s/o Churches, Children, and Volunteers

[fairfarmhand]

As a spin off of our youth group thread, I am interested in how your churches screen volunteers.

 

Are there specific training sessions that must be attended?

 

Is it mandated by the denomination or by the leadership?

 

Is there a background check?

 

Are volunteers/paid workers required to sign paperwork that emphasizes the church guidelines on adult/child relationships?

 

I am interested.

 

We are a part of a good church that is quickly growing and I wonder how long it will be before the informal direction that we give volunteers will need to be more stringent.

[Southern Ivy]

We had to take a membership class first, then a volunteer class. Background checks were mandatory and we were not given badges or allowed to volunteer in any capacity until the background checks were received. We have a book of approved volunteers, updated monthly, for us to check in the event that someone has misplaced a badge or forgot it. Not on the list? Not going in to the kids area. 
I do know that if there are issues with a background check (ie: a felony from long past, etc), they are not allowed to volunteer with children. That does not mean they would not be allowed to volunteer as greeters, in the cafe or resource center, or any other non-child related position. They understand that people have a past and are open to understanding the situation. But, kids are top priority and they protect them as best they can. 

No idea if it's mandated by the denomination or the leadership; but our leadership does it's best to be above reproach, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's leadership mandated. 

I only work in the children's section (up to 5th grade), so I'm not sure if the youth area had more stringent requirements. I do know that while men are allowed to volunteer in the children's area, they are always with a woman. This is especially true for areas where diaper changes are necessary. Men are not allowed to change diapers or to accompany children into the restrooms. I don't remember anything in particular about "relationships" though. 
Also, there are always at least 2 people in a classroom. 

We have security stationed at the kids area. If you do not have a volunteer badge or you do not have a parent sticker (meaning you have checked your students into the area), then you are not allowed access. There are also at least 4 kids area leaders walking the halls at all times. (They are typically taking attendance counts, but that still means there is not a lot of alone time for any group.)  

[.Michelle.]

http://www.virtus.org/virtus/protecting_children.cfm

[gardenmom5]

we have no paid ministry.

the bishop will prayerfully "call" a member of the congregation to work with the youth.

HOWEVER, there are rules in place of two adults, etc. the groups are also split by age and gender, and each group has at least two same-gender adults.  for activities, there can easily be more adults than the minimum required.

formal activities using adult volunteer drivers require permission slips.

with activities at the church building - the doors are usually open.  (and if closed, it's more to do with cutting noise.)

 

activities are planned ahead, announcements include parents, etc.

anything to do with boy scouts - follows BSofA protocols.

 

 

 

 

[SKL]

I think they have to have a security check done if they are going to drive kids or something.  Not sure about other positions.  They generally are not alone with children.  Even when my kids were the only two preschoolers in Sunday School, they always had 2 teachers, which seemed a bit of overkill to me, but whatever.

 

Personally I do not think every volunteer needs to be screened.  (I heard of a church that required the veteran, elderly ladies on the Altar Guild to be screened just because they walked through the same building kids walk through.  Ridiculous.)  I think a risk-benefit analysis is appropriate and some positions are more appropriate for screening than others.  An adult who will be alone with youth should probably not object to being screened.

 

I think if you have a policy where no child is ever alone with one adult, you could forego the screening.

 

Screening doesn't pick up on a lot of past history anyway.  It can give a false sense of security.

[Seasider]

This organization is a good resource.

 

http://www.netgrace.org

 

At our church, youth workers must go through youth protection training, follow the non related two deep leadership rule, undergo background checks and provide references that the church thoroughly follows up on.

 

ETA these are not dictated by the denomination

[Rachel]

I attend an independent church with about 400 members so our elders and church staff determine the rules with input from parents.

 

All volunteers have to have background and child abuse checks yearly. We have a yearly parents/volunteer meeting that includes safety. Our children's minister also is very open to talking to parents and wants our feedback both positive and negative.

 

We pretty much all know each other though. For instance of the 8 kids in my daughter's class, 7 of us were in college together. The mother of the 8th child was in the youth group when I was a volunteer and grew up attending our church.

[Guest]

The church I attend is large. There are easily a hundred teens in the whole church, divided over four services. It is progresively-minded, in terms of using technology and pretty formal in organization.

 

I *think* (not 100% sure) there is a background check for all regular volunteers and staff. Step-in volunteers I don't think have background checks. All people in leadership positions take a class; don't know what is covered, though. All small groups for teens are organized with single-gender format. Female leaders for girl groups; male leaders for boys. All activities are chaperoned by multiple people, though obviously, this is logistically necessary because of size. All planned activities have paperwoork - insurance, emergency contacts, medical info if necessary, permission and rules.

 

There is probably more background security that I am not aware of. I only recently learned that there are off-duty police and military officers who serve as stand-by (undercover) security; there are also medics on-hand as well. (I learned about the medic thing by being an impromptu patient when I passed out at church! ;) )

[73349]

From the congregation's website, my highlights in red:

 

Screening and Selection of Paid and Volunteer Staff of Children and Youth Programs

• All paid and volunteer workers providing direct care or supervision of children or teenage youth will meet the following criteria:
  • At least 16 years of age
  • An active congregant (member of friend) for at least six months, and have participated regularly for at 6 months and /or have references from other UU churches that include the minister or RE director
• Will have attended at least one teacher training session which contained components on child safety.
• All paid and volunteer staff must consent to a background check and such background checks will be performed.
• Information will be shared the Safe Congregation Committee and the DRE as appropriate.
• The Congregation Administrator will be responsible for coordination with the screening vendor, and for the security of screening materials.
• The DRE [Director of Religious Education] will be responsible for distribution, completion and collection of volunteer screening materials.
• All screening results will be kept in the Congregational Administrators locked, confidential files.
• Paid staff will supply at least two personal or professional references.
• Individuals convicted of, under current indictment for, or who self disclose any act of sexual misconduct involving a child or of child abuse are precluded from participation in any programs on or off premises involving children.
• All paid and volunteer staff must sign a Code of Conduct
• A minimum of two paid or volunteer staff are to be scheduled to supervise any children or youth program group
  • A “group†is defined as those minors who have been assigned to a nursery, preschool, or individual class or specific program or activity within the context of that class, as well as youth who are taking part in planned, organized component of their program.
  • A “program†is defined as any church-sponsored and supervised group activity.
  • An “event†is defined as an informal group activity. If this informal group activity included families, it is the parents who are responsible for supervising their own children
  • “Supervision†is defined as being awake, physically present and unimpaired.

