This earlier response by NABO President Valerie Arrechea to an inquiry, is reproduced here to provide the context behind the decision to make an Udaleku format change. It was not a knee-jerk change, but a careful consideration of various factors.
Udaleku is a
great project that literally thousands of
young Basques have participated in since its
inception in the early 1970s. Not only has
it kept Basque culture relevant to our
younger generations, but it has also forged
links between the different Basque
communities. Those links continue, both on
a personal and organizational level as past
participants have become directors and
leaders in their local clubs.
Our success, however, might lead to our
undoing. In 1999 we had a camp of 105
children spanning the ages of 10 - 18. For
the past 12 years I (as Udaleku Chairman)
have been making the delegates aware that
we were approaching a crisis point with
Udaleku. At each meeting I brought
awareness to the fact that 1) the size of
camp is growing rapidly while our housing is
dwindling and 2) the cost of Udaleku is much
greater that the tuition we charge
families.
The issue with the size of Udaleku has never
been about location or staff, although of
course those need to grow as the number of
participants does. The problem is housing.
Udaleku participants are usually housed in
local homes. There are numerous reasons for
this. First, finding a campus or camp site
that will house that many is either very
expensive or not available. For example,
the cost of renting the facility the Rocklin
Club found is close to $100 per person per
day (including meals). In the Bay Area,
there are no facilities available.
Organizations with dorms or lodging usually
use them throughout the summer for their own
projects. The second reason that we moved
the camp out of dormitories was because of
liability issues. Frankly, NABO cannot
afford to have participants in an
environment where they can be sexually
active or in a place where drugs or alcohol
can be an issue. We have had some very
close calls in the past, and they can not be
repeated.
Udaleku does not pay for itself. I am not
sure if you are aware, but the hosting club
ends up donating $10,000 - $15,000 to
Udaleku through food, activities,
transportation, etc. For Udaleku to be at a
net zero, we would have to charge $300 per
child per week. Until this year we have
been running the camp at $250 tuition when
the cost has been closer to $600 per child.
Other camps that are overnight like ours
often charge up to $600 per week (ex: the
girl scouts and boy scouts).
If we continued at this pace we were going
to have to turn people away, and we were at
a risk of Udaleku becoming too expensive to
hold.
The camp in 2000 again reached over the 100
participant mark. At that point the
delegates made the hard decision to cap the
age at 15. This removed about a fourth of
the numbers and brought Udaleku back into
manageable numbers. With this change there
was no need to consider a cap on the number
of participants. It also, however, created a
void for the upper teens who were accustomed
to attending Udaleku and could no longer do
so. We have tried to fill this with the
creation of the Udaleku Aide position,
Gaztealdi, the increase in dance workshops,
the NABO Beti Gazte committee, and other
youth events. This is a work in progress.
While some ideas have met with success,
others have failed.
By lowering the age of Udaleku we bought
ourselves 8 years. Now, however, we are
back to where we were -- rising numbers,
rising costs, declining housing, and a
decline in the number of host clubs able to
take Udaleku. Last year the crisis hit.
Reno knew that they only had housing for 70
children. The delegates were informed that
for the first time Udaleku would be capped.
As a result, those 70 spots filled in about
10 days. The waiting list was so long that
Reno found housing for 10 more and were able
to raise the number to 80. There were still
children who were not accepted. This was
the first year that NABO could not
accommodate everyone who wanted to attend
Udaleku. Many people were angry that their
child could not be a part of something they
had always assumed would be available to
them.
I knew that we had to do something
immediately for 2011 and created a committee
to look at the issue. More than 10 clubs
participated on the emails and meetings that
followed. They were: San Francisco Basque
Club, San Francisco Basque Cultural Center,
Los Banos, Bakersfield, Chino, Elko, Salt
Lake City, Reno, Boise, Mountain Home,
Buffalo.
The committee went to work thinking of
different solutions to this problem.
Changing the ages of Udaleku is not an
option at this point, and was taken off the
table immediately. We can not dictate to a
hosting club how many children they can
take. If a club can only take 70 kids there
is nothing we can do about that. We also
realized that the ratio of hosting club
participants to outside participants is one
third (ie: one host child will take 2 from
out of town). That left us with the
following options:
1. allow a cap by first come, first serve.
2. allow each club a certain amount of
representation based on population
3. create multiple camps.
4. allow participation by priority (based
on if you have had the opportunity to attend
camp in the past or not)
5. allow all kids participation, but go to
one week and sort by age.
Here were the arguments (pro and con) for
each: (these were well argued on both sides
-- I will keep to the general points for the
sake of length)
1. allow a cap by first come, first
serve. (two week camp)
This did not seem fair, as it is luck of the
draw. Using this method the camp will
always fill immediately as people race to
submit their application. Some people might
be lucky enough to have their child
participate often, while others might be
left out time and time again. On the other
hand, there is nothing for NABO and the host
club to decide -- no selection process for
children, no putting one person over the
other. Over all, although this seems the
easiest thing to do it does not seem like
the best thing for our community.
