Cheap, short, national - Germany hosts "Kinder in Deutschland".
When I was 11, a whole bunch of kids who were either to young, to old, weren't chosen for a village spot or simply didn't have 4 weeks to spare went to a national youth meeting called Pilz Camp (Mushroom camp). For reasons unknown to me, Pilz Camps ceased from happening in the nineties, but luckily some clever people remembered the concept.
So in 2009 after an initiative from Germany's national board, CISV Hannover - a chapter that was only founded in 2008 - hosted Kinder in Deutschland (KiD) with almost 30 kids. The staff wrote an extensive report, and from reading it seems as if they got the content absolutely right.
But it's more the practicals, that make me think, that KiD is how CISV is supposed to be: The camp participation fee was only 250 Euro. That's less than 1/3 of what families pay for a village spot. From the chapter perspective it was enough to cover a camp site with all meals included - no kitchen staff needed whatsoever. This and also the small size, made it possible for a chapter with no hosting experience to make this camp happen. The two-week timeframe made it easy for the host chapter and the staff to commit. Needless to say that a two-week national camp for such a small participation fee made CISV an option for families who would otherwise have been left out.
Is "cheap, short, national" a formula for the future?
If you look at CISV's new areas of Peace Education - Human Rights, Diversity, Conflict Resolution and Sustainable Development - I'm more than convinced that these can be dealt with in such a setting, just as good as in a village. Imagine how much more reach and impact we could have, if we would spend our energies on these kind of camps instead of our high-flying international programmes?
I know this post has "Mosaic" written all over it: KiD wasn't officially approved as a Mosaic project, because it wasn't announced officially in time, even if it fit all the criteria. I also know that some NAs are hosting national youth meetings in various formats (Canada and Brazil especially - I'd be curious to learn more about them.) But isn't it time to develop a more specific and standardized setup for national camps, so that all NAs can learn and share experiences? Shouldn't we being investing more time and effort if we emphasize inclusion (see old strategic plan) and outreach (see new strategic plan)? I do think so.
On a less enthusiastic note, the KiD for 2010 was cancelled two months ago. But that's a topic for another article.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a2616889-cce8-483e-beae-0b40a389ee54)
When I was 11, a whole bunch of kids who were either to young, to old, weren't chosen for a village spot or simply didn't have 4 weeks to spare went to a national youth meeting called Pilz Camp (Mushroom camp). For reasons unknown to me, Pilz Camps ceased from happening in the nineties, but luckily some clever people remembered the concept.
So in 2009 after an initiative from Germany's national board, CISV Hannover - a chapter that was only founded in 2008 - hosted Kinder in Deutschland (KiD) with almost 30 kids. The staff wrote an extensive report, and from reading it seems as if they got the content absolutely right.
But it's more the practicals, that make me think, that KiD is how CISV is supposed to be: The camp participation fee was only 250 Euro. That's less than 1/3 of what families pay for a village spot. From the chapter perspective it was enough to cover a camp site with all meals included - no kitchen staff needed whatsoever. This and also the small size, made it possible for a chapter with no hosting experience to make this camp happen. The two-week timeframe made it easy for the host chapter and the staff to commit. Needless to say that a two-week national camp for such a small participation fee made CISV an option for families who would otherwise have been left out.Is "cheap, short, national" a formula for the future?
If you look at CISV's new areas of Peace Education - Human Rights, Diversity, Conflict Resolution and Sustainable Development - I'm more than convinced that these can be dealt with in such a setting, just as good as in a village. Imagine how much more reach and impact we could have, if we would spend our energies on these kind of camps instead of our high-flying international programmes?
I know this post has "Mosaic" written all over it: KiD wasn't officially approved as a Mosaic project, because it wasn't announced officially in time, even if it fit all the criteria. I also know that some NAs are hosting national youth meetings in various formats (Canada and Brazil especially - I'd be curious to learn more about them.) But isn't it time to develop a more specific and standardized setup for national camps, so that all NAs can learn and share experiences? Shouldn't we being investing more time and effort if we emphasize inclusion (see old strategic plan) and outreach (see new strategic plan)? I do think so.