  Recommended adult-to-child/youth ratio:

• Nursery 1:3
• Preschool 1:5
• Elementary 1:6
• Middle School 1:8
• High School 1:10
• If the host site for a program involving children and youth has established more stringent adult-to-child/youth ratios, those of the host site will take precedent.
• Corporal punishment may not be used under any circumstances.
• Any one-on-one, private meeting with a child during a program will not be conducted behind closed doors.
• If an adult other than a parent or guardian has a private one-to-one meeting with a child or youth during a program, another worker in the program shall be notified of the meeting, either before the meeting or promptly afterward.
• It is strongly recommended that the following guidelines be used when providing transportation to Programs:
• All drivers must be at least 25 years of age, hold a valid driver’s license, and provide proof of insurance.
• The vehicle must be equipped with seatbelts for all youth passengers, and seatbelts are to be used when transporting you during activities.
• No driver may consume alcohol or use any for of drugs that can affect physical or mental performance during or before carrying out his/her duty as a driver.
• A minimum of two adults must accompany a group going off-site. One adult may drive two or more children to an off-site program, providing program supervisory guidelines are in place at the destination.
• All paid or volunteer staff will sign the Code of Conduct regardless of whether they are supervising children or not.
• Domains of reporting and response
  • Reports of abuse, or suspicions of abuse that allegedly occurred within or among the church community and/or staff, whether or not the alleged incident occurred during a program.
  • Reports of abuse, or suspicions of abuse that allegedly occurred outside the community against or by a member or friend of the congregation.
  • Reports of abuse, or suspicions of abuse, involving a staff member, either as victim or as accused.
  • Disclosure by a member of a current situation or past history as a perpetrator.
• Reporting Within the Church
  • If a person within the church community or a staff member believes abuse occurred within the reporting domains, the individual should:
    • Report his or her concerns a member of the Safe Congregation Committee.
    • The SCC will assemble a RESPONSE TEAM, if appropriate, that supports and represents the interests of of the alleged victim, the accused and the congregation.
    • The SCC will advise in accordance with North Carolina laws on child abuse, including the Mandatory Reporter statute.
    • N.C. State Reporting Guideline (See Attachment A - N.C. Gen. Statute 7B-301)
• N.C. General Statue Chapter 7B- 301
  • … requires “any person or institution who has cause to suspect that any juvenile is abused, neglected, or dependent…or has died as a result of maltreatment†to report the case of that juvenile to the director of the department of social services in the county where the juvenile resides or is found.

Supervision Requirements

Minimum adult-to-child/youth ratio:

• Nursery 1:5
• Preschool 1:8
• Elementary 1:10
• Middle School 1:10
• High School 1:10

Code of Conduct for Staff with Children and Youth

SCOPE OF RESPONSE TO REPORTS OF ABUSE AND SEXUAL MISCONDUCT INVOLVING CHILDREN AND STAFF

Code of Ethics for Adults

Adults are in a position of stewardship and play a key role in fostering the spiritual development of both individuals and the community. It is, therefore, especially important that adults be qualified to provide the special nurture, care, and support that will enable youth to develop a positive sense of self and responsibility. The relation between young people and adults must be one of mutual respect if the positive potential of their relationship is to be realized.

There are no more important areas of growth than those of self-worth and the development of a healthy identity as a sexual being. Adults play a key role in assisting youth in these areas of growth. Wisdom dictates that youth and adults suffer damaging effects when leaders become sexually involved with young persons in their care; therefore, leaders will refrain from engaging in sexual, seductive or erotic behavior with youth. Neither shall they sexually harass or engage in behavior with youth which constitutes verbal, emotional, or physical abuse. Leaders shall be informed of the code of ethics and agree to it before assuming their role.

In cases of violation of this code, appropriate action will be taken.

 

 

Notice that the assumption is that while everybody is expected to prevent a problem, there have to be procedures in place in case one does occur.

[Guest]

I think they have to have a security check done if they are going to drive kids or something. Not sure about other positions. They generally are not alone with children. Even when my kids were the only two preschoolers in Sunday School, they always had 2 teachers, which seemed a bit of overkill to me, but whatever.

 

Personally I do not think every volunteer needs to be screened. (I heard of a church that required the veteran, elderly ladies on the Altar Guild to be screened just because they walked through the same building kids walk through. Ridiculous.) I think a risk-benefit analysis is appropriate and some positions are more appropriate for screening than others. An adult who will be alone with youth should probably not object to being screened.

 

I think if you have a policy where no child is ever alone with one adult, you could forego the screening.

 

Screening doesn't pick up on a lot of past history anyway. It can give a false sense of security.

I hear what you're saying, but I think then it becomes difficult with where to draw the line. Do you not screen this little old lady, but then DO screen her husband because he's a man? Or because he seems odd? Do you decide not to screen This Family, because, "Oh, those are the Bordatellos. They've lived in town for generations; surely they are fine..."

 

If someone DID perpetrate a crime, and then it was discovered after the fact they had a rap sheet, everyone would rightly say, "Why the hell weren't they screened?"

 

I am in favor of using all possible resources and precautions. Background check. Informed volunteeres. AND no single person behind closed doors with kid(s)... And certainly no taking them from one location to another or texting with the students in a way that cuts the parents out.

