2013 OSD-DOD Summer Camps: Building Resiliency in Military Youth

2013 OSD-DOD Summer Camps: Building Resiliency in Military Youth

Lydia I. Marek, Ph.D.

Kate O’Rourke, MA & Lyn Moore, MA

Family & Community Research Laboratory

Virginia Tech

Blacksburg, VA

November 2013

Introduction

Background

Nearly half of all military personnel, approximately one million service members, are parents (Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy, 2009; Saltzman, Beardslee, & Woodward, 2011). Given the increased operations tempo of the Global War on Terrorism in the last decade, a significant number of these families, including their children, have experienced at least one deployment with its associated stressors. Lengthy separations and repeated deployments stress family functioning and cohesion placing military children at greater risk for emotional and behavioral problems (Chandra, Martin, Hawkins, & Richardson, 2010; Chandra, Burns, Tanielian, & Jaycox, 2011).

Stressors

Children affected by deployment experience greater emotional and behavioral difficulties and anxiety compared to the general U.S. population (Chandra et al., 2011). Saltzman and colleagues (2011) summarize the risk factors that military families face into five categories: 1) incomplete understanding (of deployment and developmental phases), 2) impaired family communication, 3) impaired parenting, 4) impaired family organization, and 5) lack of guiding belief systems (e.g., framework to make sense out of adversity, shared beliefs to support and foster coping, and access to a supportive community). These associations between deployment and child adjustment appear to be moderated by factors such as age (younger children are affected more adversely than older children) and gender (girls and boys are affected and act out differently) (Card et al., 2011). Chandra, Martin, Hawkins, and Richardson (2010) found that girls affected by deployment are more prone to depression and risk-taking behaviors while boys are more likely to experience outwardly directed anger and aggression. In addition, these effects and related difficulties can spill over into domains outside of the home, such as school (Chandra et al., 2010). Research also suggests that reserve component service members and their families may be more adversely affected by deployment due to a lack of access to resources and social support (Milliken, Auchterlonie, & Hoge, 2007) than their active duty counterparts. Multiple deployments are also linked to higher stress for children and families (Chandra et al., 2010; Park, 2011).

While military families are known for their resiliency, when challenged with the pressures that accompany deployment, reintegration, and military family life in general, the deployment cycle, with its multiple and lengthy separations and stress, has been found to test the resiliency of military family members (Adler et al., 2011; Chandra, Lara-Cinisomo, Burns, & Griffin, 2012; DePedro et al., 2011; Flake, Davis, Johnson, & Middleton, 2009; Chandra et al., 2010; Chandra et al., 2011; Cozza, 2011; Chandra, Martin, Hawkins, & Richardson, 2010). Adjustment and resiliency among the partners of military service members can also be affected by: their own ability to perform multiple roles, have role flexibility, have had frequent and high quality communication during deployment, the age and gender of their children (Lester et al., 2010), and how well they can maintain realistic expectations about the reintegration process (Saltzman et al., 2008; Association, 2007).

Many military children demonstrate remarkable resilience during deployment and reintegration, but they are not excluded from the challenges of reintegration (Lester et al., 2010; Sayers, Farrow, Ross, & Oslin, 2009). Resilience among military children has been found to be positively correlated with increased family communication about difficult issues, even when stressors are present (Chandra et al., 2011) and an understanding of the honor and respect attached to serving one’s country (Houston, et al., 2009).

Supports

A variety of formal supports for military families and children affected by deployment have been developed and put into place throughout the country. Summer camps are one such form of support that is targeted to military children. Although, little outcome evaluation has been conducted to discern their effectiveness and value (Griffith, 2010; McFarlane, 2009), research that has been conducted has shown that a camp experience can help promote protective factors and build resiliency in all youth in the following areas: resiliency skills, self-esteem, independence, leadership, peer relationships, formal and informal supports, and spirituality (Huebner & Mancini, 2005; Thurber, Scanlin, Scheuler, & Henderson, 2007). These constructs have also been endorsed in the positive youth development literature as having an impact on youth adaptation (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2004).

Camp programs have been developed specifically to meet the above-mentioned needs of military youth and families and are recommended as a strategy for targeting geographically dispersed children of reservists because of their great flexibility in delivery and access for these children (Houston et al., 2009). These camps are intended to provide a vital source of social and peer support for military children facing the stressors of deployment (Huebner & Mancini, 2010) in the hopes of helping children cope better with the stresses associated with deployment. Prior studies have found that camps for military children help them connect with others, give them an opportunity to share their stories, and give and receive adjustment-related advice (Huebner & Mancini, 2010). These kinds of interactions help military children make meaning of their deployment-related experiences, a protective factor against maladjustment (Huebner, Mancini, Wilcox, Grass, & Grass, 2007; Walsh, 2003). Additionally, camps can give weary parents a break from daily stressors associated with single parenting. This can lead to improvements in care giving (e.g., Flake, Davis, Johnson, & Middleton, 2009) and in the family at large (Wiens & Boss, 2006). One evaluation of an Operation Purple Camp revealed a high degree of satisfaction from caregivers and campers (Chandra, Burns, Tanielian, Jaycox, & Scott, 2008).

