Motivations and Barriers for Seasonal Camp Employment

Each year, many summer camps deal with the challenges related to retaining quality seasonal staff. Retaining seasonal staff from year to year requires knowing what motivates staff to return and understanding the factors that drive voluntary turnover. While research on employee retention and turnover is abundant in management literature, few studies have focused on seasonal summer camp staff. This study used a mixed-methods design and involved a national sample of 997 returning camp staff from a variety of camp types. Respondents completed an online survey that included a 40-item questionnaire measuring staff motivations to return to camp and a series of open-ended questions on drivers of retention and turnover. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis revealed 7 latent constructs that drive motivation. Within the whole sample, Job Impact had the highest subscale mean score followed by Camp Embeddedness, Value Alignment, Staff Development, Management, Job Fit, and Compensation. Analysis of open-ended responses confirmed that Job Impact and Camp Embeddedness were the primary motivations for seasonal camp staff to return and that Compensation, Poor Job Fit, and Other Opportunities were likely drivers of turnover. This study helps paint a picture of the key factors that bring back seasonal staff and the factors, both controllable and uncontrollable, that lead camp staff to pursue other opportunities. Findings may be especially useful to professionals in the camping industry interested in seeking out potential camp staff and retaining staff year over year.


Background
Research in human resource management has examined the issues of staff retention and turnover for decades. Retaining high-quality staff helps ensure that organizations meet their performance goals and maintain a healthy organizational culture (Hancock et al., 2013;Mitchell, Holtom, & Lee, 2001;Selden & Sowa, 2015). Replacing staff can be costly with estimates for replacing an experienced employee at 90% to 200% of annual salary in certain industries (Hom, Lee, Shaw, & Hausknecht, 2017). The costs of replacement include the direct costs of recruiting, selecting, and training employees as well as indirect costs associated with lost productivity, the loss of institutional knowledge, and the time required by new employees to establish relationships that support success (Hom et al., 2017;Kusluvan et al., 2010;Selden & Sowa, 2015).
Two basic types of employee turnover exist: involuntary turnover (i.e., firings and layoffs) and voluntary turnover (i.e., the employee chooses to separate from their job and leave the organization; Allen & Vardaman, 2017;Hom et al., 2017). While seasonal employers like summer camps do have to let go employees for poor performance and other reasons like a discordant person-organization fit, the primary path for losing employees from season to season is due to voluntary turnover (American Camp Association, 2016). As every industry is Journal of Youth Development | http://jyd.pitt.edu/ | Vol. 15 Issue 1 DOI 10.5195/jyd.2020.822 Motivations and Barriers for Seasonal Camp Employment 182 slightly different, a need exists to understand what motivates individuals to return to camp employment while also considering the drivers of turnover, as camps must regularly replace staff on a year-to-year basis (Henderson et al., 2007;McCole et al., 2012).
Factors in three main areas drive retention and turnover: external economic and job market conditions, the organization, and aspects internal to the employee (Lee, Hom, Eberly, & Li, 2018;Selden & Sowa, 2015). External conditions include the availability of other jobs and related economic factors related to switching jobs. Organizational and employee factors include (a) staff recruitment, selection, and staffing; (b) compensation and nonmonetary rewards; (c) training and development; (d) management and supervision; (e) feedback on performance; (f) job engagement; and (g) job embeddedness (Allen, Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010;Kusluvan et al., 2010;Selden & Sowa, 2015). Alternative paths to voluntary turnover other than job dissatisfaction include more attractive alternatives, life scripts or plans (e.g., graduation, marriage, kids), and what HR literature refers to as "impulsive quits" by employees (Allen et al., 2010).

Staff Recruitment and Selection
Staff recruitment and selection are highly predictive factors related to employee retention (Lee et al., 2018;Mitchell et al., 2001;Selden & Sowa, 2015). The staffing process includes the selection of qualified individuals who are a good fit for the job position in terms of skills and overall socialization within the organization (Posthuma & Campion, 2013). In other words, employees who are likely to stay are those that have the right mix of job-related competencies along with the behavioral dispositions that match the needs of the position. Research on camp employees found that many former camp employees noted that they were motivated to work at camp due to previous experience as camp participants, an interest in the job responsibilities like working with kids, and an affinity for the working environment (DeGraff & Glover, 2003;Duerden et al., 2014).

