2. Mission: Camp Starfish fosters the success and growth of
children with emotional, behavioral, social and learning problems by providing
individualized attention as part of structured, nurturing and fun group programs.
• 1:1 Staff –to-Camper Ratio or better, at all times
• Children have typically been unsuccessful in school/camp/extracurricular environs
• Strength-based, therapeutic environment, without therapy
• 48 residential & 12 day campers per session
• 90+ staff on camp for full season
• Located in Rindge, NH. Permanent home – purchased 2008
• Founded in 1998 by Deb Berman as part of an MBA project
• One of only two camps in the country doing what we do, the way we do it!
3. • Started attending camp at age 4
• Became a day camp counselor at 16
• First year-round job in 2001
• Responsible at Starfish for overall
organization management, board
development, marketing, financials,
fundraising, program oversight,
and other fun stuff.
• Favorite camp song: It’s not fair to play favorites.
(OK…it’s “Linger”)
5. • Incoming staff are students
• Textbook learning vs. “the real thing”
• “Session 1 is really Staff Training Part 2”
• Pre-arrival expectations?
• More staff than kids; their success is key!
• Success – reliant on individual factors,
or training/support experienced?
6. • Determine staff members’
perceived level of confidence
prior to arrival at camp, and
evaluate how this changes
throughout the course of the
summer as staff are exposed to
intensive training and challenging
interactions with campers.
• Use data to develop hiring
methodology, pre-camp training
and in-service opportunities
addressing areas critical to actual
success as a Starfish counselor
7. Objective 1
100% of employed staff will complete a self evaluation rating their
confidence levels upon arrival at camp, at the completion of staff
training, after one session of work with campers, and at the
completion of the summer.
Objective 2
At each of the four evaluation points, staff will be able to articulate
their current personal definition of “confidence”
in the camp setting.
Objective 3
Starfish will be able to determine what percentage of staff
who, upon arrival, considered themselves [confident, somewhat
confident, not confident] ultimately follow a trajectory of
increasing confidence throughout the summer.
10. Reason for change:
staff did not see the level of
questions (from basic to expert) in
each category to be
discrete, although they did
differentiate between the five large
categories.
11. • Evaluating multiple areas of
potential impact was not
realistic
• Discrete skill separation was
not possible
• Goal moved from idea of
whether it is theoretical/
classroom knowledge or
hands on experience which
creates confidence for camp
staff, and towards tracking the
trajectory of confidence
regardless of on what it is
potentially based.
12. Objective 1
Complete a confidence evaluation.
Results
• Many, but not all staff completed the evaluations
• Evaluation conducted at 3 points
Unanticipated Results
• Staff perception of confidence and ability to
handle the job are not closely correlated.
Challenges
• Timing of survey distribution
• Collection of data for absent staff
13. Objective 2
Define confidence at camp.
Results
• Staff were able to use their own words to clarify
the meaning of confidence in the camp setting
• Definition evolved over time
Challenges
• Evaluation of individual anecdotal data to offer
meaningful insight about a group
• Non-quantifiable
15. Objective 3
Determine trajectory of confidence.
Results
• Average 1st year staff member increased confidence level from “moderate”
6.1 to “high” 8.3 after training
• Returning staff also benefit from increased confidence
• New staff have a small dip in confidence after first session of work with kids
Unanticipated Results
• Global confidence correlation: “if you’re confident you’re good with
kids, you’re confident you’re good with kids, regardless of task.”
• Hands-on confidence with kids is not correlated to academic learning of a
topic such as “child development.”
• Confidence alone doesn’t predict which staff are likely to stick it out or quit
Challenges
• Lack of final evaluation point data (post-summer)
• Many things factor into self-reported perception of confidence;
cannot isolate the data
17. Objective 3
For example, predictions were that all highly confident staff would
face a “reality check” of some kind; this was not the case.
Results
Actual Trajectory of Staff who rate "Highly Confident" on Entry
10
9
Level of Confidence
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Entry
End of Training
Evaluation Points
End of Session 1
18. Objective 3
Results
The majority of staff reported entering with moderate confidence.
PathofModeratelyConfidentStaff
5%
PathofModeratelyConfidentStaff
98
% of this group increased
in confidence over time.
