2 interview demonstrations, and 2 observation demonstrations makes it the largest compliance demonstration requirement in all of the HR section. I would think we could just incorporate some language about an anti-bullying policy (as opposed to a bullying policy) into existing standards. I also think that the concept a one-time instance of bullying is counter to most definitions of bullying that generally include words such as "habitual". Thanks.

The timing of this standard has changed from "reporting to work" to "accepting a position." I'm not sure that make sense, particularly given the detail of using staff manuals, etc. That type of information is provided prior to reporting to work, but not so early in the process as prior to accepting a position. I think the change in this standard makes it a little less practical and less useful than the prior wording. Thanks.

Another vote for broadening what qualifies for CE credits. There are lots of ways for professional growth, and all should be recognized. Thanks.

Thanks for the new wording on HR-3, instructing the camp to define the screening procedures for the future.

HR-11 This new wording is much better, esp. for camps who don't seem to have much diversity in the camper population (for whatever reason)

Many thanks for adding HR-18 on Bullying. The topic is important and the wording well done

I'm surprised there is not much comment on the deletion of HR-21. Obviously from a camp director's viewpoint, not having to juggle schedules to provide that 2 hours daily (A) will make life much easier. But does this open the door for camps to restrict/prevent staff from a break of any length during daily operation on the basis of "I'm not required to provide you with any time off"; leading to extremely long days. Is this a good idea??
Why was this standard deleted?

Though it makes total sense on paper, in my years as a visitor I've found camp use the same initial screening and application process for all their positions. Writing the standard to meet this reality would simplify it a lot.

Wonder where the 24 weeks prior experience comes from. In our industry this could mean 3 years working at a camp with the same special needs population in order to be counted as part of the 20%. This seems excessive.

Thanks so much for your responsiveness to the concerns and for clarifying things. It is very, very helpful.

With Appreciation:
Kevin Witt
National Staff UM Camp and Retreat Ministries

I too am a long-time member of ACA, and grateful to the leadership that ACA provides to the camping industry. However, like many others have posted, I am concerned about this change.

I believe that continuing education for Directors is extremely important. However, I serve as a Board Member for the PCCCA and was the 2010 Annual Conference Design Team Chair. Our annual denominational conference brought outstanding leaders for both Keynote presentations and workshops. This annual conference, and future events held in partnership with other denominations provides outstanding continuing education for camp directors . . . and many other staff members. I believe that this event, and other like it provided by national organizations must be recognized in meeting this requirement . . . without additional cost to the sponsoring organization.

Thank you for the leadership and vision that ACA provides!

Maria Shupe
Executive DIrector
Highlands Presbyterian Camp and Retreat Center
Allenspark, CO

I strongly agree with the comment left by Kevin Witt on Fri, 2011-04-15 01:38. He stated and addressed the concerns precisely as I see them. Outside organizations being required to pay ACA for an "endorsement" seems nothing more than a revenue generator. ACA needs to stop being so pejorative towards other organizations. ACA does not have the only say on how to run a camp program.

Many thanks to those of you who have called and commented regarding the proposed wording for HR1B (requirements for Professional Development). We will be determining the best wording to make sure the various conferences/workshops that have been described and references are included as part of professional development. It was NOT our intent to exclude them yet rather an oversight in wording.

First of all, I want to say that I have been a member of ACA for nearly 20 years and I am a big believer in the value of what ACA does. I highly recommend that leaders be members of ACA, however this particular change really disturbs me.

It is important to take a very close look this particular standard. A very significant change in this standard is being proposed. It is not clear in the initial part of the standard, but is oulined in the additional information about Part B.

I believe this needs a great deal more thought and explanation so members can understand it fully..

"Regarding Part B, the ACA Core Competencies identify thirteen core areas of critical skills and knowledge areas that guide the practices and professional development of camp professionals. “Continuing Education Credits” may be obtained by attending local or national ACA-sponsored training events or other ACA-endorsed courses related to the identified core areas."

This means that persons getting camp and retreat leader continuing education provided by their denomination, university, or national organization (YMCA, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, etc.) may not be able to count that toward the 15 hours of required continuing education every three years. This is problematic. When continuing education units (CEUs) and certificates are already being provided by their parent organization in quality training directly related to camp and retreat leadership, why would this not count toward the 15 hours?