In an effort to continue exploring the effectiveness of camps in building resiliency and supports, the present research study was conducted to evaluate OSD-DOD funded summer camps implemented in 2013 for military children ages 6 to 18. The primary research question was: How effective are camps at building resiliency through improving life skills such as friendship skills, independence, perceived competence, responsibility, teamwork, and social support? Additionally, demographic differences on the impact of the camp experience (e.g., which parent is in the military, number of deployments experienced, gender) were explored.

Methods

Procedures

Camps who received funding through OSD/DoD were eligible for this evaluation. Parental permission forms and two different surveys were developed, one for children ages 6-9 and the other for youth ages 10-18. The Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board and the Department of Defense granted approval to this evaluation project.

Instruments

1. Older Youth (Ages 10-18).

Subscales from the American Camping Association’s (ACA) Camp Youth Outcomes Battery comprised the majority of the survey. Overall, there were a total of 63 items on the “Older Youth” instrument with five scales from this battery included based upon their relevance to the protective factors known to be important for military children as well as social support scales and camper perception questions.

ACA Camp Outcome Battery reliability coefficients for these five scales are greater than .85 (ACA, 2011) and responses were reported on a five point scale designated as follows: 1 = Decreased; 2 = Did not increase or decrease; 3 = Increased a little bit, maybe; 4 = Increased some, I am sure; and 5 = Increased a lot, I am sure. It is important to note that the ACA camp battery scales assessed the degree to which a camper reported changing regarding a particular construct. These scales include:

1. Friendship Skills (14 items) – Friendship is integral to resilience, as bonding and social competence have been identified as significant constructs in the positive youth development literature (Catalano et al., 2004). Sample items include “Becoming better at understanding my friends’ feelings” and “Becoming better at choosing people who would be good to be friends with.”
2. Independence (6 items) – Independence is similar to the positive youth development construct of self-determination, which is “the ability to think for oneself and to take action consistent with that thought” (Catalano et al., 2004, p. 105). Sample items include “Making decisions by myself” and “Needing less help from adults.”
3. Perceived Competence (8 items) – This construct refers to the camper’s belief that he or she can be successful in activities. It is related to the positive youth development construct of self-efficacy, defined as “the perception that one can achieve desired goals through one’s own actions” (Catalano et al., 2004, p. 106). Sample items include “Becoming better at learning new things” and “Becoming better at understanding new information.”
4. Responsibility (6 items) – Responsibility refers to the ability to be accountable for one’s behavior. This is related to positive youth development constructs of bonding and moral competence. Sample items include “Owning up to my mistakes” and “Apologizing if I hurt someone’s feelings.”
5. Teamwork (8 items) – Teamwork refers to the extent campers are able to cooperate with others and achieve mutual goals. It is an aspect of the positive youth development construct of social competence, defined as “the range of interpersonal skills that help youth integrate feelings, thinking, and actions to achieve specific social and interpersonal goals” (Catalano et al., 2004, p. 103). Sample items include “Placing group goals above the things that I want” and “Helping a group be successful.”

Social Support and Camper Perception Scales and Items:

The following three scales and items were reported on a five point scale designated as follows: 1=I strongly disagree; 2=I disagree; 3=Neither agree nor disagree; 4=I agree;

5=I strongly agree.

1. Social Support- (9 items assessed by Presence of Caring - Individual Protective Factors Index [Phillips & Springer, 1992]) - containing items such as “There is a trustworthy adult I could turn to for advice if I were having problems.”
2. Social Support - (1 item) developed for this survey: “Meeting and being with other kids who are going through things like I am makes me feel not so alone.”
3. Camper’s Perceptions (3 items) – The final three items include the following: “Participating in the camp has helped to reduce my stress in dealing with my parent or loved one’s deployment”; “I would recommend this camp to my friends”; and “I would like to return to this camp next year.”
4. Demographic information- (8 items) included: gender, age, parental military affiliation, experience with deployment, and experience with OMK support programs were added to the survey.

2. Younger Children (Ages 6 to 10).

This survey, using the American Camping Association’s Camper Learning Scale from their Camp Youth Outcomes Battery (14 items), assessed camp-related improvements in seven domains: Friendship, Family Citizenship, Teamwork, Perceived Competence, Interest in Exploration, and Responsibility (ACA, 2011). Alpha reliability was .85 (ACA, 2011). The scale includes items such as, “At camp, did you learn how to be better at making friends?” and “At camp, did you learn how to do more without your parents’ help?” Each indicator is measured with a 4-point scale, with 1= I didn’t learn anything, 2= I am not sure, 3= I learned a little about this, and 4=I learned a lot about this. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .892, which suggests the scale was reliable for this sample of campers. Two Camper Perception items were added to the survey (“Would you suggest to your friends that they should come to this camp?” and “Would you want to come back to this camp next year?”). Demographic information was also requested and overall, there were a total of 21 items on this measure.