[OneStepAtATime]

A few years ago our church changed policies and became more formal.  I believe this occurred because of changes in the Methodist Conference we are part of.

 

1.  ALL workers who are regularly around children, such as with SS classes or youth groups, must go through a background check.

 

2.  ALL parents who have children in the youth organizations have to sign a paper giving medical contact info and multiple ways to reach a parent.

 

3.  NO youth leader (we have an Elementary then a Middle School/High School Youth Pastor and they both work under someone else) can be the only adult at an outing or a lock-in.  Parent volunteers are required and have to fill out forms, etc. to participate.

 

4.  Absolutely no church staff member is allowed to remove children from the church without prior written consent of the parents.

 

I am sure there are other rules but those are the ones that come to mind.  They are in place not only to protect the children but also the staff and the church.

[Alice]

As a spin off of our youth group thread, I am interested in how your churches screen volunteers.

 

Are there specific training sessions that must be attended? No

 

Is it mandated by the denomination or by the leadership? Leadership determines our policy

 

Is there a background check? Yes

 

Are volunteers/paid workers required to sign paperwork that emphasizes the church guidelines on adult/child relationships? No

 

I am interested.

 

We are a part of a good church that is quickly growing and I wonder how long it will be before the informal direction that we give volunteers will need to be more stringent.

 

We are a very small church. Currently the only children's program is Sunday School and the nursery. We do not have a youth group. Volunteers must submit a background check. They also must have been member or regular attendees for 6 months, although that is sometimes waived with references from a previous church. The policy is that in any activity with kids there are always two adults. We do allow two related adults, only because the church is so small it would be very difficult to have volunteers otherwise. Parents are always allowed to sit in on any class and all rooms with kids must be visible from the outside (window in the door).

 

We also have been able to be fairly informal. Mostly the people volunteering are good friends of the parents whose kids are in the classes. I know that doesn't necessarily mean there couldn't be abuse, which is why we have the policies we do. But it does mean that there is usually a fairly high trust level and we haven't yet done things like have formal training or have people sign paperwork. We are also growing and I think one of the considerations is whether we need to be more formal. 

[Bluegoat]

We have had background checks for Sunday school workers and some others for a while.  And a lot of the other common rules like two adults etc.  Sometimes the biggest difficulty has been with actually organizing aspects of this - like what do you do when someone doesn't show up?

 

Our nursery works a little differently and the tendeny there is for kids to be with parents or for them to make private arrangements among themselves.  It's perhaps worth thinking about what the implications of that would be legally.

 

Just recently there has been much more specific direction from the governing body of our diocese.  Most of it is centered around liability.  It isn't entirely a bad thing, but like a lot of things that look first at liability it can create some weird and even negative situations.  For example, the elderly couple - they must be pushing 90 - that pass out the books at the door and have been doing so since before I was born should, technically, now get criminal record checks.  Not only is that unlikely to make anyone safer, they may not see it as just a check in the box but as a reflection on them personally. 

[Bluegoat]

I hear what you're saying, but I think then it becomes difficult with where to draw the line. Do you not screen this little old lady, but then DO screen her husband because he's a man? Or because he seems odd? Do you decide not to screen This Family, because, "Oh, those are the Bordatellos. They've lived in town for generations; surely they are fine..."

 

If someone DID perpetrate a crime, and then it was discovered after the fact they had a rap sheet, everyone would rightly say, "Why the hell weren't they screened?"

 

I am in favor of using all possible resources and precautions. Background check. Informed volunteeres. AND no single person behind closed doors with kid(s)... And certainly no taking them from one location to another or texting with the students in a way that cuts the parents out.

 

But if you are going to screen people in that way, you would also have to screen everyone that attends, not just staff and volunteers.

 

It just isn't practical, and I would say it isn't desirable and doesn't help, to screen every person who walks through the door.

[SKL]

I hear what you're saying, but I think then it becomes difficult with where to draw the line. Do you not screen this little old lady, but then DO screen her husband because he's a man? Or because he seems odd? Do you decide not to screen This Family, because, "Oh, those are the Bordatellos. They've lived in town for generations; surely they are fine..."

 

If someone DID perpetrate a crime, and then it was discovered after the fact they had a rap sheet, everyone would rightly say, "Why the hell weren't they screened?"

 

I am in favor of using all possible resources and precautions. Background check. Informed volunteeres. AND no single person behind closed doors with kid(s)... And certainly no taking them from one location to another or texting with the students in a way that cuts the parents out.

 

Well what *if* one of the little old ladies on the Altar Guild once stole a necklace from a store 50 years ago?  Or even got a bad start as a parent 50 years ago?  Does it matter if she isn't responsible for kids?  Does she suddenly become a risk for lying in wait in the Sunday School bathroom and molesting someone?  Or does she just end up getting shamed for no good reason?

 

The Altar Guild lady was the most ridiculous example I knew of, but I do not mean to imply that all the men need background checks either.

 

Some of us have a history that we'd rather leave behind us where it isn't relevant to the present.

 

[73349]

It makes sense to screen 1) everyone who is paid, and 2) everyone who works with kids. It doesn't make sense to screen everyone over 16 who joins the church. But a background check is just one layer of protection: it means that the person has not been convicted of anything. That's why most churches require children to be accompanied by one of their parents or two other people during classes/programs.

 

DH's church is Catholic. They've decided not to let anyone under 18 be without either a parent or a trained/screened adult on campus at any time. This literally means that a teenager cannot leave the sanctuary and use the bathroom down the hall without a parent escorting him/her to the bathroom door. It feels like overkill. But you know, given the Church's recent track record, it makes sense to err on the side of caution, even if it's an inconvenience once in a while.

[SKL]

But if you are going to screen people in that way, you would also have to screen everyone that attends, not just staff and volunteers.