The only way it would count if this new version of the standard is passed is if the denomination, school, or organization sought "endorsement" by ACA. ACA members may not be aware, but this new endorsement program requires payment to ACA to be endorsed. First, as I understand the process based on information provided by ACA, the organization would be forced to become a "business affiliate" of ACA requiring an annual fee of $600.00. Second, every single webinar, course and event would require an additional costs for the provider of the education to be paid to ACA.:

• Online Courses
o Running time (combined) under 2 hours = $200 educational endorsement fee

o Each additional hour = $50 educational endorsement fee

• Face-to-Face Conferences/Events
o 1-day conference/event = $100 educational endorsement fee

o 2-day conference/event = $150 educational endorsement fee

o 3-or-more-day conference/event = $250 educational endorsement fee

In addition, the courses and events, many of which are already approved by professionals in the field and/or
by professional educators at academic institutions, would need to be reviewed by ACA chosen leaders for "endorsement", but no criteria are listed for what would make a course, webinar, etc. acceptable to the reviewers. This leaves the door open for the potential of very arbitrary decisions and significant extra work and cost to the organization providing continuing education which will ultimately be passed on to those needing the training making the same training more expensive for the students.

I am concerned that requiring organizations to be endorsed is more about generating additional money for ACA in exchange for the benefit of marketing by those providing education who would not readily be able to access a broader base of consumers who would not otherwise know about their training. That is fine but not every organization needs or wants that endorsement..

It is not truly necessary and not ultimately valuable for some of the organizations who have many camps and leaders that are members of ACA. This is the case for those of us in the United Methodist circles. We already provide a variety of trainings for our leaders along with ecumenical trainings directly related to professional and volunteer camp and retreat leadership. Our certification program for example requires experts in the field teamed with professional academic educators from accredited universities and seminaries. I am sure we are not alone among denominations and other nonprofit organizations that have many camps and retreat centers. Many of us have our own high quality opportunities, that we directly inform our leaders about and do not need a "middle-man" organization to market it for us.

The descripton of the endorsement program provided by ACA itself states - "• Educational endorsement is a marketing tool for educational content providers who want to reach a wide range of camp and youth development professionals. ACA has approximately 6,500 members (representing approximately 2,400 camps) who are committed to ongoing, high-quality professional development. EEP provides access to this market. "

What if an organization does not need or want this, because it can already reach it s leaders with good continuing educaation and marketing to the masses doesn't make sense? It is not reasonable to make ACA members of such organizations choose between their own organization's trainings and ACA Events or ACA "endorsed" continuing education in order to be able to receive a "Yes" on this standard. This is especially ture when the only way for continuing education opportunities to be endorsed for the provider of the education is to pay ACA what is essentially a significant "marketing" fee.

I believe strongly that the requirement to be "endorsed" by ACA should be removed from part B of this standard. Let those organizations that want to be a part of the marketing and to be listed by ACA do so if they wish and pay the related fees, but do not limit ACA members from getting quality training elsewhere when it is available to them. Of course, everyone would need to provide documentation of the continuing education they did participate in and the content covered, regardless.

Keep in mind, that we already encourage our leaders to get additional training where it is available, so we value other training that is provided by other organizations. It is not about a desire on our part to limit additional opportunities for our leaders. Our training for our own leaders should not be dismissed, however, because we don't want to pay and be part of the ACA marketing.

Lastly, I believe it would also strengthen this standard if the number of contact hours per CEU credit was explained. In our circles, 1 CEU equates to 10 hours of actual instruction. Is that true for this standard or is it different? If it is similar, 50 hours of instruction each year is is a serious commitment for each Director both in terms of time and cost and we don't need to add additional costs unnecessarily.

Thank you for your careful consideration of these concerns and the solid reasons behind them.

With Appreciation:
Kevin Witt
National Staff of UM Camp and Retreat Ministries

I feel that even though the Modes cover Resident camp the opening question as it is worded causes confusion. The question seems to imply when using the word (or) that A, B, C refer to User Groups mode and can be complied with by either camp requiring or by advising user group.
Hopefully one intent of the continued standard revision is to eliminate small items causing confusion... here I think a little wording change would eliminate this confusion.

The DNA note directly following HR-1 (C) should be DNA D not DNA C