I have a t-shirt that says 1/168 – Not Enough?

The sentiment behind the t-shirt is that one hour per week is not enough time to develop meaningful influence in a child’s life, that the more time you spend with someone, the greater the influence you have on that individual’s life. Similarly, the phrase, quality over quantity is not actually true.

The quantity of time also increases the risk. Yes, the more time you spend with a child or young person, the greater the influence you will have on the life of a child or youth. However, the more time you spend with a vulnerable person, the risk will increase. Several factors increase vulnerability, including the intensity of relationships, opportunities for boundary violations, increased isolation, and demands on the time available to supervisors. This calls for an elevated need to ensure the character of the leaders/ counsellors you select, the quality of the safeguarding training, and the dedication of time spent on active supervision and calls for accountability, which will all reduce the risk of abuse. 

That does not mean camps are unsafe; many are exceptionally well-run. It does mean they require stronger safeguarding systems, supervision, and culture.

Some of the key risk factors include:

• 24-hour care and supervision
  • Staff are responsible for children around the clock, including vulnerable moments such as bedtime, changing, hygiene, emotional distress, and medical care.
• Increased isolation from parents
  • Campers are away from their normal support systems, and parents cannot directly observe interactions, making transparency and accountability especially important.
• High relational intensity
  • Camps often foster deep emotional bonds quickly through shared experiences, mentorship, spiritual discussions, and overnight environments. Healthy relationships are valuable, but emotional dependency and blurred boundaries can develop if not carefully managed.
• Physical environment challenges
  • Cabins, washrooms, wooded areas, waterfronts, transportation, and off-site activities create supervision challenges and potential one-to-one situations.
• Sleep deprivation and fatigue
  • Staff and campers are often tired, emotionally heightened, and operating outside normal routines, which can impair judgment and increase conflict or misconduct.
• Young or inexperienced leaders
  • Many camps rely heavily on teens or young adults serving as counselors, sometimes with limited training in child protection, trauma awareness, boundaries, or crisis response. Often, Jr. Counsellors are assigned to work with one Sr. Counsellor, which poses an additional risk
• Higher activity and adventure risks
  • Swimming, climbing, boating, campfires, sports, and wilderness activities introduce physical safety concerns alongside relational safeguarding concerns.
• Culture of trust and community
  • Camps often emphasize family-like belonging, spiritual connection, and close mentoring. While positive, these cultures can unintentionally discourage thorough screening, checking references from previous camp and work experience, reporting concerns, or create pressure to “protect the ministry” or community reputation.
• Technology and communication issues
  • Residential settings can create blurred lines around private messaging, photography, social media, and post-camp relationships between staff and campers both during the summer and after camp season.

Because of these realities, residential camps should typically have:

• enhanced screening and reference checks,
• strong supervision ratios,
• established boundaries,
• clear cabin, showering, and bathroom protocols,
• rules against isolated one-to-one interactions,
• robust staff training,
• mandatory reporting procedures,
• incident documentation,
• overnight-specific policies,
• clear communication with parents,
• and a culture where concerns are welcomed and acted upon quickly.

From a safeguarding perspective, camps are often viewed similarly to other “high trust/high access” environments such as boarding schools, residential treatment settings, or overnight retreats. The goal is not fear-based programming, but recognizing that greater access and vulnerability require greater intentionality and accountability.

One of the healthiest perspectives for camps is this: The more meaningful the influence, the greater the responsibility to protect.