 

It just isn't practical, and I would say it isn't desirable and doesn't help, to screen every person who walks through the door.

 

To expand on this - in my church, if you become a member, you are expected to carry out some volunteer duties.  (One of the reasons I'm in no hurry to be a member, LOL.)  So that would mean that every member has to get a background check?  Wouldn't that be a bit of a disincentive to some of the people who need church the most?  What would Jesus say about that?  I kinda don't like it myself.

 

[SKL]

And you can't run a check on minors anyway.  So does that mean minors are not allowed to ever volunteer with or around kids?  That would be really sad.

[TechWife]

I commented on the other thread, but wanted to leave this here as well. Please do not overly rely on background checks. They only reveal when there is a conviction on someone's record and then only if it is an actual criminal background check. They do not reveal anything about the person's character, history or intentions.  They truly are, IMO, a way for churches to attempt to limit their liability and to shift responsibility when they choose to look the other way when there are suspicious circumstances. They can lead to a false sense of security as well. 

 

There are also several types of background checks, some of which are more thorough than others. If your church or organization uses these as part of a screening process, make sure a thorough background check is conducted. They should look for criminal and civil action. They should look at county, state and federal records and the national registry of sex offenders as well as that of any state the person reports to have lived in. They should look at the driving record if this person will be responsible for either transporting church members or running errands for the church. Background checks can be surface or they can be thorough, make sure you know what type of check your church is running. 

 

Beyond that, can the person provide references of people who are not relatives and at least one or two that aren't members of the current church? 

 

Does your church have a list of qualifications that volunteers must meet or do they take any "warm body?" 

 

Just some things to think about. 

 

[Guest]

We have a smaller church (maybe thirty families with a bunch of kids) . Volunteering involves being a member (which requires a series of classes, interviews with the pastors, and then a profession in front of the congregation), a background check, and we never assign less than two people to any classroom or nursery for safety reasons. Even with adults we try to observe propriety - I'm on the missions committee and the only female, and I'm never alone with just the pastor or an elder for a meeting - we always try to have at least three people there to protect everyone from any ill appearance.

[QueenCat]

I do know that if there are issues with a background check (ie: a felony from long past, etc), they are not allowed to volunteer with children. That does not mean they would not be allowed to volunteer as greeters, in the cafe or resource center, or any other non-child related position. They understand that people have a past and are open to understanding the situation. But, kids are top priority and they protect them as best they can. 

 

 

 

Even if the felony was twenty years ago and had nothing to do with children? I hope that's not what you're saying.... that would be sad. Many people turn their lives around, have families and lead productive lives. And might be a GREAT person to work with kids/youth; perhaps even the best one!

[Guest]

Not everyone has to have background checks, I should have clarified that was for nursery and teaching positions. To volunteer with the library, church work day, music ministry, etc, nothing is needed. And if someone pinged a check, like my friend's husband, it doesn't mean he could serve but he'd just be supervised carefully and not put in a position where he could be easily tempted or tripped up. I wouldn't know there were any past issues if I wasn't a close friend - his record is nobody's business if he is just doing grounds keeping and always accompanied by another adult, like all of us are. No need to single him out - we just exercise some prudence in the area of how he serves the body :)

[PeacefulChaos]

As a spin off of our youth group thread, I am interested in how your churches screen volunteers.

 

Are there specific training sessions that must be attended?

 

Is it mandated by the denomination or by the leadership?

 

Is there a background check?

 

Are volunteers/paid workers required to sign paperwork that emphasizes the church guidelines on adult/child relationships?

 

I am interested.

 

We are a part of a good church that is quickly growing and I wonder how long it will be before the informal direction that we give volunteers will need to be more stringent.

 

I will answer for our former church, because I was very involved and knew the practices well.  Our current church I'm not sure.

 

I don't think that all volunteers had to first be members.  I think that usually at least one of the volunteers in each class was a member, though I can't remember exactly.

They did have to attend a Reduce the Risk class and get a background check.  At the RtR class they had to fill out paperwork regarding the class and sign it, etc.  The class actually had to be done yearly, and the church kept everything on file.  

The RtR class was really good - things that maybe smaller churches (or churches in small communities) don't think about because they aren't thinking from the preventative perspective as much - from what I've seen, they tend to be a little more naive about that stuff.  

 

A lot is a bit common sense - Married couples couldn't work without a third unrelated adult in the same class; no class could have less than 2 teachers, unless there was a very small number of kids AND they kept the door open (common areas in the middle with many people in and out); don't ever leave the other adult alone if you are a teacher; don't release the child to anyone except the parent with the matching sticker; do all you can to prevent being alone with a child that isn't your own - for the protection of everyone involved (you, the church, the child) etc, etc.  But it's nice to have it there as a reminder/refresher.

[Anne in CA]

Right now I am casually attending a very small church in a small town and I am not sure how they run the children's ministry. Our former church was a mega church and they did background checks on all volunteers and always had two deep leadership like Boy Scouts.

[Guest]

Even if the felony was twenty years ago and had nothing to do with children? I hope that's not what you're saying.... that would be sad. Many people turn their lives around, have families and lead productive lives. And might be a GREAT person to work with kids/youth; perhaps even the best one!

Yes, that's how we feel as well. When the past issue has nothing to do with women or children and the individual did it before they were saved, we don't hold it over their head and disallow service at all. A little supervision and a discussion in place of the expectations of ministry and consequences if any lines are crossed has sufficed thus far.

[Catherine]

I am not sure of the exact procedure, but I know that all volunteers and even perhaps *members* are screened, because a few years back the entire congregation got a letter about a convicted sex offender (pretty ugly history-not just a minor offense) had joined the church and had agreed to abide by a no-volunteering policy, AND to the congregation being notified of his history.  

 

I felt a bit bad for him at the time, but honestly, I am grateful that we were notified.  

