Impact of staff team composition Seminar Camp Committee, 2013

Executive Summary In AIM 2011 the IEC asked SCC to consider options to reduce program costs In 2012 SCC conducted analysis to evaluate the impact of staff team composition on the program to consider option of having fewer international staff Analysis shows that staff composition does not adversely affect achievement of educational goals, but might adversely affect quality of staff and willingness to host Objective for AIM 2013 is to discuss our findings and potential options with NAs before finalizing the recommendation and revision to C-03

Could Seminar Camp staff travel costs be reduced without impacting the quality of the Programme? Our analysis focused on 3 questions Will staff composition impact achievement of educational goals of the SC program? PDPEF Educational section (quantitative) Will staff composition impact staff dynamics? Staff survey (quantitative / qualitative) Will staff composition impact ability of NAs to host? NA survey (quantitative / qualitative)... which led to these findings Little to no impact on achievement of education goals Culture mix is one of several factors that determine staff success Increasing the number of HS might deter some NAs / PAs to host 1 2 3

Staff composition has little to no impact on the educational goals of the Seminar Camp program Method of evaluation We looked at the PDPEFs of 17 camps No substantial difference in achievement of goals Camps with 3 HS had higher percentage of participants who achieved goals Differences can be attributed to a variety of factors Difference can be attributed to other factors 1

Staff dynamics determined by culture mix as well as past experience and support / communication Staff were surveyed about staff dynamics post-camp Staff identified a sub-set of factors as having most significant impact on success The 2012 seminar camps had following staff groups 2 home staff, 3 Int'l staff 3 home staff, 2 int'l staff All home staff Staff members were surveyed post- camp 51 of 76 staff members responded to survey Culture mix Prior CISV experience Prior SC experience Host chapter support 80% of respondents felt culture mix helped achieve SC goals AND the help the staff work well together 82% of respondents felt prior experience helped the staff work well together 76% of respondents felt past SC experience helped staff work well Qualitative feedback suggests that 3 HS have greater value if chapter support is lacking Feedback suggested pre-camp communication helps build stronger staff teams Communication 2

All home staff SCs might deter NAs from hosting due to recruiting challenges and cost of RTF training NA survey suggests NAs will be willing to host also with all HS teams SCC conducted to NA surveys post-camps 2012 Host NA survey General NA survey Goal of survey was to understand if NAs would host less SC if there were more HS required Surveys had low response rates and some results were inconclusive Surveys indicate NAs would not host less SCs but will struggle with finding / recruiting staff... However, other qualitative evidence suggests otherwise Two of the four NAs asked to host all-HS camps in 2012 turned it down Including a large, established NA NAs have expressed difficulty in finding HS and CD especially when hosting other programs Recent survey in Americas checked why NAs/PAs in the region aren't hosting SC in of 9 NAs/PAs indicated cost of RTFs for HS as a reason they are not hosting 4 of 9 NA/PAs indicated ability to find 2 HS as a reason they are not hosting Mandatory increase in number of required HS might impact the willingness to host SC (especially 30 participant camps) 3

Staff travel costs by year Total staff travel costs Average staff travel cost Average staff travel cost per participant *1:6 ratio actively enforced from 2011 onwards

SCC Recommendation Continue with the current staff assignment procedures but also allow for the option of a third national staff in camps of 30 participants. The option of having a staff team made up of entirely staff from the hosting NA could also be considered.

SCC Recommendation continued The Board works with the International Finance Committee to ensure that programme income is at a sustainable level, specifically relating to: – Any potential decrease in hosting numbers. – Any changes to the distribution of the participation fee between the host and International.

Recommended phrasing of C-03 Staff selection: The number of staff members can range from four to six. The ratio between staff and participants should always be of 1:6 The staff team consists of two or three national staff members from the hosting country and two international staff members. (The Camp Director will be one of these individuals and may either be from the hosting NA or from abroad.) At least two staff members must come from NAs other than the hosting one unless an NA wishes to have a staff team made up entirely of staff from the hosting NA. In this case this would need to be indicated on the HPDS by June 1 In Seminar Camps the Programme Director must be at least 23 years old No junior staff are allowed in Seminar Camps

Next steps Allow time for discussion on the following points, but not limited to: Should the 3rd home staff (in 30 participant camps) be mandatory or optional? Should host NAs have the option to have all home-staff group? What is the deadline for announcing how many HS a host NA will have? What is the IO repercussion for defaulting on commitment (e.g. committed to 3 HS but have only two after deadline)? Amend C-03, as necessary, to reflect recommendation Establish a deadline for the IFC to provide requested information Implement recommendation for 2015 hosting plan