On a less enthusiastic note, the KiD for 2010 was cancelled two months ago. But that's a topic for another article.
just a short comment tonight: KiD stood for "Kinder in Deutschland". more later
Ooops, sorry. I changed that.
i was a staff in the KiD last year.
it is true that the KiD did give a chance to kids who wouldnt get a village spot but first of all our aim was to make a cisv camp which is in line with cisv's educational principles and in which kids can experience cultural diversity without, as nick said, flying to the other end of the world. another reason was that some kids are scared or still ""too young" to go far away from home for 4 weeks.
what we experienced in the camp (we had kids in the age range 10-12) was that the participants were much "faster" then in international camps as they didnt have the language barrier. they opened up pretty fast which made it possible to have deeper activities and discussions even after only one week. i would even go so far to say that i felt the kids learned more about diversity than kids in all international camps that i went to so far.
so yeah i agree: we should come up with a concept for those kind of camps in cisv in general...i love the idea!
@Karo: How diverse was the group? Were these primarily "stereotypically" CISV kids, or were there also participants from "the outside" (as often is with Mosaic activities)?
This reminds me of two particular working groups that appeared during EJBM 2010. One about making CISV cheaper and more inclusive and another about local summer programmes (although it had more of a MOSAIC/LMO partnership vision). I think both are ways that CISV should try to follow. Why not make it serious and explore it for the future?
Regular readers might have noticed my particular skepticism about the Mosaic programme - more spefically about the fact that it did not solve the problems we've had with Local Work before.
The particular success of many of our other programmes is that they are specifically defined, up to the age group, duration, educational goals and practical setup. Chapters, staff and leaders with some experience *know* what a "village" is.
A standardized national camp could really make a difference to our organisation. And I'm sure, not just from the comments here, that there's a lot of support for it. Just who's going to pull it through?
I see four options: A Mosaic approach (IMC takes the lead), a Youth Meeting approach (IYMC takes the lead), a regional approach (A regional structure moves ahead), or a JB setup. Who's the hockey player?!
Nick: I'd be a bit careful on the criticism as what you say about Mosaic easily could be applied to IPP as well.
Overall I agree that standardized "shrink-wrapped" programmes are the core of the organization, simply because they are repeatable with a minimum of effort, and that effort can be divided up into a lot of managable pieces.
Example: parents with hardly any CISV experience can perfectly organize a camp as long as they have 4 staff available for the duration of the programme.
Mosaic (and IPP), being less repeatable by nature often requires more effort from "highly skilled and motivated people"... On the upside it gives those skilled and motivated (and creative) people somewhere to let their creativity out.
If the goal was to maximize delegate hosted nights per hour spent organizing then both Mosaic and IPP would have a dire future.
In the end it is all about finding the right balance; creative and forward thinking backed up by the solid "standard" programmes.
Sounds fantastic and very interesting. I have always been interested in the idea of national camps/ national youth meetings. I completely agree with your point, should it be JB, IYMC, or IMC? There is no reason why the three couldn't join forces, share the experiences that they have and support chapters in hosting camps.
Either way, I do think that having a central body collating information/ success stories could be beneficial for chapters or NAs hoping to host national camps in the future. Personally I can see this initiative developing a lot over the next 5 years in CISV. Mostly because of two points of view that have been expressed quite a bit over the last few years: 1. Environmental impact of the organisation. 2. The idea of having multicultural communities on our doorsteps.
Lars, In response to your comment, i would say that I would depend on the training approach. Some camps have structures for admin reasons, and purely practical reasons. This is not necessary with national camps because the only ones administering is the staff/chapter. If given the appropriate training and educational resources, there is no reason why national camps could be entirely flexible, which I like because they are more likely to be appropriate to that countries situation.
I don't think that it is necessarily a good thing that we always stick to a certain formula with some camps in terms of content, because it allows us to believe in that, and not always react to the situation that a group is in.
@Lars, my general criticism on Mosaic is also, that they created unecessary bureaucracy and that they have a legitimacy problem, because you can't "force" NAs to have Mosaics, whereas CISV international can apply pressure on NAs to host villages, if they request invitations.
On the lack of "specification", I admit that it applies to IPPs as well, and in fact, this has been the problem of promoting the hosting of IPPs all along.
The main argument against standardization, however, is mentioned by both Laura and Lars: It curbs creativity and the possibility to adapt to individual needs. Nevertheless, I would still counterargue that both can even better be applied, when starting from a standard framework foor such a camp.
Laura and Nick: Maybe the move to formalize Youth Meeting further was a wrong one; it was once upon a time our flexible camp programme with an international twist. Simple to set up, not too heavy (strict) requirements, funding covered for etc. Maybe we should take one step back and make it the "generic camp programme"... covering both national and international camp activities not covered by the other programmes.