[ScoutTN]

Our denomination suggests resources and provieds training for church leadership and staff, but individual congregations are responsible for their own policies and procedures.

 

In our children's ministry all volunteers must have been church members for a year (membership class and interview with an elder or pastor required), have an interview with a children's ministry staff member, complete an application which includes 3 written references and a background check, complete both a general teacher training and a child-protection training annually. Two deep leadership is strictly observed at all times. Teens can serve and must complete everything an adult does. VBS volunteers complete some of these requirements, but not all. Leadership at VBS is 3 deep easily and we have oodles of roaming supervision, plus the kids are moving every 20 minutes to a new activity and location.

 

There are some other policy items which apply to just the early childhood area I think, but I am not up on those since my kids are past that level. Our paid caregivers have similar requirements except that they do not have to be church members, and do have to have current CPR and First Aid certifications and have to do more training each year.

 

I am not sure of all the youth group policies but I do know that they have good communication with parents, two deep leadership and then some, always have female staff and leaders at any event with girls and require normal paperwork (permission slips etc.) for any off campus event. They do have policies about texting and social media, but as we are not there yet I don't know the details.

Some of my friends have found that younger leaders, especially unmarried ones and ones with no kids or only babies, are a bit clueless about some routine things (like counting kids to make sure you have them all before you leave a place) at times, but these leaders are never in charge of anything by themselves. The youth group has lots of activities at the kid's homes, parents are welcomed on trips and the staff understands their job as assisting parents.

 

We have a "draft" to help staff the early childhood area on Sundays, all church members who are able participate. No screening of them except by the CM and pastoral staff, but they are assisting in a room with a paid caregiver and 2 teachers or 2 paid caregivers and they do not change diapers and are never alone with a child. Youth and school age children serve with their parents.

 

No screening is needed to volunteer in other areas of our church: choir, kitchen, women's ministries, Bible studies, etc. Mission trips do require some paperwork and background info.

[*Inna*]

As a spin off of our youth group thread, I am interested in how your churches screen volunteers.

 

Are there specific training sessions that must be attended? Yes

 

Is it mandated by the denomination or by the leadership? Leadership

 

Is there a background check? Yes

 

Are volunteers/paid workers required to sign paperwork that emphasizes the church guidelines on adult/child relationships? Yes

 

I am interested.

 

We are a part of a good church that is quickly growing and I wonder how long it will be before the informal direction that we give volunteers will need to be more stringent.

 

We attend a different , bigger church on Wednesday night - their children's program is excellent and lots of my kids' friends attend as well. The answers in the quote are for this church.

 

The church we attend on Sunday is very small and basically consists of a few large families. No background checks, training sessions etc. Basically, "you want to help out? Great! Here is your class. Ask teenagers if they want to help."

 

[Ausmumof3]

We have a police check and everyone had a two hour training session as required by law. It was recommended that everyone get the check done so that if someone has to fill in for someone else with Sunday school or an outing there's no issues.

 

Realistically though the checks only catch those that have a conviction. The policy that requires open door etc is better.

[dirty ethel rackham]

As a spin off of our youth group thread, I am interested in how your churches screen volunteers.

 

Are there specific training sessions that must be attended?  Yes.  Every person who will have contact with minors in any way, shape or form for activities at the church/school or in sponsored by the church or school must attend our diocese's Protecting God's Children course.  Since parents of kids in school or in religious ed usually help out in some way, they are required to take the course in order to enroll their kids. 

 

Is it mandated by the denomination or by the leadership?  By the denomination, I guess.  We are Roman Catholic. I am not sure if each diocese has their own program, but I know it is supposed to be required in the United States.  Not sure if it is required outside of the US. 

 

Is there a background check?  Yes

 

Are volunteers/paid workers required to sign paperwork that emphasizes the church guidelines on adult/child relationships?  I don't remember.  It has been so long since I took the training and my kids are not involved in activities specifically at our church anymore.  I know I had to sign something for BSA and for 4-H to be in leadership;

 

I am interested.

 

We are a part of a good church that is quickly growing and I wonder how long it will be before the informal direction that we give volunteers will need to be more stringent.

 

[dirty ethel rackham]

I commented on the other thread, but wanted to leave this here as well. Please do not overly rely on background checks. They only reveal when there is a conviction on someone's record and then only if it is an actual criminal background check. They do not reveal anything about the person's character, history or intentions.  They truly are, IMO, a way for churches to attempt to limit their liability and to shift responsibility when they choose to look the other way when there are suspicious circumstances. They can lead to a false sense of security as well. 

 

There are also several types of background checks, some of which are more thorough than others. If your church or organization uses these as part of a screening process, make sure a thorough background check is conducted. They should look for criminal and civil action. They should look at county, state and federal records and the national registry of sex offenders as well as that of any state the person reports to have lived in. They should look at the driving record if this person will be responsible for either transporting church members or running errands for the church. Background checks can be surface or they can be thorough, make sure you know what type of check your church is running. 

 

Beyond that, can the person provide references of people who are not relatives and at least one or two that aren't members of the current church? 

 

Does your church have a list of qualifications that volunteers must meet or do they take any "warm body?" 

 

Just some things to think about. 

 

The bolded is why we have two-deep leadership and other policies to prevent problems.  It is also why we require all parents who have their kids in programs at the church to take the course ... so they know what to look for if someone is not being appropriate.  A background check is worthless at catching talented abusers, who can abuse hundreds of kids before getting caught.

[Scarlett]

We take care of our own kids.

 

Pretty much the end. When I let my son go off with any adult of my congregation it is my personal business. That has been a pretty rare deal...more so now that he is older.

[wendyroo]

We had to take a membership class first, then a volunteer class. Background checks were mandatory and we were not given badges or allowed to volunteer in any capacity until the background checks were received. We have a book of approved volunteers, updated monthly, for us to check in the event that someone has misplaced a badge or forgot it. Not on the list? Not going in to the kids area. 

