Getting staff-to-student ratios right is a cornerstone of managing risk in experiential education. The discussion often focuses on the prescribed numbers for a given activity. For example, canoeing might require one instructor for every six boats (twelve students), while kayaking requires one instructor for every six boats (six students).
These are very rigid ratios. Yet I’ve had a former boss claim, "Oh no! They’re just rough guidelines." This is a dangerously flawed perspective. If something goes wrong and you end up in court, you will have to justify why you decided to go against established industry standards.
The Baseline is Just the Beginning
When an industry body sets down guidelines for the well-managed operation of activities, you should always use them as your minimum baseline. Adhering to this standard is your first line of defence from a legal and compliance standpoint.
However, if it were as simple as reading a number from a chart, how could anyone possibly go wrong? The mistake that’s often made is underestimating the impact an individual’s behaviour has on the entire group.
The Human Factor: Your Most Significant Risk Variable
Time and time again, I’ve seen schools or organisations stick to the baseline ratios often to save on costs without considering the actual individuals who make up the group.
Poor student behaviour is a significant risk factor that is often totally underestimated. The reality is that the majority of dangerous situations you can find yourself in are due to this human factor. When challenging behaviour is combined with another risk, such as poor environmental conditions or failing equipment, you have a recipe for disaster.
For an activity like abseiling, an instructor needs to be laser-focused on one student at a time. You don’t have the leeway to be monitoring other students. If your group includes challenging individuals, your entire supervision plan must be reconsidered.
A Case Study: When the "Right" Ratio is Wrong
On a canoe expedition I once ran, everything on paper was perfect. We had the right number of instructors and boats, and our ratios were well within the standard guidelines. However, the behaviour of the group was so poor that it massively impacted the entire risk profile of the activity. Forget the weather or broken equipment; the biggest risk was the students themselves.
When this was brought to the organisation’s attention, it was dismissed. The practical reality was that, due to the behavioural issues, we needed at least one or two more instructors to run the trip with an appropriate level of risk. Despite outlining what could happen, we were told to deal with it.
We departed as instructed, and within fifteen minutes, it all started to go pear-shaped. The student behaviour was horrendous. What my co-instructor and I had predicted was happening before our eyes. At twenty minutes in, we pulled the pin on the trip and returned. The group was on the verge of causing a major incident, and we were not sufficiently resourced to manage the situation.
Despite everything on paper saying we had the right number of staff, the reality was that a major incident was only averted because we cancelled the activity.
Building a Dynamic Ratio Plan
Your risk assessment must go beyond the numbers on a chart. The biggest variable will always be the behaviour of the participants.
If you are aware that challenging behaviour could be a factor, you must be realistic and allocate enough staff to effectively manage this additional risk. This isn't about denying students opportunities; it's about resourcing the program for success.
Using a platform like Xcursion Planner, you can create a risk assessment that flags challenging group dynamics and documents the decision to add extra staff. This provides a clear, defensible record of your risk-mitigation strategy, moving beyond a simple tick-box exercise.
By adjusting your staff-to-student ratio to reflect the reality of your group, you’ll be able to effectively manage behavioural concerns and continue without major disruption. This ensures you are running well-managed and engaging programs where students and staff are not exposed to unnecessary risk due to insufficient supervision.
