University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

Growth Diverse backgrounds Continued growth and reorganization

Steffen (1998) called for challenge courses to be housed according to their mission Sugerman (1999): no clear consensus on outdoor leadership training in the college/university academic setting

Raiola & Sugerman (1999) (in J.C. Miles & S. Priest, Adventure programming ): suggested in- depth look at higher education curriculum would be important step in defining what constitutes excellence Medina (2002) reported on position types, job responsibilities, training backgrounds

Plaut (2002): college/academic settings allowed (a) grounding in theory; (b) stimulating a sense of the possible; (c) keeping field current in changing world; (d) training masterful educators

Attarian (2002): college program growth in adventure and challenge courses. Therefore, accountability and examination of: (a) recruiting, selecting, and training staff; (b) how programs are operated; (c) achievement of program outcomes

Hirsch (2007) called leadership crucial in pushing the flywheel and getting good organizations to higher levels of greatness (in closing address of Association for Experiential Education)

1.To gain a better understanding of human resources for ACCT affiliated university challenge courses 2.To gain a better understanding of financial resources for ACCT affiliated university challenge courses 3.To gain a better understanding of current trends and data about administration of university challenge courses

Sample: n = 104 ACCT university affiliated members Survey piloted with 10 ACCT university affiliated challenge course programs to increase validity and reliability Administration of 19 item survey via SelectSurvey.net Return rate of 60.5% (63/104)

Rope and/or Challenge Course 32% Outdoor 17% Adventure 13% Recreation 8% Other 30%

Director 40% Coordinator 35% Professor/Lecturer 11% Manager 6% Other 6%

Outdoor Low Elements 94% Outdoor High Elements85% Climbing Wall 78% Indoor Low Elements 31% Indoor High Elements13%

Division I 54% Division II 25% Division III 14% Other 6% NAIA 2%

Less Than 3,5006% 3,501-7,000 14% …………………………………………………….…. 7,001-10,500 17% 10,501-13,500 11% 13,501-17,000 17% 17,001-20,500 5% 20,501-24,000 8% 24,001-or Greater 23%

Public 86% Private 14%

Years of Operation: % %.……………………………………… % 15 or Greater31%

Fully Self-Sustained30% Partially Self-Sustained 56% Financially Supported by University 12% Other 2%

Student Services 63% Academic Dept. 24% Other14%

0-25%27% 26-50%23% 51-75%20% %30%

% % % 31 or More 8%

0 Full-Time Staff28% 1 Full-Time Staff54% 2 Full-Time Staff13% 3 or More Full-Time Staff 5% Average FTE = 1.09

ACCT 89% In-House 73% PRCA 14% Other 3%

Student Groups On Campus 32% Students in Academic Classes 25% Public Special Interest Groups 16% Students From Outside the University13%

Majority of programs are Division I schools with over 7,000 students 50% of programs are under 10 years old Approximately 86% are fully or partially self- sustaining Most get funding from student services Approximately 80% of programs have 0-1 full time staff Most programs base their training in ACCT standards Majority of program focus on serving campus students

Qualitative studies of challenge course orientation within university departments Qualitative studies of challenge course orientation according to funding resources Examination of self-sustained budgets Challenge course promotion on campuses

Examination of university strategic planning and challenge courses as part (or not) of this planning Challenge courses and their orientation via placement (prominence) on college campuses

ppt. presentations.gov.com.edu