I do know that if there are issues with a background check (ie: a felony from long past, etc), they are not allowed to volunteer with children. That does not mean they would not be allowed to volunteer as greeters, in the cafe or resource center, or any other non-child related position. They understand that people have a past and are open to understanding the situation. But, kids are top priority and they protect them as best they can. 

 

No idea if it's mandated by the denomination or the leadership; but our leadership does it's best to be above reproach, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's leadership mandated. 

 

I only work in the children's section (up to 5th grade), so I'm not sure if the youth area had more stringent requirements. I do know that while men are allowed to volunteer in the children's area, they are always with a woman. This is especially true for areas where diaper changes are necessary. Men are not allowed to change diapers or to accompany children into the restrooms. I don't remember anything in particular about "relationships" though. 

Also, there are always at least 2 people in a classroom. 

 

We have security stationed at the kids area. If you do not have a volunteer badge or you do not have a parent sticker (meaning you have checked your students into the area), then you are not allowed access. There are also at least 4 kids area leaders walking the halls at all times. (They are typically taking attendance counts, but that still means there is not a lot of alone time for any group.)  

 

Does the bolded strike anyone else as insanely over the top?

 

These are men that have taken membership and volunteer classes, have passed a background check and are working with children in a very public, high-traffic area.  There are always at least two adults present and the powers that be have dictated that one of the adults must be female (because females are above reproach :glare:).

 

There are 4 area leaders walking the halls and popping into the rooms along with, one would assume, occasional parents coming and going.  There is security in the area.

 

With all those safety precautions in place, it is still considered too risky to let a man change a diaper?  If the female volunteer is busy then the child has to sit in a soiled diaper because too many highly vetted men will be uncontrollably aroused by infant and toddler genitalia?

 

I have three boys.  If any of them were to grow up to be a sexual predator, I would cry myself to sleep after turning them in so they would not be a further threat to society.  If, however, they grow up to be normal, morally responsible guys like the VAST majority of the population, I will cringe every time I see society treating them like felons and marginalizing the role they can play with children and youth even in situations that are statistically very safe.

 

Wendy

[dirty ethel rackham]

Does the bolded strike anyone else as insanely over the top?

 

These are men that have taken membership and volunteer classes, have passed a background check and are working with children in a very public, high-traffic area.  There are always at least two adults present and the powers that be have dictated that one of the adults must be female (because females are above reproach :glare:).

 

There are 4 area leaders walking the halls and popping into the rooms along with, one would assume, occasional parents coming and going.  There is security in the area.

 

With all those safety precautions in place, it is still considered too risky to let a man change a diaper?  If the female volunteer is busy then the child has to sit in a soiled diaper because too many highly vetted men will be uncontrollably aroused by infant and toddler genitalia?

 

I have three boys.  If any of them were to grow up to be a sexual predator, I would cry myself to sleep after turning them in so they would not be a further threat to society.  If, however, they grow up to be normal, morally responsible guys like the VAST majority of the population, I will cringe every time I see society treating them like felons and marginalizing the role they can play with children and youth even in situations that are statistically very safe.

 

Wendy

 

I think it was a rule created by men who just didn't want to change diapers.  Sinister plot and all.  :glare:

 

[Guest]

Does the bolded strike anyone else as insanely over the top?

 

These are men that have taken membership and volunteer classes, have passed a background check and are working with children in a very public, high-traffic area. There are always at least two adults present and the powers that be have dictated that one of the adults must be female (because females are above reproach :glare:).

 

There are 4 area leaders walking the halls and popping into the rooms along with, one would assume, occasional parents coming and going. There is security in the area.

 

With all those safety precautions in place, it is still considered too risky to let a man change a diaper? If the female volunteer is busy then the child has to sit in a soiled diaper because too many highly vetted men will be uncontrollably aroused by infant and toddler genitalia?

 

I have three boys. If any of them were to grow up to be a sexual predator, I would cry myself to sleep after turning them in so they would not be a further threat to society. If, however, they grow up to be normal, morally responsible guys like the VAST majority of the population, I will cringe every time I see society treating them like felons and marginalizing the role they can play with children and youth even in situations that are statistically very safe.

 

Wendy

That's the way our church does it too, Wendy. It is insane, but it's the age we live in. At least in our case, it's to protect the men from false accusation more than the children, because the false accusation is a lot more likely in a church full of fathers. But this is just another easy layer of protection for all involved to assure things are on the up and up.

 

I wish it didn't have to be this way, I wish we didn't have to treat the sons and husbands as abusers waiting to happen. But being overly cautious seems a better solution that letting someone be injured or someone have their reputation wrongly destroyed. Both are awful. And this is the easiest way to guard against that in a nursery setting.

[SKL]

Does the bolded strike anyone else as insanely over the top?

 

These are men that have taken membership and volunteer classes, have passed a background check and are working with children in a very public, high-traffic area.  There are always at least two adults present and the powers that be have dictated that one of the adults must be female (because females are above reproach :glare:).

 

There are 4 area leaders walking the halls and popping into the rooms along with, one would assume, occasional parents coming and going.  There is security in the area.

 

With all those safety precautions in place, it is still considered too risky to let a man change a diaper?  If the female volunteer is busy then the child has to sit in a soiled diaper because too many highly vetted men will be uncontrollably aroused by infant and toddler genitalia?

 

I have three boys.  If any of them were to grow up to be a sexual predator, I would cry myself to sleep after turning them in so they would not be a further threat to society.  If, however, they grow up to be normal, morally responsible guys like the VAST majority of the population, I will cringe every time I see society treating them like felons and marginalizing the role they can play with children and youth even in situations that are statistically very safe.

 

Wendy

 

Yes.  Except that the risk they are probably worried about is the risk that some irrational parent will accuse a nice guy of doing a terrible thing.

