|
By Charles R. (Reb) Gregg and Catherine Hansen-Stamp
A standard, according to Merriam-Webster, is "something set up
and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight,
extent, value or quality." (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary,
Eleventh Edition.)
Following the American Camp Association's (ACA) recent revision
of standards contained in the ACA Accreditation Standards for Camp Programs
and Services (1998), we discuss here the broad definition of "standards"
and their value and risks to camps and other recreation providers.
What Is a Standard?
Standards may be developed to provide guidance to others, promote uniformity
in design and methods, elevate (or "standardize") the practices
within an industry, and in many cases contribute to the management
of the risks presented by the person, place, thing, or behavior, which
is the subject of the standard.
Standards are only as good as the person or organization that establishes
them. While somewhat unusual, a standard developed by a single credible
and experienced individual or organization may be taken seriously in
the market place. A standard set by a consensus of credible practitioners
or producers may enjoy more acceptance.
Standards may be established under the supervision of public and private
agencies and industry groups that seek to develop standards from a diverse
group of advisors, recognized for their experience and talent.
Standards may also be developed, unintentionally as far as the public
is concerned, by a single producer or practitioner who has demonstrated,
over the years, outstanding proficiency and success. A certain camp,
for example, may set a standard for a certain activity or method simply
by virtue of its extraordinary success in doing what it does. Portions
of the handbook of a noted outdoor recreation or education program may
become a "standard" by which others in the same business
conduct similar activities.
Standards, in the broadest sense, include those that may be developed
internally by an organization. For example, a camp may develop internal
standards, presumably in compliance with ACA standards, to deal with
practical issues related to its particular operation.
Competing organizations may generate and publish competing standards,
forcing the public to make choices based on the reputation of the standard
setter, general acceptance in the marketplace, and trial and error. As
noted below, competing standards may cause problems.
Standards may be as formal as those established by law (statutes, for
example), or developed by an association or agency to award certification
or accreditation. Standards may be as informal as simply exemplary practices
developed by an organization, or the generally accepted "way to
do things" in a particular industry.
Standards can be rigid and precise, or flexible and general. Standards
can be quite specific, as in matters of staff to camper ratios, the strength
of supporting cables, and adherence to health and safety rules and regulations.
They may also offer room for judgment and variation by the use of such
terms as "appropriate," "reasonable," etc., in
which case explanatory notes may be offered. The best standards are those
which leave room for judgment, allowing deviation if appropriate. This
flexibility is more applicable to standards of conduct, screening, supervision,
etc., than to matters of engineering efficiency — weight bearing
loads and strength issues for example.
The term "standard," like the term "policy," can
have many meanings, even within the same organization. Some may view
a standard as the "best" (or only) way to design, build,
or do something; others as the "preferred" way; others as
the "accepted" way; and others may treat a standard as only
a guideline.
The bottom line is this: whether the announcement is termed a standard,
practice, guideline, or something else, it will probably be interpreted
(including by a court of law) as it has been observed. For example, a
practice or measurement called a guideline, whose users are told it must
be followed, may be fairly viewed as a mandatory requirement. A standard
that is only casually observed may be properly considered to be only
a guideline. Any announcement of a standard should be quite clear as
to what is intended, and describe not only how, but for whom and for
what purpose the standard has been developed.
It is important that newly written standards not contradict established
standards unless there is a very good reason for doing so. Standards
should not conflict with existing law, and in fact standards may reference
pertinent laws. Standard setters should coordinate with other standard
setting organizations whose operations may overlap — to achieve
consistency and avoid confusion in the marketplace.
The Value of Well-Developed Standards
Flexible and well-drafted standards (whether used in conjunction with
an accreditation program or otherwise) can provide many benefits for
organizations and their customers. Correspondingly, poorly drafted or
vague standards can cause serious problems for organizations or individuals
attempting to comply with those standards, and in the event of litigation.)
Standards, developed by an industry association — the ACA, for
example — can elevate the performance of an industry, increase
the public's confidence in that industry and protect persons who
buy the products and the services of that industry. Specifically, standards
can help a camp more comprehensively address the many important program,
risk management, and legal issues included in the business of running
the organization. The ACA, for example, historically has emphasized its
standards as an important means of educating camps about "best
practices" in the industry.
Standards can assist in the accrediting or certification of organizations
(including camps) and individual practitioners, thereby sharpening the
skills of those persons and declaring to the consuming public that those
organizations and persons seek excellence. Organizations which demonstrate
compliance are probably more likely to attract thoughtful clients.
Conflicting Views About Standards Development
While it would be difficult to argue against the importance of standards
for elevating, or at least making more predictable, the performance of
an industry, some, even some lawyers, caution that standards can be a
trap. This is their reasoning:
- A standard, however carefully crafted, may be wrong, and thus,
reliance by an organization on that standard may not provide a successful
defense to the organization if an injury occurs and litigation follows.
Critics emphasize that industry providers must consider carefully what
may be regarded as a standard in the industry, for courts have found
an entire industry negligent in the conduct of a practice. Ultimately, "the
way everybody is doing it" may not always be even the reasonable,
much less the best, way.
- Failure to abide by a standard may be considered by a judge or
jury as some evidence of negligence: that is, an organization which
ignores or contradicts a standard established by the industry of which
it is a part must be able to explain the deviation or face the consequences.
Ignorance of, or failure to comply with, a relevant standard may indicate
significant deficiencies in the quality of that organization's
risk management and other policies and practices.
Industry Standards — Is the Effort Worthwhile?
The prospect of an organization's performance being measured against
standards is real. But the solution is not to avoid setting standards,
or for an organization to ignore compliance with established standards.
The solution is for standard setting organizations, and those who may
fairly be judged by those standards, to assist in the effort to assure
that such standards are reasonably created, understood, and followed.
The camp or other organization that does not follow the ACA standards,
for example, does so at some risk. The ACA is sufficiently well-established
and credible that camps, whether ACA members or not, may fairly be judged
by its standards.
Standards are not a safe harbor. However, paying attention to and complying
with appropriate standards is a better practice than proceeding down
the shoreline with only internal practices and procedures, uninformed
by what the rest of the world is doing! It is important that organizations
that may be judged by established standards (whether members of a standard
setting organization or not) participate vigorously in the standard setting
and revision process.
Legal Implications — External
and Internal Standards
Standards have legal implications, as suggested above. They may be used
in a court proceeding to show the violation of a duty of care (that is,
the failure to act as a reasonable professional would have acted under
the same or similar circumstances . . . negligence). In determining the
reasonableness of a person's conduct, the court or jury may look
to the organization's own internal standards, to statutes, and
to standards or prevailing practices in the industry (ACA standards,
for example). Experts may testify, and even disagree, about these "standards" or
practices of an industry. With regard to camps, experts may refer to
practices or announced standards of well-established and successful camps
for examples of reasonable conduct. As noted above, the ACA accreditation
standards are an important and reliable source of reasonable practices.
Certainly, state and federal statutory requirements should be reviewed
for compliance. A court or jury can use these standards, practices, or
statutory mandates as evidence of liability in certain circumstances.
A camp (accredited or not) should endeavor to thoughtfully craft its
own internal practices, and see that those practices conform to — or
at least do not contradict — applicable ACA standards. A camp's
internal practices or procedures may address, for example, hiring and
training staff, conducting classes or activities, and how to handle emergency
situations. Organizations and their leaders must take care in documenting
standards or policies. If a lawsuit is filed, attorneys for the complaining
party will most likely be able to review those writings. Serious litigation
issues may result if the organization's internal policies have
not been followed or do not conform to ACA standards.
Because written standards can have both legal and practical ramifications,
it is critical that any standard be carefully drafted, flexible, internally
consistent and agreed to by respected members of the industry group.
In addition, the practices should contain appropriate language outlining
the intent and limits of the practices (and if you are purporting to
set standards for others, appropriate disclaimer language). Standards
should be reviewed on an ongoing and regular basis, and adjusted as necessary.
Whether standards are developed internally or industry-wide, standards
are constantly evolving. Organizations must commit to a regular and systematic
review of applicable written standards.
ACA Revised Standards 2006
ACA standards are established by a process that includes careful analysis
of existing issues, publication of proposed standards for comment, announcement
of the standards finally adopted, and a periodic review and updating
to reflect new challenges, new understandings, and new technologies.