Data Collection

Prior to each camp, the following materials were sent by e-mail or post to camp directors: appropriate surveys (i.e., depending on the age of campers), parental consent forms, letters to parents introducing the research, instructions on survey administration and protocol, and a self-addressed envelope in which to return completed surveys and parental consent forms to Virginia Tech. Both surveys were administered as close to the end of camp as possible (typically the last day) to those youth who had a completed parental permission form. Completed surveys and corresponding parental permission forms were then returned to Virginia Tech at the conclusion of survey administration.

Survey Administration

Surveys were administered according to the protocol developed by the American Camping Association, which is as described as follows:

Older youth were gathered together, seated comfortably, and had the survey introduced to them by a camp staff member familiar with the survey process. Staff then distributed surveys and pencils to the youth who then had an opportunity to ask any questions throughout the process. At the end, surveys were collected and the youth were thanked for their participation.

Younger children were formed into groups of five to eight, seated comfortably, and introduced to the survey by an adult staff member not primarily responsible for those youth. Surveys and pencils were passed out and the youth had an opportunity to ask questions about the process. The staff member then slowly read each question aloud along with the answer choices, and moved to the next question only when all campers had marked an answer. After completing the survey, surveys were collected and the youth had another opportunity to ask questions prior to being thanked for their participation.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS software (version 22.0). Independent samples t-tests were utilized to determine the effect of gender. One-way analysis of variance tests (ANOVA) were run to assess the impact of deployment experience and stress on the outcome variables.

Mean subscale scores were compared with normed data provided by the ACA (2011). Findings from these analyses are provided in the Results section below.

Participants

Demographics

A total of 1,884 youth (1,224 older campers and 660 younger campers) had parental permission and completed a survey. Of these campers, 92% of the older (n=1,120) and 98% of the younger (n=647) reported that their parents were military service members. The remaining non-military affiliated campers were excluded from this study providing 1,120 older youth surveys and 647 younger surveys completed and for which data was analyzed and results reported.

Older Youth:

• 50% were boys and 50% were girls.
• The average age of these campers was just over 13 with a range from 10 to 17 years.

Younger Youth:

• 49% were boys, and 51% were girls.
• The average age of these campers was just over nine with a range from six to 11 years of age.

Parents in the Military

Figure 1 shows the distribution of which parent is in the military. For older youth, 10% reported that only their mother was in the military, 69% reported only their father was in the military, and 19% reported that both parents were in the military. For younger youth, 11% reported that only their mothers were in military, 69% reported only their fathers were in military, and 19% reported that both parents were in military.

Figure 1: Military Status of Parent(s)

Deployment History

Figure 2 demonstrates deployment experiences reported by both older and younger youth. For older youth, 85% reported that their military parent(s) had experienced a deployment and 14% reported no deployment. Sixteen (16%) percent reported that their parent(s) was expected to deploy. For younger youth, 78% reported that their parent(s) had been deployed, 7% reported no deployment, and 15% reported that they didn’t know.

Figure 2: Deployment Experience.

Number of Deployments Experienced

Figure 3 shows the number of deployments reported by youth for their military parent(s). For older youth, 33% reported that their parent(s) deployed once; 25% reported their parent(s) deployed twice, and 42% reported three or more deployments (responses may not add up to 100% due to frequency of ‘I don’t know’ or lack of response). For younger youth, 35% reported that their parent(s) deployed once; 27% reported their parent(s) deployed twice, and 38% reported three or more deployments.

Figure 3: Number of Deployments.

Results

Older Youth

1. Comparison with Normative Samples

As seen in Table 1, all of the mean scale scores were above the mid-point (3.0) on the five scales indicating perceived change on all scales as well as general agreement with Social Support items. In addition, comparisons were made with national norms that were provided for the five-point ACA scales for ranking purposes. Camper scores on four scales (Independence, Competence, Responsibility, and Teamwork) were at or above those of the normative samples; however, Friendship Skills ranking was below the national norm.

Table 1: Participant Scores compared to Normative Scores

Scale / M / Sd / Ranking
Friendship Skills / 3.84 / .92 / Between 40th-50th percentile
Independence / 3.92 / .99 / Between the 50th-60th percentile
Competence / 3.86 / .96 / Between the 50th-60th percentile
Responsibility / 3.86 / 1.04 / Between the 60th-70th percentile
Teamwork / 3.91 / .98 / Between the 60th-70th percentile
Social Support / 3.33 / .55 / NA

1. Gender Differences

As seen in Table 2, female campers reported significantly more positive change in Perceived Competence than did male campers. Additionally, the change in Friendship Skills, with girls reporting more positive change, while not statistically significant (p=.06), approached that benchmark and should be noted.

Table 2: Gender Differences on Scales