 

The risk of that is probably not high either, but it is easy to avoid so why not avoid it?  It is insulting to all men and boys, yes, but hopefully they can see it from the practical perspective.

 

 

[SKL]

About the diaper thing, it is funny how we went from men never being expected to change diapers because it's "women's work," to men being praised for being involved in that glorious duty, to men being shamed if they didn't want to do it, to now, men being suspected if they dare to do it.  :/  Progress?

[momacacia]

There were forms to fill our akin to an employee app--references, past churches, previous teaching experiences and ministry experiences--then a criminal background check--then a two-deep policy for teaching and taking children to bathrooms. If a husband-wife team were teaching they counted as 1, so always had to have another unrelated teacher with them. (I'm assuming because of spousal privilege). There was also a one-night teacher training before each year/summer program started. I think they had the best system down I've ever seen.

[Tsuga]

There are background checks at our school and parks and rec for all volunteers, but it is the protocols that are used to ensure that everyone is covered.

 

I view these as written forms of taboos which humans have used for millennia to provide social order.

 

Background checks don't catch everybody. There's a first time for everything. People can always be accused.

 

Protocols / taboos protect the innocent adults and children by ensuring that there is always an alibi for everyone. Breaking these rules is a big problem, IMO. I hate seeing sex scandals and molestation scandals. I hate the fact that in some families, men are considered predators until proven innocent (which is impossible because you can't prove a negative like that). But that can happen when there are not rules in place that ensure that we all have a clear understanding of what is appropriate and not appropriate.

 

By making rules about how many people need to be present in each situation (two-deep all the time, overnight additional non-related chaperone of each sex), you have a quantifiable, easily enforceable standard of what is appropriate. People who break it are inappropriate and can be removed from the community before anyone is hurt most of the time.

 

It is not hard to apply the exact same standard to men and women alike.

 

This to me is the best non-sexist way to protect a community from people who would abuse their power. Training in "sensitivity" and background checks are like sieves--anyone can make it through if they try.

 

If anyone accuses, you have a written record of who was where, when.

 

Everyone benefits from this. In many communities this has been the norm for so long that it's hardly considered restrictive--everyone knows it's in their own best interest.

[Tsuga]

Yes.  Except that the risk they are probably worried about is the risk that some irrational parent will accuse a nice guy of doing a terrible thing.

 

The risk of that is probably not high either, but it is easy to avoid so why not avoid it?  It is insulting to all men and boys, yes, but hopefully they can see it from the practical perspective.

 

 

 

It is not insulting to men if the standard is applied equally to all adults regardless of sex. We have no idea whether men are more likely to be reported because people want to protect daughters, teen boys are afraid of the shame if they say that an adult woman abused them, etc. I'm remaining agnostic on those stats and I demand that the rule apply regardless of sex and simply apply to adults with minors.

 

It would be sexist to apply the standard only to men. I say just apply it to all adults. "With minors of a different sex and/or gender" covers the transsexual/transgender population as well, as that counts as a different gender/sex in many statistics. Voila. Not sexist, safe for all. Not that this would be likely in a conservative Christian setting, but this is a CYA rule, so CYA completely.

[AimeeM]

We're Catholic.

Any volunteers, even parents of children attending one of the parish private schools wishing to volunteer in ANY capacity, must pay for a background check *and* attend a Protecting God's Children workshop. 

 

[SKL]

It is not insulting to men if the standard is applied equally to all adults regardless of sex. We have no idea whether men are more likely to be reported because people want to protect daughters, teen boys are afraid of the shame if they say that an adult woman abused them, etc. I'm remaining agnostic on those stats and I demand that the rule apply regardless of sex and simply apply to adults with minors.

 

It would be sexist to apply the standard only to men. I say just apply it to all adults. "With minors of a different sex and/or gender" covers the transsexual/transgender population as well, as that counts as a different gender/sex in many statistics. Voila. Not sexist, safe for all. Not that this would be likely in a conservative Christian setting, but this is a CYA rule, so CYA completely.

 

I was talking specifically about the rule cited by a PP saying that males were not allowed to change diapers.

 

Someone has to change the diapers, right?

 

Though I've been in some places where they say if your kid needs a diaper change, you will be paged to come and do it yourself.

[jewellsmommy]

We are a very small church. I am probably the only volunteer worker who has had a background check and that is because I used to teach in our preschool/daycare center.

 

Our volunteers are trained. There are rules. It is forbidden for an adult to be alone with a child that is not their child. Unfortunately, what happens in churches like ours, where families are close, is that the rules get ignored for this person or that person because they are practically family etc.

 

For example,  Family A and Family B see each other all the time outside of church. They go to the same co-op, watch each other's kids, spend the night together, etc. The adult of Family A is alone with family B's kids at private residents a lot, so do you think they really pay attention to being alone in a room at church? Nope. It doesn't cross their mind at all.

 

Two of the youngest kids in my program stayed with me over a week when their mom was in the hospital. They call me Aunt Tammy, but at church I still try my best to maintain the professional boundaries for everyone's sake. It is not easy.

 

My dh is currently the Wed. night youth leader. The youth are our dd, and a sibling group (boy, girl) of another homeschooling family. There is no other adult available to be with him. The rule is satisfied by making sure that there are always at least 2 youth in the room with him, or he steps out into the hall with the one yth. With only 3 youth this is very hard to do, but we do it...in the church. Because guess what, the boy youth of the aforementioned yth sibling group and his younger brother stayed at my house for 2 nights with dh and ds because their mom and I took my dd and her dd (of the yth sibling group) on a retreat. Blurred lines all over the place!

 

I have seen that this is not unique to our church. This is a problem and presents major difficulty for the really small churches. There just aren't enough adult volunteers, and there is so much familiarity between the families.

