Characteristics of Adventure Programming

Adventure programming is often misunderstood and confused with boot camps by those who are not familiar with the basic principles of adventure programming. For example, Muntingh and Ehlers (2006) grouped wilderness

adventure programmes with boot camps and concluded that they are not an effective stand alone diversion alternative for South African adolescents. International research suggests adventure programmes do provide a viable diversion option for youths without deep-seated psycho-pathological roots to their delinquency, particularly because of their usefulness in diagnosing and tracking behavioural patterns, and providing an opportunity for adjudicated youth to experience wellness and rehabilitation while avoiding the contaminating effects of incarceration or institutional care (Association for Experiential Education, 2011; Bruyere, 2002; Kimball, 1993;

Newes, 2004; Walsh & Russell, 2010). Other South African studies have evaluated nature-based adventure programmes as being particularly valuable for hard-to-reach and high-risk children, found them to report the highest compliance of all diversion options, and reported good reviews from facilitators, and from participants in follow-ups two years after treatment (Klienhans, 2013; Muntingh, 2001; Skelton & Batley, 2006; Steyn, 2005). The confusion is perhaps the greatest in the public arena, where poorly run programmes and accidents have been popularised. For example, print columnists like Krakauer (1995) and Ross and Schwartz (2007) have written magazine articles that refer to boot camps and wilderness experiential programmes interchangeably, reporting on the deaths of teenagers and warning of emotional and physical abuse. On-line, Teen Advocates USA (2008) maintain a web site in memory of teens that died while attending treatment programmes. Adding to the foray, television series Brat Camp (Frazier, 2005) and the motion picture Boot Camp (Oakes, Frislev, Duguay, & Duguay, 2008) have emphasised boot camp tactics and sensationalised the social and psychological struggles of participants. In reality, while both are based in the wilderness, boot camps and adventure programming have very

little in common. Juvenile Boot Camp Institutions (JBCI) make use of military-type drills, physical work, humiliating punishment, and aggressive or emotional confrontation in order to break down individuals in the hope that they can be built up again to be more compliant. These programmes are aimed at providing a rehabilitative framework, while reducing detention costs and overcrowding (Fuentes & Burns, 2002; Mitchell, MacKenzie, Gover, & Styve, 1999). Adventure programming, on the other hand, aims to provide a safe, nurturing, group environment within the context of wilderness and challenge activities that provide an opportunity for self-motivated positive growth, the development of trust, pro-social attitudes, and self-integrity (Davis-Berman & Berman, 2008; Russell, 2003a, 2006a).

Characteristics common to most forms of adventure programming include the following: (a) a philosophy that challenges and novel environments facilitate growth, but that participants should have choice in regards to participation and that stress is managed within controllable levels (Davis-Berman & Berman, 2012; Neill, 2001); (b) designed to meet the particular needs and goals of the client population (Gillis &

Ringer, 1999); (c) follow a positive orientation that aims to provide participants with practical, real-life learning experiences that equip them to lead good, fulfilling lives (Neill, 2001); (d) activities and challenges are structured and deliberately presented in a sequence of increasing difficulty to ensure that participants are stretched only so far as they can handle, and so that growth progressively occurs, ensuring mastery over the course of the programme (Hirsch, 1999); (e) a group focus, with groups normally consisting of between 6 to 14 people who must all contribute in order for success to be attained, and who provide support, feedback and a potent interpersonal context (Newes & Bandoroff, 2004); (f) safety and ethics are highly guarded, and while

physical, emotional, intra- and inter-personal perceived risk is high, the actual calculated risk and potential psychological harm is controlled at a low level (Newes &

Bandoroff, 2004); (g) instructors avoid authoritarian enforcement of punishment but rather utilise an abundance of concrete, natural consequences that form part of wilderness living that expose both positive and negative consequences of participants' actions to themselves and the group; (h) are meant to be enjoyable, demonstrating a balanced lifestyle that combines fun with processing and engagement, individual aspirations and needs with those of the group; (i) seek to offer participants an opportunity to partake in a peak experience, bringing them into highly emotive, visceral, transcendent experiences that serve as a culmination of what has been learned in the programme (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1999); (j) accompanying leaders play a crucial role in modelling adaptive behaviours and healthy relationships, providing participants with the opportunity to engage with a caring adult figure who capitalises on teachable moments, and gives tangible and valued support (Newes & Bandoroff, 2004).

Of all the forms of adventure programming, adventure therapy has arguably experienced the most growth, generated the most research, and is far more regulated that other types of adventure programming. As a consequence of strict credential and association requirements in the US and Australia, private individual therapists are inhibited from offering adventure therapy and it is most likely to be operated within a large organisational infrastructure (Davis-Berman & Berman, 2008). In countries like South Africa, where there is virtually no regulation of adventure programming, it is much easier for private individuals to offer such services (e.g. Rink, 2009; 2012;

Young, 2013). As adventure therapy has grown it has sought to establish an

emancipated existence from psychology and education as an alternative therapy in its own right (Williams, 2004). Adventure therapy has evolved into three areas of implementation: (a) wilderness therapy, (b) adventure-based therapy, and (c) long-term residential camping (Gass, 1993a). It is important to note that adventure therapy is not in and of itself better or worse than other forms of adventure programming; it is possible to achieve as dramatic results through therapeutic adventure, and the choice of approach should be determined by the needs of the client and the programme goals (Alvarez & Stauffer, 2001). The main differences between adventure therapy, and adventure programmes aimed at development, which more likely than not may be therapeutic, is that adventure therapy makes explicit the goal or intention to address meta-level behaviours, uses a therapeutic theoretical framework for clinical presenting problems, uses participant assessment and treatment plans, and on-going evaluation of participant progress and outcomes (Williams, 2004).