As for National camps; I think they could easily follow a Youth Meeting mold if made a bit more flexible; question is in which way they should be tracked/managed from an international level -- if IO is involved it would probably incur insurance and general fee costs.
I agree largely with Nick. Having a KiD each year would upholde the idea of inclusion. I just see a risk and a suggestion for improvement.
The risk is, that the KiD-like programs become a Village/Youthmeeting for the "working class". The rich and privileged can go to a Village in Australia and the others go to Walsrode (a little city in Germany). Or people could think, that the KiD is a camp for the unlucky fellows = "looser camp". In other words: how to guide the KiD especially for parents (because they apply for their child) as an alternative for a Village etc.? Why should they send their child to a KiD, if they have money, their child is not homesick and they weren't unlucky at the selection? Why is a KiD not less cool than a Village etc?
The suggestion is, that I don't see a reason, why a KiD has to be a national camp. I see the benefit being nationwide (same language, less expensive,...), but why shouldn't we have a KiD with Switzerland or Austria. Lörrach (a german chapter) is closer to Switzerland than to any other german chapter. And Munich is closer to Austria than to any other german chapter. Or let's have a KiD with kids from the german school in Kairo. Same language, different background.
I like the idea about a universal KiD-like program, but I don't like the restriction reg being inter- or binational.
I think that the "national camp" model is a very promising one. As has been noted, the format makes participation accessible and cheap, makes it easier to find volunteers, and runs a lower risk of burning out those involved in putting it together.
I want to add, as one who coordinated three national camps as young person, that this model also offers the potential for youth to take on leadership roles, perhaps more than any other programme CISV runs. Why? Because a programme like this can easily be run 100% by youth, from the grocery shopping to the evaluation. In terms of developing leadership skills, responsibility and general confidence, there is perhaps no better training ground than simply giving a group of young people responsibility to make a youth programme happen. If a national camp model were to be scaled,I would hope that it would be conceptualized this way, as a double-sided learning programme: on one hand, for the coordinating group, on the other hand, for the participants.
That said, I think that this sort of programme works naturally in some NA's and simply could not work in others. In most of Central and South America, for instance, NA's are built around a single chapter. For these NA's, generating interest, human resources and participation could be real challenge. In Central America, the natural question would be: "Why not make it regional? Invite our neighbours?" But then, that would look suspiciously like a Youth Meeting, wouldn't it?
As for Mosaic, there have been at least five Mosaic projects that look very much like this model (in Canada, the USA and Scandinavia) so Mosaic can clearly be a useful model here. That said, Mosaic is intended to be a vehicle for quality local peace education and not every national camp is going to benefit from following its process. Although, in terms of sharing experiences, formats, and stories, making your national camp a Mosaic Project would be an excellent way to record, evaluate and share...
@Lars:
The participants were "primarily stereotypical cisv kids". we felt in the future it would be nice to cooperate with other organisations and thus enhance the diversity. however i think it was good to look at the possible diversity in such a similar group, taking away the aspect of "obvious difference" and seeing that kids can still understand the value and challenges in diversity. i really like this, actually, to get away from the diversity as in "cultures" or national groups and actually looking at who is there. we had activities on bullying and gender that i felt were quite deep. and as they needed no translation, they were direct. and as karo also mentioned - due to no language barriers and a slightly smaller group, we were able to do activities like this with kids after 1,5 weeks...
@Manu: I don't see the "village for the working class" in this at all, as long as we don't promote it as the little-(shitty)-cheap-brother of the village, which it certainly doesn't have to be. why does it even have to be compared like that - because of the same age group?
and it's maybe less cool, if it is only presented to the people that were unlucky in the village selection... but else?
is a ym for 16-18 the uncool seminar camp?
i agree that a the camp could also have participants from austria // switzerland, when they are so much closer. i actually think, that thinking in national borders on this is not necessary and we should think in other terms here.
and why not think in ecological, economical and practical terms? after all, the content will be good and we're "just" trying to gather a group of people and then we'll work with them. (and we are in so many places already, that we can be sure to reach people all around the world still.)
one very cool aspect: you get to see your new friends a lot easier, when they're not on the other end of the world ;-)
@Alex: I know that Jacksonville, USA is hosting a mosaic in form of a local village, - yes, village - with delegations from different national/cultural groups in jacksonville every year. so, I think it depends on the recruitment-methods, but national camps can totally work in one-chapter-NAs aswell.