Compensation and Non-Monetary Rewards
Compensation and non-monetary rewards include pay and other benefits related to the position. The literature on human resource management has consistently noted that perceptions of pay fairness as well as perceptions of pay being connected to performance can drive turnover and retention (Allen et al., 2010;Selden & Sowa, 2015). However, Allen and colleagues (2010) observed that pay is a weaker predictor of retention and turnover than many Journal of Youth Development | http://jyd.pitt.edu/ | Vol. 15 Issue 1 DOI 10.5195/jyd.2020.822 Motivations and Barriers for Seasonal Camp Employment 183 expect. Indeed, in a study of former camp employees, Duerden and colleagues (2014) interviewed former camp staff and many interviewees noted that they worked at camp for reasons other than the paycheck.

Staff Training and Development
Staff training and opportunities for development are particular factors that have been shown to be more predictive of retention and turnover than compensation (Selden & Sowa, 2015).
Quality staff training and opportunities for advancement are linked to higher levels of employee satisfaction (Lee et al., 2018;Posthuma & Campion, 2013). When employers invest in training, staff may feel that they are valued. When training leads to advancement, employees may be more motivated to stay in an organization as long as available job opportunities align with personal goals (Allen et al., 2010). While limited retention and turnover research exists on seasonal summer camp employees, existing studies have found former camp employees valued their training and experience, specifically their leadership development and skills related to future employment (DeGraff & Glover, 2003;Duerden et al., 2014).

Management and Supervision
Management plays a key role in the training and development of staff and contributes to overall employee satisfaction. When employers have good relationships with their employees, share information, and listen to employee input, employee performance and retention improve (Allen et al., 2010;Brown, Gray, McHardy, & Taylor, 2015;Govaerts, Kyndt, Dochy, & Baert, 2011).
Conversely, perceptions of poor management have been identified as a driver of turnover in nearly every industry including camp (see Duerden et al., 2014).

Feedback on Performance
Feedback is something organizations can offer to employees to improve perceptions of management and employee retention. Research, including studies involving camp staff, has found that employee retention is related to receiving positive and growth-oriented feedback from supervisors (Allen et al., 2010;Duerden et al., 2014;Kusluvan et al., 2010). Positive feedback from co-workers and clients can also contribute to overall job satisfaction (Hausknecht, Rodda, & Howard, 2009;Selden & Sowa, 2015).

Engagement
Job satisfaction and retention are often driven by perceptions of job engagement, where employees find the work meaningful and interesting and have some sense of autonomy (Allen et al., 2010;Selden & Sowa, 2015). Duerden et al. (2014) found that engagement was a key motivator for returning camp staff with an emphasis on the feeling that staff members were making a difference with campers.

Job Embeddedness
Job engagement is closely related to another factor that can influence retention: job embeddedness. Job embeddedness involves "links" or relationships within the organization, job and organizational fit, and the perceived personal sacrifices of leaving a job (Allen et al., 2010;Lee et al., 2018). According to Allen et al. (2010, p. 56): Links are connections with other people, groups, or organizations, such as coworkers, work groups, mentors, friends, and relatives. Fit represents the extent to which an employee sees himself as compatible with his job, organization, and community. . . . Sacrifice represents what would be given up by leaving a job and could include financial rewards based on tenure, a positive work environment, promotional opportunities, and community. Employees with numerous links to others in their organization and community who fit better with their organization and community, and who would have to sacrifice more by leaving are more embedded and likely to stay.
Seasonal camp employees who are motivated to return likely have strong relationships within the camp community, identify with the mission and culture of camp, and feel like they would be missing out on the positive aspects of camp if they did not return. Existing research on camp staff has noted the importance of the camp community, friendships, relationships with campers, and the fun work environment to returning staff (Duerden et al., 2014;McCole et al., 2012).

Other Factors Driving Turnover
While the factors related to job satisfaction discussed thus far are highly related to turnover and retention, additional factors that contribute to turnover are not necessarily related to satisfaction. These factors include life scripts (e.g., graduating from college, marriage, having children), better job alternatives, and impulsive quits (Allen et al., 2010). These factors also  (Hom et al., 2017).

Research Need and Study Purpose
While a vast amount of research on turnover and retention exists, very little research has focused on seasonal summer camp staff. Much of the research on camp staff has focused on outcomes of staff employment (Duerden et al., 2014;Henderson et al., 2007;Powell, Bixler, & Switzer, 2003). While some research can be found related to retention and turnover with seasonal summer camp staff, many studies focused on a single camp (e.g., DeGraff & Glover, 2003;Duerden et al., 2014;Wahl-Alexander, Richards, & Washburn, 2017). Other studies on camp employee retention focused on a limited set of motivating factors like a sense of community (e.g., McCole et al., 2012). A need remains to identify what motivates camp staff to return and what factors may drive them to leave. Findings would help camp leaders understand where to focus their attention in order to keep their best employees while also gaining insight on aspects of turnover that are less within their control. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify the primary drivers of retention and turnover from a nationally representative sample of returning summer camp staff.