 

Leadership can have all the rules in place  and background checks. It may not even make a bit of difference. We have had 2 incidents. One was not a volunteer/worker with yth or children. He was just a church member. The abuse went on for years. The girl was one of our regular youth, and we were devastated when she finally told us. Background checks would not have changed anything because he nor the second incident abuser had past criminal charges. The abuse in the 2nd incident also took place outside of our church. :crying:

 

I hate this. I know so many lives who have been touched by abuse. It seems like an insurmountable problem. 

 

I share this just to say, don't let your guard down just because your church does background checks or think that there are rules in place. An abuser does not care about their victim or the law, do you think a rule is going to stop them? Of course not. Ya'll already know this, I know. I just feel better typing it anyway. And small church people...be careful, even with the beloved 'church family.' I know how hard it is, but keep your eyes open and constantly talk to your kids about the adult relationships in your all's lives.

[Tsuga]

I was talking specifically about the rule cited by a PP saying that males were not allowed to change diapers.

 

Someone has to change the diapers, right?

 

Though I've been in some places where they say if your kid needs a diaper change, you will be paged to come and do it yourself.

Sorry I missed that.

 

Yes that is sexist and appalling.

[G5052]

Right now I am casually attending a very small church in a small town and I am not sure how they run the children's ministry. Our former church was a mega church and they did background checks on all volunteers and always had two deep leadership like Boy Scouts.

 

FWIW, small church here too with no formal policies.  No youth group though, and only one Sunday School class for 5th grade and under taught by an elder's wife.  Frankly given that situation, we're probably low-risk in the scheme of things.  When we do community vacation Bible school, two-deep is built into how we run things, but that's actually the only situation I think of that might be called into question.

 

Other situations where I've been working with children, background checks were required, and there was often training.  Even at the community colleges, I have to do this because I teach a class that is available for dual enrollment.

[Space station]

All people who work with Children or youth in our church have a background check, go through training on safe practices and identifying when abuse may be happening. We also have 2 deep coverage for all classrooms, and all doors are either open, or have glass windows in them.

[kirstenhill]

No formal training class, but volunteers have to attend the church for six months before they can volunteer with kids. There is also a background check, references, and I think we signed something in regard to following the policies. Teens/pre-teens who volunteer still fill out a form and have to provide references. I know the church staff really do check the references before people are allowed to volunteer with kids.

[Xahm]

i was discussing nursery policy with a group of church moms and grandmas at a Bible study. Many of us are involved with the young children The conversation was bizarre to me. One younger grandma was insisting that many churches are moving to a policy of "no diaper changes except by parents." She said that one reason at some churches was that teenagers were helping change diapers and that they noticed that some boys were circumcised and some weren't.  Apparently this was "inappropriate sex ed." The same woman was horrified at the thought that she, as the 2-3 year old Sunday School teacher, would have to give any help to potty-training toddlers. She just told parents that their children should be able to do that themselves. So people stopped bringing their kids to her class because they don't want their kids to have accidents right before church.

My point in the discussion was that I think that 2 deep policies are good and background checks are good insurance cya, but that if I don't trust nursery workers enough to change a poopy diaper or help a toddler potty, I don't trust them enough to leave my children in their care. I won't be part of a church that has paranoia as its official policy any more than I will be part of one with blind trust as the official policy.

This church does need to improve and enforce existing policies. For example, I don't know, when I'm helping little ones to the bathroom adjacent to the classroom whether I should leave the door ajar for accountability or completely closed  for the children's privacy. Thankfully, two of the children are mine and I know the other moms well enough that it's not really an issue at the current time.

Wow. I spend way too much time these days thinking about the potty! 

[Mom22ns]

All volunteers that work with kids at our church get a background check. At our previous larger church, in addition to a background check, those who worked with young children had some training and there were rules about never being alone with the kids.

 

I did always have the same question as xahm, do you close the door when a toddler is using the bathroom so they get privacy or leave it open so they aren't alone with an adult. I got conflicting advice about this, but I generally went with leaving it open just a little so that there was privacy, but another adult in the room could have at least heard any suspicious activity.

[PeacefulChaos]

The bathroom situation is always a difficult one.  

 

The church we used to attend had a nursery for under 2 on Sunday mornings, and we never had to take anyone to the bathroom - most kids that age just aren't potty training yet.  Not seriously, anyway.  However, on Wednesday nights, we had under 3s instead, so we had 2 year olds who we did have to take to the bathroom.  I always just walked with them to the bathroom (we only went to the regular sized one), helped them get up on the toilet if needed (some of them - Pink included - were so tiny there was no way they could get up there on their own!), helped with any clothing issues (tights, zippers, etc), and then would pull the door closed and stand outside it while they did their business.  I offered help if they needed it, otherwise they came out and I'd help with the clothing again, then help them make sure they washed their hands well.

That same church had a 2-3 year old class (on Sundays only) that dealt much more with potty issues.  Some moms would insist that their child was potty-trained, but in reality the parent was trained to ask the kid every 20 minutes if they needed to go to the bathroom, which is not something that a teacher can do when supervising 20 kids that age with one other adult!  Especially considering that there are usually multiple kids who are potty training at the same time at that age.  In that classroom they did have a private little bathroom with a tiny toilet, so the kid could at least go on their own barring any clothing issues or anything.  

The 3 year olds, once they started the preschool class on Wednesdays, were expected to go to the bathroom completely independently.  The teacher didn't want to do so much as help with tights or zippers.  She actually came into the nursery a couple times and said "I don't help children go to the bathroom.  ____ needs help (literally ALL this kid needed was someone to help her with her tights and help get her up onto the toilet).  Can you come do it?"  :blink:  Uh... okay.  But realize that if *I* can do it, *you* can do it, too!!  :lol:  

 

Anyway, that was long and pointless - suffice to say that 1. I am very glad to not be dealing with children who require potty help anymore!  and 2. Once Pink was potty trained, I never put her in tights!  :lol: