I've been thinking alot about kids born between 1982 and 2000--the so-called Millennial Generation.  I know it's fashionable to look at trends and make general statements these days about generations, some of which I think can be overblown.  For example, I often feel that the statistics and general characterisitcs sited for Millennial Kids are based on white suburban kids and that we know very little about Black or Latino or urban kids.  That said, it can be eye-opening to learn about some of the trends we see in this age grop--kids who have grown up always knowing technology and the Internet and whose lives have been shaped by technology, the threat of terrorism, global economics and hovering parents.

One thing I think about with regard to these kids--many of whom make up my psychotherapy practice, is that they are hard working, creative, have incredible self-esteem, think they and their generation are special and feel like great things are expected of them.  They have also grown up with parents who have done everything for them.  Which is what brings me to the issue of resilience.  I wonder just how resilient these kids are.  Being smart and having high self-esteem don't seem to be the ingredients for bouncing back, persevering and making do on ones own--the hallmarks of resilience.  I know there is a lot to say about this, but I am just beginning to put my thoughts together and will add to them in the next few days.  Any thoughts you, my trusty reader, may have, please share!  --Bob Ditter

I was deeply touched today when Nancy Pennell from the Aloha Foundation presented me, on behalf of ACA New England, with the Peter Kerns Award for the Advancement of Professional Development.  I don't think there have ever been any words written or spoken about me, to me, that have been more moving.

As I said to the audience, I don't usually accept awards.  My approach has always been to understand the needs of my audience and to work hard to meet those needs as best I could.  If I succeeded in giving people language or insight or tools they could use, that was reward enough for me.

What made me change my mind was the fact that the award was named in Peter's honor.  Peter Kerns was a long time director of Noble's Day Camp in Dedham, Mass.  He and Penny Kerns have always been enthusiastic about professional development--working hard to constantly improve themselves and their team.  It is a tradition Penny carries forward today.  That commitment, and the fact that Peter was a personal friend whom I miss since his death from the complications due to diabetes, convinced me this was an award I should accept.  As the keynote speaker of the day, Ed Hallowell, later said, "recognition connects you to the people who have nurtured you."

To Nancy and all the Board members of ACA New England, and to all the hard-working, passionate camp professionals who have enriched my life for the past 26 years, I am deeply grateful.  Could I be a richer man?!

Here's what Nancy read to me in front of the entire audience:

The Peter Kerns award was, quite simply, "made" for Bob Ditter.  This friend of camping has developed an extraordinary focus over all these years on the transformational power of the camp experience.  His hundreds of workshops and presentations have created opportunities for all who love camp to be the very best they can be in their professional lives.  He has trained thousands of directors, administrators, unit leaders and counselors, and has quite literally changed the lives of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of children across the country.

We claim Bob as a special friend of New England camping, and the truth is that we supported him as he grew into one of the most beloved and trusted sources for camp professionals everywhere.  Bob is the voice of intentional, loving, enlightened camping and we are proud to call him our friend and to honor his achievements today.  Whether in the "trenches" or on the "frontline," Bob's commitment to children is evident to all.  A standing ovation is clearly in order. 

Thank you, Nancy; thank you New England.  It is true you have nurtured me all these years!

--Bob Ditter

Being at a major camp conference like the recent ACA National Conference in Austin, Texas, is always a little like what I imagine camp is like for campers.  You get to see all your friends from around the country; there are a lot of fun activities to enjoy together; you learn a lot (and not just from what’s in the program).  And if you’re like me,  you leave exhausted!

I personally had a great conference!  Forget the little glitches, like poor sound at David Elkind’s Wednesday morning keynote, or the over-sold luncheon Thursday that I and several others were closed out of.  (Like the kids we serve, we can all get over-focused on little setbacks that detract from the overall value of an experience!)  For me, the big picture view was great!  It was a treat to visit with the many special camp friends I have made from around the world, some of whom I have known for over 20 years!  It’s also a kick to know that there are still folks who don’t know of my work in camping, which always keeps me feeling young!  Many thanks to everyone who attended my two sessions on brain research and camp.  The material is electrifying in its own right, but the energy of folks in the audience helped me perform at my best!  I was on fire!  If you missed it, the handouts won’t do those presentations justice, but they’re still interesting and informative.  Download them from the resources section of the site (and if we are still working on that, e-mail me!)

The session I have come to love so is the one my good friend, Norman Friedman, from AMSkier Insurance, and I have done for several years, now, which is “What’s Your Next Move?!”  Norman continues to supply us with new and chilling situations—all “a-little-too-true-to-life”—from which we learn so much.  He and I agree this was our best effort, yet!

And how exciting for me to unveil 7 new training DVDs that I have just finished producing with Healthy Learning!  All 7 are in time for the coming season and can be purchased from Healthy Learning or directly from me here on my website.

I do have a few thoughts I’d like to share about the conference, starting with Neil Howe’s opening keynote Tuesday afternoon.  Neil shared some interesting and exciting information about the generation “cycle of values” and told us some things about Millennial kids that were thought-provoking.  That having been said, was there anyone besides me who wanted to ask him, “So, Neil, just who are we talking about here?  Are these mainly suburban kids from families with many privileges, or does this include under-privileged kids?  How do these impressions hold up with regard to children of color?  What about urban kids? Rural kids?”  When we talk about children with parents who hover, who have been given every opportunity and who are heavily pressured to perform and suffer under the high expectations placed on them, I can’t quite help think that we are leaving many children out of the discussion.  Anyone else think so?