Methods
We collected survey data from 997 respondents identified as returning camp staff before the summer of 2018. Participants were recruited from 44 geographically diverse camps in the United States with assistance from the American Camp Association (ACA) with the goal of representing the ACA's breadth of camps and participant groups. The sample included overnight camps, day camps, nonprofit and for-profit camps, and single-gender and co-ed camps (see Table 1). Camps sent out emails to all staff hired for summer 2018 inviting them to participate in the study. The email included a link to opt in to the study and complete an online survey. Among those that opted in, responses were screened to include only staff hired for the upcoming summer who had worked at camp at least one previous season.

Instrument
Respondents completed an online survey that included a 40-item questionnaire measuring staff motivations to return to camp. Questions on motivation for returning were based on drivers well."). Responses ranged from 1 (Very False) to 10 (Very True).
Respondents also completed a series of open-ended questions related to retention and turnover. One question was used to gain insight on motivations to return by asking respondents the main reason they returned to camp. An open-ended question was also included that asked about turnover: "What do you think are the top three reasons camp staff don't return to summer camp employment?" Finally, a question asked respondents about the opportunity costs of working at camp: "What are three things that you won't be able to do because you are working at camp this summer that might also be important to you?"

Data Analysis
After data screening and cleaning, the researchers evaluated the scaled items using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to understand the latent structure of responses and determine how well the resulting factors mapped onto existing literature and theory. Initially, EFA was used on a randomly selected half of the sample; a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was then used to verify the robustness of the proposed factor structure on the remaining half of the data. This approach is known as cross-validation and allows for anticipated constructs to be refined through EFA and then confirmed through CFA. Using the full sample (N = 997), mean scores were then calculated for each confirmed subscale. Openended questions were analyzed using open and focused coding processes to narrow down response themes (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014).

Results
Approximately 64% Table 2 shows the survey items that fit within each motivation subscale.

Drivers of Retention Subscale Means
Job Impact had the highest mean score among all subscales, M = 9.181. Job impact was followed by Camp Embeddedness, Value Alignment, Staff Development, Management, and Job Fit. Compensation had the lowest mean score. Each subscale had good internal consistency (α = .839 to α = .932). See Table 3. Note. N = 927. Missing data were removed listwise. Confidence intervals displayed are the upper and lower bounds of the mean at a 95% confidence interval for the sample n. If the mean of one subscale is not within the confidence interval of another subscale, the subscale differences are significant.
Correlations between subscales ranged from weak (r = .330) to moderate (r = .697). These correlations demonstrate that each of the subscales is positively associated with a desire to return to camp employment, but the strength of these correlations varies. For example, Job Impact has a low correlation with Compensation, demonstrating that the relationship between these two drivers of retention is weak. See Table 4. Impact as the primary driver of returning to camp. Respondents noted their return to camp was driven by an interest in making a difference on the campers, giving other youth the types of positive experiences like they had as campers, and seeing growth in the campers during the session or from year to year. They also often noted that they returned to camp work because they found it personally rewarding.  and are returning also push me to return so I can see them again." Rewarding work "I truly find nothing more fulfilling than working with children. Being a camp counselor can be demanding and challenging, but it doesn't even feel like a job because I love it so much! There is nothing I'd rather spend my summer doing."

Camp Embeddedness as a Primary Driver of Retention
Approximately 32% of the responses mentioned reasons related to Camp Embeddedness as the primary drivers of retention. Responses identified friendships and other relationships, the camp environment, and a desire to build on previous positive experiences at camp as reasons to return. Many of these respondents also referred to camp as a "second home" in ways that referenced their comfort within the camp environment and that they would miss it if they did not return.   represented by less than 7% of total responses. Some respondents reported that they returned to camp employment because the camp they worked for shared their worldview, offered opportunities to take on new responsibilities, had excellent management, and offered experiences that fit their interests and career goals. Just 13 respondents said that pay was the primary driver for returning to work at camp.