5%
20%
34%
20%
Overall Change in Moderately Confident Staff
Stayed the
Same
2%
41%
41%
ConfidConfidenceionlyincreasedovme(Ex.:4.5,8.9,9.4)
enceonly ncreasedov tiertime(Ex.:4.5,8.9,9.4)
er
ConfidConfidencepeakedthenlowered(Ex.:6.4,9.9,9.7)
encepeakedthenlowered(Ex.:6.4,9.9,9.7)
Increased
98%
Confdencepeakedthenremainedev (Ex.:7.8,8.3,8.4)
i
en
Confidencepeakedthenremainedev (Ex.:7.8,8.3,8.4)
en
Other(Doesnotftintoanyoftheabov categories)
i
e
Other(Doesnotfitintoanyoftheabov categories)
e
34%
19. Objective 3
Results
Staff who entered with low confidence made
their biggest jump in confidence after staff training.
20. Path of Non-Confident Staff
Objective 3
All staff who entered with low confidence moved into
an entirely new confidence category after training.
0%
Results
Path of Non-Confident Staff
0
% of this group
remaining nonconfident
0%
40%
Overall Change in Non-Confident Staff
40%
60%
Stayed
Sam e
0%
60%
Confidence only increased over time (Ex.: 2.6, 8.0, 8.5)
Confidence only increased over time (Ex.: 2.6, 8.0, 8.5)
Confidence peaked then lowered (Ex.: 3.3, 9.4, 8.7)
Confidence peaked then lowered (Ex.: 3.3, 9.4, 8.7)
OtherOther (No data; all fit into oneof two above categories)
(No data; all fit into one of two above categories)
Increased
100%
60
% of this group moved
up two categories into
“highly confident.”
21. Objective 3
As anticipated, the average confidence level for staff who entered
with low confidence never reached as high as other entry groups.
Results
Comparison of Ending Levels of Confidence
10
Average Group Rating After Working With Children
9.1
9
8.3
8
7.1
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Non-Confident
Moderately Confident
Confidence Group Upon Entry
Highly Confident
22. Objective 3
However, this lowest entry group experienced the
largest growth in their confidence level over time.
Results
Change in Confidence - Comparing Pre-Training to Post-Campers
10
9
0.4
Average Confidence Rating
8
2.1
7
6
5
4
8.7
4
6.2
3
2
3.1
1
0
Non-Confident
Moderately Confident
Highly Confident
Confidence Group on Entry
Additional Confidence Gained By Final Evaluation Point
Average Group Rating at Pre-Training
23. Objective 3
Results
Confidence with hands-on skills was more highly correlated than
with any of those four skills in correlation to child development.
24. Objective 3
Results
Of the staff in the study who left early, each had a unique
trajectory; two were rating themselves “highly confident.”
Staff Who Did Not Complete Camp
10.0
9.0
Average Self-Scores
8.0
7.0
#29
6.0
#34
5.0
#40
4.0
#41
3.0
#43
2.0
1.0
0.0
PreTrain
Post-Train
Evaluation Points
Session 1
25. • Adding in end-of-summer performance review data in an attempt to
determine if self-reported perceptions of confidence and objective
measures of competence actually correlate
• What factors contribute to early
departures for staff? What role do
trusted relationships, problem-solving
skills, or how staff categorize success
connect to confidence?
• How do we best train discrete
skills that need individual
focus so they are not
“global”?
• Further evaluation of
collected surveys to
look at acquisition of
knowledge question
26. • Pre-camp training serves as a
confidence boost for all
staff, regardless of arrival confidence
• Returning staff increase their
confidence by continued work
• A ‘global confidence’ exists across
many training topics which cause staff
to believe that if they can do one
well, they can do them all equally
well.
• Confidence is not a stand-alone
predictor of summer success
28. Rationale
• Fun is not the 1st priority at Starfish
• Parents/Guardians/Therapists
are the initial client, children
often don’t have a say the
first year of attendance
• Even as a niche camp, we still need
kids to want to return. Camp
has to be enjoyable!
29. Project Goal
To identify:
a) The level at which Starfish is/is not succeeding in
delivering the “fun” aspect of our mission;
b) How campers identify “fun” in the context of a
safe, structured, therapeutic environment; and
c) Specific steps Starfish can take to be more fun for kids.
30. Methodology
Rationale
• Staff received training on “fun” – helping kids have
safe fun and helping them recognize fun things
• Activities and opportunities added to camp that were
less routine, meant to be “cooler”
• Campers completed “Fun Sheets”
to bring share with family at home
• Surveys, Interviews, informal
check-ins with counselors
31. Objectives
Prior to camp, a focus group will be conducted with teen campers and separately, with
their parents, to identify 5 ways to increase the fun quotient at camp.
At the end of their camp session, new campers will be able to name 3 fun/engaging
things they experienced at camp this summer.
At the end of their camp session, returning campers will be able to identify 3 new
fun/engaging things they experienced at camp this summer.
3 out of 5 campers will be able to correctly identify from a list of the sessions’ activities
for their age group at least three which had fun (rather than skill development, goal
achievement, social pragmatics or coping techniques) as the underlying purpose.