Also, while I agree that kids today are team and service oriented, and that their self-esteem is as high as the current stock market, is anyone else wondering how resilient this crop of young folks are?  I just think that when your parents are so close to your side at every turn, it makes it hard to develop resilience—the ability to recover from a setback; manage stress well; be self-sufficient; be on your own.  What happens when you’ve been told you are special all your life and then your first boss doesn’t think you’re so special?  Stay tuned!  We’ll all find out the hard way!
More later!

Some of you may be aware of the recent debate about putting warning labels on anti-depressant medication for adults. This controversy stems from observations over the past few years of a rise in suicide or suicidal impulses among some child and adolescent users of anti-depressants—a development that seemed to catch some the mental health community by surprise. Evidently, similar concerns have been observed among adult users of anti-depressants. I must admit the entire controversy mystifies me. Let me explain.

Years ago in my training years in Boston I noticed that some older children and Teens who were depressed often had an initial increase in suicidal thoughts or impulses after being in therapy for a while. Though it seemed that their depression was breaking up, there could often be a sudden suicidal thought or feeling that would arise. When I checked this out with senior level colleagues, I was told that this was indeed a common phenomenon widely observed in the field. In fact, we often put such young patients on a more careful “watch” knowing that this might occur. The explanation popular at the time was that as people who were depressed progressed in their therapy and their depression began to break up, they might experience an initial increase in their level of energy before resolving some of the underlying causes of their depression. The tendency to feel increasingly suicidal was even more pronounced in patients whose real life situations were bleak and out of their control to change (which is especially true for children and Teens). A depressed person might still be experiencing a fair amount of despair, but have an energy surge as their depression started to yield, giving them the gumption to act on those dismal feelings. That was why we were always careful to monitor such patients. By the way, this was all well before the current crop of anti-depressants was on the market.
Fast forward to today. Let me cut to the chase: Medication was never originally designed to be used without a patient being in some kind of on-going therapy. After all, medications might allow someone to have more energy or feel somewhat less bleak or take the edge off of anxiety, but medication alone doesn’t alter life situations or change habits or help someone understand self-defeating patterns of behavior or even reveal the underlying causes of a depression. Only through hard work—work which many people wish to avoid—do these things happen. Yet, a large percentage of people—children and Teens included—who are on anti-depressant medication are not in an on-going therapy and are therefore not working on the underlying causes of their condition. As they experience some relief in their feelings, they are not gaining insight or changing habits or even being followed more carefully, as they would be if they were in an on-going therapy. It seems as though the wisdom of the past was not passed on to the current crop of prescribing physcians. So, yes, I think there needs to be a "warning label." Maybe it should say something like, "Do not use this medication unless you are in a regular, on-going therapy where you can get to the root causes of your condition and actually understand where your feelings are coming from!" And maybe there should be another label, aimed at those who prescribe: "Do not prescribe this medication unless you can certify that the person you are prescribing for is engaged in a viable, regular, on-going personal theraputic relationship!" I would hope that wisdom could be used in combination with the modern psychiatric practice of prescribing medication, helpful as it can be, for the treatment of emotional conditions.

In my work with various organizations over the last few years I have come to realize that individuals in any organization have both a position and a role, each of which are important and very different from one another. Let me explain. A person's "position" is their actual job--the formal tasks assigned to them by management or ownership. These are the things a person is actually responsible for doing. At camp, which is the kind of organization I know best, this might be, for example, Head of Tennis of Cabin Counselor. In each their are daily and perhaps weekly tasks that are formally, and hopefully clearly and explicitly, laid out that they are expected to perform. By contrast, a person's "role" is more in formal and includes their influence or impact on others. For example, you might have a cabin counselor who in the hierarchy of camp is near the bottom of the "management structure," but who is very popular among campers or other staff and who therefore wields a lot of influence and, therefore, power.

If I as a camp director wanted to effect a change in counselor practices, I might approach this person knowing that if I can get them to buy into the change, others will be more likely to follow because of the influence this person has with other staff. Smart managers (principals, camp directors, office managers, etc.) know who these people are and also know how wise it is to cultivate a relationship with these folks and "bring them into the conversation" when considering change. I remember once when working with a camp in the Eastern US that wanted to change the ways counselors interacted with campers, I suggested we invite a small group of highly popular counselors to come to the camp office on a specified day to join in the discussion, planning and so on. (It turned out that these same counselors were the worst offenders in terms of the behavior the director wanted to change and would have been the strongest resisters had they not been brough into the discussion.)

As a result of including these folks in the conversation and planning, they felt acknowledged and empowered and, as a result, more "on board" with the new guideleines than they would have been if left out of the planning. In her book, Team of Rivals, Doris Kearns Goodwin describes how Lincoln, after winning the 1860 national election, chose several rivals to be members of his new cabinet. Some of these ardent rivals became Lincoln's greatest supporters and advocates.