Barriers to Retention
Analysis of the two additional open-ended questions revealed three main drivers of turnover and four areas where returning staff noted that they were missing out due to camp employment. Returning staff hypothesized that compensation, life scripts or other opportunities, and poor job fit were the main reasons individuals do not return to camp employment. Table 7 presents representative quotes for each theme related to retention barriers. "Pay -while it's hard to remember room and board is included, many feel as though they can find a better-paying summer job." Life scripts or other opportunities "They have to get an internship/job that is more related to their college major." "They have to finish college and eventually get a real job." "Camp is something they always wanted to do, and after one summer they feel they have fulfilled this and so don't have the desire to return again." Poor job fit "Camp is a very high energy work environment that doesn't work for everyone." "Working at camp can be tough! Some people are not up for the overall challenge and don't view them as growth opportunities." Compensation was noted by over 40% of respondents as the primary driver of staff turnover, noting that camp pay is low and that many seek out higher-paying jobs. Life scripts and other opportunities were noted as the primary drivers of turnover by 35% of respondents. Life scripts included moving away for college; the need to participate in a career-related internships; graduating from college and moving on to a permanent, year-round job; aging out of camp work; and starting a family. Other opportunities included study abroad, better seasonal job opportunities, and the desire to "move on" from camp work. Poor job fit was reported as a primary driver of turnover by 15% of respondents. Poor job fit included employees not liking certain aspects of the job, particularly working with kids, the camp environment, or the long

Discussion
This study from a nationally representative sample of returning camp staff provides important insights on what motivates staff to return to a job at summer camp as well as factors that may drive turnover. Drivers related to retention and turnover roughly aligned with those identified in management literature (cf. Allen, Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010;Selden & Sowa, 2015) and those explored in previous studies on seasonal camp staff (Duerden et al., 2014;Henderson et al., 2007;McCole et al., 2012). However, this study expands the previous research by using a large national sample that included a wide variety of camp types from across the United States. This study helps paint a picture of the key factors that bring back seasonal staff and the factors, both controllable and uncontrollable, that lead camp staff to pursue other opportunities.
Findings may be especially useful to professionals in the camping industry interested in seeking out potential camp staff and retaining staff year over year.

Perceived Job Impact as a Primary Driver of Retention
Findings from this study support that perceived Job Impact is a primary driver that motivates camp staff to return. Both quantitative and qualitative data demonstrated that within this sample, the perception of making a difference is influential in staff retention. Job Impact for camp staff includes the opportunity to serve as a role model; to mentor others; and then receive feedback from campers, the parents of campers, and peers that their efforts have made a difference. This finding is similar to other camp studies where making a difference with campers was a motivating factor to return (cf. DeGraff & Glover, 2003;McCole et al., 2012).
This study demonstrated that Job Impact may be the primary motivator for many returning staff.
Some literature in human resource management included Job Impact within a broader category of engagement where the work is interesting, meaningful, and individuals have a strong sense of autonomy (cf. Allen et al., 2010;Selden & Sowa, 2015). In this study, the latent structure of responses paired meaningfulness, or perceived impact, with feedback on performance. As other  Hausknecht et al., 2009;Selden & Sowa, 2015). Within the group of camp staff respondents, positive feedback served as powerful evidence of impact.
Meaningfulness of work and perceived impact were unsurprisingly powerful retention motivators for camp staff in this study. Meaningfulness has long been associated with motivation (see Maslow, 1970) and the importance of meaningful work regularly appeared in management literature (Fairlie, 2011;Kahn, 1990). Meaningful work and perceived impact have also been linked to increased motivation in education, where students were more likely to persevere through challenges if they believed that their future careers would serve a greater good or selftranscendent purpose (Nagaoka et al., 2015;Yeager et al., 2017Yeager et al., , 2016. Within the summer camp environment, employees can see their impact on campers and receive almost immediate feedback on campers' responses to their influence. Though the work may be difficult and involve long hours, many staff see the work as "worth it" if they see how their efforts positively impact other campers and staff.

Camp Embeddedness and Value Alignment as Drivers of Retention
Camp Embeddedness also appeared to be a powerful motivating factor for returning staff that can trump the challenges of camp life. In this study, previous positive experiences at camp, an appreciation for the natural environment and the outdoors, and meaningful relationships appeared to bring staff back. Again, evidence supporting the power of Camp Embeddedness appeared in both the quantitative and qualitative data. The fun camp environment and the lasting relationships created at camp have been noted as important outcomes of staff employment in other studies of camp staff, and this study appeared to demonstrate the effects of these outcomes on retention (see DeGraff & Glover, 2003;Duerden et al., 2014;Henderson et al., 2007;Wahl-Alexander et al., 2017;Wilson & Sibthorp, 2018).
Previous experiences at camp, whether as a camper or camp staff, and the relationships made at camp mattered to returning camp staff. The view that camp is a "second home" or an escape from "the real world" highlighted the special place that camp holds for many staff. The friendships, camp traditions, and sense of community that staff feel contributed strong feelings of job embeddedness. Returning staff in this study were not yet ready to give up the part of their lives that involved the camp experience. One's perceived Value Fit with camp work also drives retention. In this study, value alignment emerged as its own factor driving retention, separate from embeddedness. The high correlation between Camp Embeddedness and Value Fit helps support retention theory on job embeddedness within management literature (Hom et al., 2017;Lee, Burch, & Mitchell, 2014).
For returning camp staff, identifying with the mission, worldview, and programming of the camp mattered, though these aspects did not emerge as the primary motivators of retention in this study. However, if personal values do not align with the values of the organization, turnover is much more likely (Lee et al., 2014).