When asked by an adult at the end of camp, 4 out of 5 teen campers will be able to
articulate what “safe fun” looks like at Camp Starfish.
By the end of camp, campers will be able to share with a counselor two areas of future
growth that they believe would further increase the fun quotient at camp.
Using the information collected in this project, Starfish will develop a 60-second
promotional video for the website focusing on kids having fun at camp.
32. Focus Group
• Focus group held at a local library
• Teens suggested many more than
5 ways to increase fun
• Major focus of teens: “be treated
like mature grown ups”
• Major focus of parents: “more
career/transitional-based programs”
• Event lead to creation of Teen
Programs – Guide for Entry
“More
responsibility
and freedom!”
33. Focus Group
• “Fun” equated with responsibility according to both
teens and parents
• Parents truly unconcerned about fun
• Many teen suggestions not practical/possible
• Clear disconnect between
actual developmental level
and the “typical teens”
campers believe they are
Teen l.e.a.d.e.r. Portia debating with
Camp Director Adam at the Forum
34. Focus Group
• Both teens and parents wanted
a more structured, level-based
program with clear guidelines
• Not what we had expected teens
would find fun!
• Now progression is based on
behavioral expectations and
completion of program
responsibilities, with concrete
privileges for participation
(rather than based on age)
35. Focus Group
The l.e.a.d.e.r.s. teens earned the opportunity to do a community service
project off site, visiting the local Goodwill distribution store and helping
sort and shelve donations.
36. Identifying Fun – New Campers
• ALL new campers were able to name 3 fun things
• Fun for new campers centers around simply
experiencing camp
“GAGA!”
Carnival!
37. Identifying Fun Fun Activities, As Described by New Campers
– New Campers
Garden/Xplore
6%
Other
6%
Sw im /Boating
23%
Making Friends
6%
Special Events
9%
GaGa
15%
Athletic
Activities
9%
Chauncey the
Goat
13%
Crafts/Hands On
Activities
13%
• Only 9% of new campers listed special events
• Most listed typical, traditional, base schedule activities
38. Identifying Fun – Returning Campers
• ALL returners were able to name 3 fun things.
• However only 59% accurately named new fun things;
29% listed 2 of 3 correctly, and 12% listed 0 or 1.
• The 88% of returners who named at least 2 new things were
much more specific and descriptive than first time campers.
“sock
puppets”
“Electives”
39. Identifying Fun – Returning Campers
• Campers who told
counselors how “boring”
camp was and how
“nothing changed” all listed
3 new fun things.
• Data is qualitative, not
quantitative
• Judgment calls had to be
made to categorize results
– “hanging out with
counselors” not new fun
– “getting to know new
counselors” new fun
40. Identify “Just For Fun” Activities
Secret Purpose
Dual Purpose
seem woven into the fabric of
camp, appear to be just fun, but have
a specific purpose that staff know
designed for fun, but most
campers are aware that these
they have a greater function
Just Fun
Skill Acquisition
designed specifically for fun,
no ulterior motive
regularly scheduled activities which
are part of the core curriculum and
have an assigned program instructor
Structure/Routine
activities necessary for self-care or
are part of the core structure that
governs how camp operates
41. Identify “Just For Fun” Activities
• 100% of campers identified at
least 3 activities from the list
that were fun.
• But, it appears that campers
answered based on what they
thought was fun at camp, not
based on instructions (“circle
the activities we have here at
camp that are just for fun”)
42. Identify “Just For Fun” Activities
Just Fun
designed specifically for
fun, no ulterior motive
43. Identify “Just For Fun” Activities
Structure/Routine
activities necessary for selfcare or are part of the core
structure which governs how
camp operates
45. Identify “Just For Fun” Activities
• Although campers circled fun activities more often, they
were not able to separate “pure fun” from “fun with a
purpose.”
Campers are likely to view
everything as fun “even if”
it has meaning behind it,
because they see camp
as a good experience
Campers are determined
to dislike “therapy camp”
and therefore see everything
as the meaning
behind the fun
46. Define “Safe Fun” At Camp
• Every teen was able to articulate a way
to be safe at camp
• Less frequently, campers were able to
answer incorporating both safety and fun
• Answers were mixed between physical & emotional safety
47. Suggest How Camp Can Improve
Initial Question: “What are two ways
camp could be more fun in the future?”
“the biggest roller
coaster on earth…
times five!”
“a dinosaur park!”
Revised Question:
“At camp next summer I want to…”
“I just want to be back…
the rest is a blank
waiting to be written.”
“SuperFreeSwim
in the Deep End!”