and i totally agree on the youth-leadership-part of your comment. :-)
anyway... as you can see, i'm in favor of a camp in the frames that we had last summer. and i think we should continue looking for possibilities we have with a smaller eco-footprint and financial impact.
i think that would be pretty coool! and we should be confident enough of our way to work with children (youth and adults) to know, that we can achieve our goals without having to carry everyone to different places. of course, sometimes that can be beneficial. but do we need it?
talking to the kids last summer, i also realized that they do travel around the world a lot anyways (or at least some of them did). and i think, the traveling part really isn't where we as cisv are different or offer something special. it's our educational goals and methodology.
which is also what i think mosaic is all about... tools to ensure projects done within cisv do have educational goals. in my eyes mosaic is very much a certain method to do project management, according to cisv ideas. i agree that there is a certain bureaucracy that might or might not be necessary. i think at the moment it can be helpful, as they are trying to ensure that the quality of projects done in the name of cisv is kept at a certain level.
and this is also something i think should be done with national camps. to ensure that we don't just have "regular" kids-summer-vacation-somethings, but actual cisv programmes.
@Lars:
The participants were "primarily stereotypical cisv kids". we felt in the future it would be nice to cooperate with other organisations and thus enhance the diversity. however i think it was good to look at the possible diversity in such a similar group, taking away the aspect of "obvious difference" and seeing that kids can still understand the value and challenges in diversity. i really like this, actually, to get away from the diversity as in "cultures" or national groups and actually looking at who is there. we had activities on bullying and gender that i felt were quite deep. and as they needed no translation, they were direct. and as karo also mentioned - due to no language barriers and a slightly smaller group, we were able to do activities like this with kids after 1,5 weeks...
@Manu: I don't see the "village for the working class" in this at all, as long as we don't promote it as the little-(shitty)-cheap-brother of the village, which it certainly doesn't have to be. why does it even have to be compared like that - because of the same age group?
and it's maybe less cool, if it is only presented to the people that were unlucky in the village selection... but else?
is a ym for 16-18 the uncool seminar camp?
i agree that a the camp could also have participants from austria // switzerland, when they are so much closer. i actually think, that thinking in national borders on this is not necessary and we should think in other terms here.
and why not think in ecological, economical and practical terms? after all, the content will be good and we're "just" trying to gather a group of people and then we'll work with them. (and we are in so many places already, that we can be sure to reach people all around the world still.)
one very cool aspect: you get to see your new friends a lot easier, when they're not on the other end of the world ;-)
@Alex: I know that Jacksonville, USA is hosting a mosaic in form of a local village, - yes, village - with delegations from different national/cultural groups in jacksonville every year. so, I think it depends on the recruitment-methods, but national camps can totally work in one-chapter-NAs aswell.
anyway... as you can see, i'm in favor of a camp in the frames that we had last summer. and i think we should continue looking for possibilities we have with a smaller eco-footprint and financial impact.
i think that would be pretty coool! and we should be confident enough of our way to work with children (youth and adults) to know, that we can achieve our goals without having to carry everyone to different places. of course, sometimes that can be beneficial. but do we need it?
talking to the kids last summer, i also realized that they do travel around the world a lot anyways (or at least some of them did). and i think, the traveling part really isn't where we as cisv are different or offer something special. it's our educational goals and methodology.
which is also what i think mosaic is all about... tools to ensure projects done within cisv do have educational goals. in my eyes mosaic is very much a certain method to do project management, according to cisv ideas. i agree that there is a certain bureaucracy that might or might not be necessary. i think at the moment it can be helpful, as they are trying to ensure that the quality of projects done in the name of cisv is kept at a certain level.
and this is also something i think should be done with national camps. to ensure that we don't just have "regular" kids-summer-vacation-somethings, but actual cisv programmes.
ups... sorry
@lars: one important part of standardizing yms is trying to make sure yms meet cisv's educational purpose and are not only a fun camp with a couple of cisv people. i guess, yes it did cut the flexibility and the "no rules" out of ym but we can now actually say that yms are in line with the cisv goals and pretty much every country is able to host them without e.g. the fear that half of the participants won't show up.
i agree that for national camps it would be much more convenient to let the structure open so everyone can do it in the way it fits to their chapters, their country's holidays and the organisational aspects. but i think having something like an "institution" (a taskforce) helping out in general questions in organizing, content, training would make it easier for countries to host (without everytime having to take the risks of having a pilotproject).
@manu: if you believe village is better then a kid or whatever other programme i think it will definitely be harder to sell it to the parents. but if you make a programme like the kid with a good educational content that is cheap and also fun it shouldnt be hard to fill it. i dont see it as a rich or poor members thing. even parents that have money dont nessesarily have kids that want to go alone to brasil for new zealand for 4 weeks. plus just as an example look at all the national camps organized by other organisation...its not like they dont have participants :)
@Karo&Aninia:
Yes, I see your points and I agree. I think it will work out, if it's a "village or KiD" question for the parents and not a "got no village, what's next" question. KiD should not be a consolation for unlucky village applicants anymore.
But there is one thing that is not crystal clear to me: what is the educational difference between a Village and a KiD? The goals and the approach are the same, right? Is KiD in the end a "deeper" or "intensive" village? Or is it just a 3-weeks-pastcamper-weekend?
well manu i believe that its neither of your proposals. first of all i dont get why it is so important to compare it to a village...?
i think what is important about it is to have a programme that deals with the cisv goals on another level. that is deep and has an educational purpose but maybe deals with it in a bit more modern way of looking at the concept of "culture" for example.
one of the 4 cisv principles is "diversity". i believe that especially in the village programme it is still seen as "cultural diversity =(more or less) nationalities" and i believe that we in cisv are ready to start looking at it differently as aninia already said in her post.
i dont think it is a matter of which one is the best cisv programme but how can we bring our goals and principles to 11 or 12 or 18 or 28 or whatever aged people in this world. and the idea of meeting people from other countries in other countries is one way but maybe looking at our classmates, neighbours and people we sit next to in a bus and starting to see that there is more to culture then your flag is another way. and i believe it is a good one.
so as long as village is constantly evalated and the content fulfills its goals i say yeeyyy. but it is a question of diversity inside cisv to offer a variety of programmes that fit to the different people/kids we have in cisv.
i think we should much more think about how our programmes can complement each other and where are gaps to fill instead of competing over which programme is the most cool one to attend.
I think it's important to compare it with the Village program, because the parents will do exactly that and than we should have good answers.
We need to have two views regarding KiD and it's goals and aproach. 1. What kind of picture do we, as active and experienced CISVers, get from the KiD? 2. What picture do the parents get? And how do they get it?
If parents want to send their 11-year-old child away with CISV they will compare the Village program with KiD for sure, because they have two options for their child. What I mean is, that I I just think, that parents don't know automatically why KiD is cool just becasue of the existence and some reports, especially if they are new to CISV. They don't have the necessary knowledge of the very educational content of the programs by implication. And if the parents compare, we need to do it too, because we need to know what to answer. For the parents it's nice to be able to say for example "KiD is like a Village but more intense".
I already know why a KiD is cool. I just try to be the devil's advocat :-).
well i believe youre not a very good advocate then :)
i still dont agree with the comparing because that might only apply to parents that know cisv and think they know the village programme which they obviously dont if they dont know about the cisv goals.
i think we should actually advertise the content of our programmes and not tell parents "hey guys we have a really great camp where your kid will have fun for 4 weeks and get to know other kids yeeah and its even cooler then other camps cause its abroad and they will learn english" and i think if this is how you advertise village to parents then you should change your advertising stratgy. (and actually we are discussing a problem that doesnt exist yet...last year the kid was full 1 or 2 days after the application date was sent out...)
Hello,
I would like to share a bit our experience here in Brasil with national programs. So we currently have as many participants that do national programs as international. We currently host 1 village, 2 summer camps, 8 Youth Meeting, 3 Interplus (and mix between IC and JB plus).
So as you can see we have extensive experience in these. In the national camps we accept leaders betweet 18-21 years, as long as they are 6 years olders then the delegates.
We have had some problems a while ago with the content of these camps, but in the last few years we managed to inforce better trainning. I have to say that one thing that enables s to do this camp is a cultural diversity because we are such a large country, so we do have cultural shocks that make the experience easier to copy from international format.
In the end, what we found out is that these is a great a gateway for our internatinal programs and also is quite more inclusive since the cost is so much lower. I think it has been a positive experience, but there requires a well developed NA that can manage, program pools, trainning....
Tuca
Trustee CISV Brazil
PREMISE
I believe that given our actual structure we have some challenges as an organization:
1) Scalability
2) Costs
3) Untapped potential at the local level
SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHTS
First of all I want to refurbish this discussion, which I feel it kind of fit: http://www.ijb.cisv.org/devils/2006_12_01_cisvdevils_archive.html
Second I want to shoot this idea which has been drafted 4 years ago in the form of motion.
Motion
I propose that all CISV program/activities could take place Nationally, Regionally or Internationally.
The three would all include the same goals and structure (age, length, size, etc.), but would be individually defined as follows.
A.National program/activities:
1.Delegations/participants sent from hosting country
2.Accordingly to the nature of the program/activities the places will assigned to chapters (delegation) or not (participants)
3.In the situation which a delegation is required, chapters could be assigned more then one delegation (as one chapter NA) the delegations could be from different cultural/ethnic backgrounds
4.Age to be an adult delegate is determined by the legal age in the hosting country
5.Organization done by hosting country, no assistance required by IO, but international fees
B.Regional program/activities:
1.Delegations/participants sent from more then one country.
2.Pools created based on the regional structure by IO.
C.International program/activities: Same as now
All this 3 kind of program/activity will be recognized by all means CISV International activities, therefore insurance fees, insurance, hospitality points, coding, etc apply.
Hosting chapter will have the power of specifying which kind the 3 programs to host.
This will mean a revision of the fee structure (lowering them) accordingly to the increasing expected number of camps and participants.
Rationale
We are confident that this will allow an increase of program/activity hosted, benefiting small Nas and Pas who don’t get all the places that they would have wanted.
It allows also a step towards the “avoiding exclusion” strategic priority lowering the costs of CISV experiences, cutting down the travel costs. Not everywhere as in Europe in fact travel costs are little. Moreover national and regional program would allow a larger amount of activities in different languages, including more non-English speakers.
National program/activities (with delegations of different ethnic origin) would enable CISV experiences without such a big effect on the environment. It states in both our CISV education circle and statement on peace that we should have a ‘caring attitude towards earth’ and act upon ‘the deteriation of the environment’. However, we still fly/travel hundreds of miles to different countries to have an ‘intercultural experience’. The fact is, for many of us we could easily find an intercultural experience in our own cities/ nations. Hopefully at the national level this will allow to:
*Have bigger impact on local community and therefore acquire more support (also economical) by institution
*Create networking with other parties and recruit more volunteer, therefore strengthen local chapter
*Ease the burocracy needed for the participant to attend and relieve the chapters of part the effort needed to host, to not to weaken chapters
* Create integrated strategies with other local programs/activities of CISV such as IPP and Mosaic
This will allow also national and regional camp staffs to we rely on tools, guides, documents, support and to a certain extent structure. We are confident that this support from an international body will encourage future projects, beside monitoring standards and allowing collecting the knowledge from different experiences.
The idea is not new but has a big impact, is already on place since long time in one our bigger NA: CISV Brazil. Also CISV USA has been experimenting this with the so called “village of nationalities and ethnics groups”.
Moreover some of the program activities, if properly designed could have great funding opportunities, as Regional program/activities in Europe, but for sure other international institution in other parts of the world would support it too.
Still we emphasize the possibility of hosting chapter to decide what to host: this is not something that is forced by rather opens up new opportunity for the chapters willing to take them.
Wow, I'm quite impressed with the amount of comments this article is getting. Seems like I hit a nerve.
It's interesting to hear that some NAs have taken national programmes quite far already, while there's a general feeling, that this is an option of expanding CISV in the future for greater outreach and impact at low cost.
The only thing I'd like to add, that in the "World of Chapters" discussion over at CISV Devils (http://www.ijb.cisv.org/devils/2006/12/proposal-29-world-of-chapters.html) there was also the idea, that not NAs, but chapters would receive invitations to camps. This could be a somewhat intermediate solution, when say a camp hosted in New York could also have delegations from the Gulf Coast and San Francisco next to 9 international delegations. This would have a few draw-backs (more delegations with the same language, less variety in the participants culture) but overall may not necessarily jeopardize the quality of the programme to much, while massively reducing the cost of participation.
well the "best of 2010" brought me back here. and i have to evaluate on a point that aninia mentioned but that i think but hasnt gotten through so far.
one of the really great things about the KID was that we did NOT have delegations of different origins or ethnic groups or whatever. but just a rndom group of kids/delegations. and still we did not have a lack of cultural diversity as it was really good to actually look back on the kid's daily lives and their families, friends and daily environment and still learn about diversity. i think the fact that there were no "this is the white group" "this is the poor group" "this is the immigrants group" made the experience ore convertable to their lives outside of the camp.
i guess that is something that varies in all countries because of the different social structures but in this case was definitely a very important part of the learning process.