Remaining Factors Driving Retention
Beyond Job Impact, Camp Embeddedness, and Value Fit, four other factors appeared to drive the retention of camp employees. These include Staff Development, Management, Job Interest, and Compensation. Returning staff appreciate opportunities to grow, learn new things and take on more responsibility. They are more likely to return if they feel like the job aligns with their experience, skills, and abilities. They appreciate work that is interesting and allows for autonomy. All these factors are consistent with the management literature as key drivers of engagement and motivating factors of retention (Hancock et al., 2013;Hom et al., 2017;Selden & Sowa, 2015).
It is interesting, though perhaps unsurprising, that respondents rated Compensation the lowest among all factors related to retention. Camp pay is low when you consider the long hours associated with camp work-from consoling homesick campers late at night to rarely having a day off. Those staff that choose to return want to be compensated fairly but money is not the main reason they return. Making a difference and returning to a positive camp community matter more than money. Camps may lose other staff simply because the job is not a good fit for the employee, even when the job initially appeared to be a good fit. In the qualitative data, many returning staff indicated camp work to be fun. However, other staff may find the long hours and emotional strain of working at camp not worth the toll the job takes. When discussing poor job fit as a likely driver of turnover, many respondents hypothesized that staff may choose not to return to camp work due to feelings of burnout. Feelings of burnout are common in highly-intensive seasonal work like summer camp (Fairlie, 2011;Wahl-Alexander et al., 2017). Staff unable to find the space for self-care or individuals that do not thrive in high-intensity environments are less likely to stay.

The Flip Side of Retention
Camps must also fight the inevitable when retaining staff. At some point, many staff simply "age out" of camp employment. Most camp leadership would suspect that their staff return because they feel like they are making a difference and that they love the camp community, being outdoors, and living in the "camp bubble" (Johnson, Goldman, Garey, Britner, & Weaver, 2011). For these leaders, this study confirms that they need to find the right individuals that will thrive in that environment. Intentional staff development models would embrace the challenges of having young staff likely to stay for a limited time. By encouraging job sculpting, camps could benefit from the energy and excitement of their staff members who are eager to share their newfound knowledge and ideas assembled from their education and experiences. More entrenched employees with years of experience may not be as eager to try new things and take risks.
Other strategies exist that camps may want to consider so that they can keep their best seasonal staff for one or more additional summers. One such consideration may mean employing key staff for shorter or more flexible contracts so that these staff can also pursue other opportunities in the summer like internships, travel, study abroad, other employment, or summer classes.

Limitations and Future Research
While this study has its strengths-employing a mixed methods approach to a large national sample of camp employees-it does have its limitations. First, only returning staff were queried, so participants provided the most useful data on motivations for returning to camp and the opportunity costs of summer camp employment. While these participants offered some insight on what may drive camp turnover, they were able to overcome these barriers to retention as they were returning to camp employment. Future research may want to employ longitudinal models to gather information from both returning and non-returning staff to better understand motivations for retention and turnover. Second, the instrument used in this study-though based on existing retention literature-has only been tested and refined within this study sample. As validity testing is an ongoing process, the concepts, constructs, and scales used in this study would benefit from additional assessment. Finally, the need for longitudinal research should not be understated. As many camp staff are drawn to camp work by the desire to make a difference, camp professionals need to understand where former camp employees go after leaving their jobs in camp. By understanding the career trajectories of former camp staff, the camping industry may be able to evaluate the role of camp employment in the development of future leaders.

Conclusion
This study sought to gain more insight on the key motivations that drive retention and turnover of seasonal summer camp staff. Among returning camp staff, perceived job impact and camp embeddedness were the primary drivers of retention and these factors were more important than compensation. At the same time, this study demonstrated the power of life scriptsgraduating college, starting careers, aging out of camp employment-on turnover. For camps this means maximizing the limited time they do have with employees, leveraging employees' desire to make a difference and their enthusiasm for camp life. This may mean implementing more intentional staff development models to keep the best employees engaged and interested in returning for one or two more summers before they move on to other life opportunities.
Losing seasonal camp employees from year to year is an unavoidable challenge for camp leaders. Yet camps have the power to invest in their staff members, providing opportunities for growth and increased autonomy, to improve both performance and retention.