2. allow each club a certain amount
of representation based on population (two
week camp)
On the plus side, this would allow fair
representation at Udaleku. Clubs would have
a minimum amount of spaces, and that can be
increased depending on the size of the
club. This would not apply to the hosting
club since you need local kids to house the
out-of-towners. Clubs would have to choose
who goes to camp from their club, but that
would be for them to determine, not NABO.
Extra unused spaces could be allocated to
those on a waiting list. The down side of
this option would be that it limits how many
can participate. Children also are unlikely
to go to camp by themselves -- they go to
see their friends who might or might not be
allowed to attend. Over all, this seemed
like a complicated solution that did not
serve to achieve the goal of participation
that we wanted.
3. create multiple camps.
From the camper's side, this is a good
idea. Have two camps, limiting the number
of both, so that kids can have the option of
attending at least one of them. From an
organizers side, however, this poses
problems. You are now asking two clubs to
host for two weeks, or one club to host for
four. More importantly, you now need to
staff two camps. That means finding
teachers, aides and administrators that can
take four weeks from their jobs to work at
camp. Unless you have summers off, most
people can not afford to miss work. We have
a hard time finding people to teach camp for
two weeks. Doubling that would be a
logistical nightmare. There is also the
issue that campers want to be with their
friends. You risk having imbalanced camps,
or people refusing to go if they can't be
with specific people.
4. allow participation by priority
(based on if you have had the opportunity to
attend camp in the past or not)
Like option #2, this was seen as too
complicated. Most agreed that everyone
should have the opportunity to attend camp.
However, some said those who had gone often
should have priority so that they can see
their friends, while others said that
priority should go to those who have had
participated in fewer camps.
5. allow all kids participation,
but go to one week and sort by age.
The plus side is that all kids
would be allowed to go. Forgive me for
repeating it, because it really is a huge
thing ... no one would be turned
away. You are asking teachers and
hosts to do the same work as we are now, so
there is no extra burden to the organizers.
Most children are accustomed to going to
camp for one week -- in fact, this is the
same model that is followed by the Girl
Scouts and Boy Scouts of America. There
are, of course, negatives to this idea:
- one week is too short to teach anything meaningful: This is absolutely true for both txistu and euskara. However, it is true for both even with a two week camp. To effectively teach Euskara, we should have a barnategui for kids to attend. This small, more specific type of camp would be more effective and easier to hold. The same goes for txistu. No one has become a txistulari due to camp (and I say this as one of the few txistularis in the US). Camp gives kids a taste of both these subjects so that they can pursue it if they are interested. They will absolutely be able to learn dances in a week. We have proved this with the dance workshops -- there they learn dances in a day. (There have been many parents who are happy with camp being only one week as they were hesitant to send their kids away for two.)
- it makes it difficult for families with children who fall into different camps: Yes, it does. However, as in the past, parents can help eachother with carpools and cooperation. There is no easy way around this. Hopefully the camp can be organized so that the older kids can go on their own or with a carpool, and the parents can come for their final performance and the second final performance. (That is what we tried to do this year)
- it is a large travel cost for one week of camp: Yes, but the travel cost is the same regardless if camp is one, two or three weeks.
- they don't have as much time to bond: Yes, but that doesn't mean that they won't bond with eachother in one week. Most other camps run only a week, and this doesn't seem to be an issue. Basque kids are fortunate that they also have other opportunities to see eachother, like at Basque picnics.
- There won't be a mixing of ages -- they won't get to know others who are older or younger than they are: This applies only to the first year. If this model continues, they will eventually be attending camp with kids both younger and older than they are as they transition from one age group to the other.
After much careful and thorough thought, this option was decided to be the best of a group of hard decisions, and was recommended to the delegates as an experiment for the 2011 camp. The delegates voted to follow the recommendation of the group. Was everyone happy with the decision? No, but they would have been more unhappy with leaving kids out.
In retrospect, it is a good thing we have set up camp this way. I do not have housing for 90 kids. I barely have housing for the 60, and need to do more recruiting. Having a camp of 90 for two weeks is not an option. Changing the camp to a two week camp at this point is not an option either. Most parents have been figuring out their children's summer schedule since January. It is too late to make changes now even if we could.
I am looking forward to this experiment and the group of people we have on board. We've got a great team and I know that if anyone can make this work, we can. Again, I thank you for your passion and your willingness to not only go with the flow, but also to speak your opinion. We need people to ask questions because that is the only way we will keep looking at the situation and make sure we are making responsible decisions. Hopefully you now have a little more information when people approach you.