The recently approved 2006 revisions of the 1998 ACA Standards were developed
over considerable time, presented to ACA members for comment, and adjusted
in response to those comments.
The following examples of those revised standards emphasize the value
of responsible standards development, and illustrate the points made
in this article.
- HW-XX — availability of an AED. This new standard recognizes
that a camp should make "an assessment of the need for an AED (automated
external defibrillator)" at the camp — recognizing the increasing
use of this relatively new piece of emergency equipment. Importantly,
the standard does not require the camp to have an AED on site, but
simply to assess whether to have one on site. The standard's comment
advises camps to take several general factors into consideration in
the assessment process, including seeking the advice of medical and
legal authorities. Wisely, the standard does not require the AED, but
in light of the increasing availability of these devices, recognizes
a need for camps to determine whether one should be in place. It gives
the camp room to make a thoughtful judgment, rather than mandating
specific compliance. A camp's choice in this regard should not be made
casually. Children's needs for AEDs are not the same as those of adults.
The freedom to address particular camp populations and needs is important.
- OM 4 — Risk Management; revised. This revised standard continues
to recognize that camps should address risk management considerations in
a proactive manner. OM-4 comments reflect that the ACA standards, as a
whole, address many risk management considerations, but that camps also
need to have a "big picture" approach to risk management. That
is, they should implement an approach that addresses overall operations,
including risk management issues that may not be covered by individual
ACA standards. Wisely, the standard does not dictate that the camp develop
a specific, unitary, risk management plan, but that the camp develop "written
materials for risk management planning," that focus on this overall
approach. The standard provides flexibility for camps, recognizing
that the size, mission, and resources of the camp may dictate, to some
degree, the nature of a camp's risk management approach. The standard
also provides some flexibility on what to assess, rather than a specific
and detailed list, the standard outlines three general areas where
overall risk management should be addressed, leaving the camp with
flexibility in determining how to structure its approach.
This is a
sensitive standard, because compliance requires that the camp develop
internal written materials to address overall risk management. Two
important issues for the camp are these: 1) it must comply with the
standard, and 2) once it has complied with the standard (that is, developed
writings reflecting a risk management plan) the camp must be prepared to
carry out the plan. Like standards themselves, a risk management plan is
a live document that must be reviewed and attended to (and updated as appropriate)
regularly. A camp must understand that if it develops written materials
identifying how it will address overall risk management, it must be prepared
to adhere to its own internal directives. As mentioned previously, a camp's
failure to comply with or adhere to its own internal practices can create
serious issues in litigation. If, for example, a risk management plan calls
for designation of a committee to meet regularly to discuss the camp's
plan, that committee should be designated, and should meet.
- HR-4 staff
screening. This standard has been revised to include a mandatory component
stemming from recently enacted sex offender laws and regulations on
the local, state and national level. This standard is a good example
of how revision reflects changes in the industry — laws
and regulations promote more specificity in standards, so that camps
will adhere to applicable laws, and address resulting changes in industry
practices and approaches in this sensitive area. The Comments to the
standard provide additional detail.
- HR-11 precamp staff training. The revised standard identifies the
topics that should be included in staff training, and the Comments
suggest amounts of time that might be required to cover those topics.
The evolution of HR-11 from its 1998 predecessor recognizes that the
substance of staff training is more relevant than the amount of time
spent training instructors (the focus of the old standard). The revised
standard provides general guidance on substantive training, but refrains
from providing a bullet list of topics for staff — some of which
may be inappropriate for some camps.
Conclusion
Standards are the friend of those in the industry who strive for excellence
and who are willing to invest time and effort in developing standards
which are current, thoughtful and practical. Standards may be a threat
to those who are lax in their practices and slow to take advantage of
the advanced thinking of the industry. But with standards, come responsibilities.
Study the ACA standards, be active in the development and revision of
these standards, and demonstrate thoughtful compliance. In addition,
consider other standards that may pertain to your organization. Create,
review and revise your organization's internal practices or policies
regularly. If you attend to standards, yours will be a better camp, and
your camp families will be better served by you.
©2006 Charles R. Gregg and Catherine Hansen-Stamp
Originally published in the 2006 Spring issue
of The CampLine.
|
