The camp director said his goal aloud at the end of the week: five camps the next year, 200 teachers and educators, 1,000 students. “This is replicable,” he said. “This is doable, and it’s needed.”
The ideas raised in the weeks after camp sketch what that could look like.
A home site that stays put. The director told the host he would like to return to the same site, because a fixed place “keeps it grounded” and becomes common ground for everyone involved.
Regional camps that copy the model. Other regions would run what he called phase one: the same week, with the same four strands of communications, safety, culinary and building.
A second track for returning students. At the home site, alongside a camp for new students, an experienced crew from across the state would focus on building a small village in five days. The architecture firm on the planning team and two agencies wanted to use it to prototype units.
Money up front. Three agencies were discussing how to fund the camp early enough that planning could start right away, instead of in a four-and-a-half-month rush. Workforce boards have discussed seed funding for every region.
Staggered dates. School calendars differ by region, so camps may need to run on different weeks.
Regional camps would also remove the biggest barrier students named: getting to one central site. Ashley Brown, who coordinated activities and volunteers, wants to go further and bring the camp to communities that disasters have already hit, so students train where they live, learn their own local resources and connect with industry partners nearby.
Questions to answer before multiplying. The 2026 leadership review listed what a region has to settle first:
Does each region have enough local volunteers, activity leads and ICS-qualified staff?
Is the core team at every camp, or is one core member assigned to each?
If funding comes from one source, how do partners divide it?
Can camps run at the same time, or must they run in sequence?