Protecting Children and Youth Training Status for those without youth callings

Our primary has been asked to only use substitutes in classes if they have completed the Protecting Children and Youth Training, so they've asked me if I can look up who in the ward has/hasn't completed the training. I can only see the standard report for those with youth/children callings - is there a way to look up other ward members not currently in these callings to see if they have completed the training?

Not presently. I suspect the report will eventually have that capability for just the reason you have stated. For now you should send feedback at the bottom of the report page.

bonusarmy wrote:Our primary has been asked to only use substitutes in classes if they have completed the Protecting Children and Youth Training, so they've asked me if I can look up who in the ward has/hasn't completed the training. I can only see the standard report for those with youth/children callings - is there a way to look up other ward members not currently in these callings to see if they have completed the training?

Through the Ward Council we have asked all those who have completed the training to forward their completion email to me as Ward Clerk. This way we can keep tabs on the situation. I have successfully completed the training, but at the moment the report doesn’t show me at all. It also would seem that the results are entered by hand.
One member of a presidency completed the training last week and it took four days to appear in the report. The report for us has only just appeared in LCR.

Is there not a place to record a substitute as a calling that will appear on the report?

russellhltn wrote:Is there not a place to record a substitute as a calling that will appear on the report?

From what I can see the report is updated remotely. There doesn’t appear to be any way, at the local level, to influence what or whom appears there.

Biggles wrote:

russellhltn wrote:Is there not a place to record a substitute as a calling that will appear on the report?

From what I can see the report is updated remotely. There doesn’t appear to be any way, at the local level, to influence what or whom appears there.

I think the question was, can you add members as substitute youth teachers on LCR (as a standard calling)? If you that, the report of youth teachers should *then* show which do not have the training linked to their membership record (as there appears to be no way to see that from investigating the membership records individually).

Or perhaps I did not understand.

davesudweeks wrote:I think the question was, can you add members as substitute youth teachers on LCR (as a standard calling)? If you that, the report of youth teachers should *then* show which do not have the training linked to their membership record (as there appears to be no way to see that from investigating the membership records individually).

Or perhaps I did not understand.

You understand correctly.

I'm thinking that substitute teaching should be like other callings that go though the standard review process - including bishop's approval and not just grabbing someone who is available in the hallway. If it's a calling done according to General Handbook 30.1, then pre-existing training shouldn't be a issue or a factor in the process.

If they're reacting in the heat of the moment, then I have a bigger issue about the selection getting the bishop's review. The general leadership may not be aware of situations that would should exclude that person from consideration. Just because they passed training doesn't mean they should be considered.

russellhltn wrote:

davesudweeks wrote:I think the question was, can you add members as substitute youth teachers on LCR (as a standard calling)? If you that, the report of youth teachers should *then* show which do not have the training linked to their membership record (as there appears to be no way to see that from investigating the membership records individually).

Or perhaps I did not understand.

You understand correctly.

I'm thinking that substitute teaching should be like other callings that go though the standard review process - including bishop's approval and not just grabbing someone who is available in the hallway. If it's a calling done according to General Handbook 30.1, then pre-existing training shouldn't be a issue or a factor in the process.

If they're reacting in the heat of the moment, then I have a bigger issue about the selection getting the bishop's review. The general leadership may not be aware of situations that would should exclude that person from consideration. Just because they passed training doesn't mean they should be considered.

When I served as clerk, our ward had a small set of members called to be substitute teachers as an additional calling if they were normally available during the youth meetings. That way YM/YW/Primary all had a list of individuals they could tap in a pinch. It also allowed the bishop to vet the list. I cannot recall if we had them "called" in LCR - I have slept since then...

I am wondering whether this desire to have every possible substitute be required to first complete the training, is a local discretionary choice, or dictated by general policy? My understanding is that the training is specifically for those with assignments/callings for children and youth, and that others are invited to also complete the training. But it is not a requirement for things like adult Ministering companions who are assigned a Youth, and a Bishop might feel substitute teachers are also in that type of category.

I'm not disagreeing with a local leader's desire to pro-actively ensure the protection of their children and youth, we all know that for too long we weren't careful enough. Just looking for clarity if I've missed additional guidelines from the Church regarding substitute teachers.

BrianEdwards wrote:I am wondering whether this desire to have every possible substitute be required to first complete the training, is a local discretionary choice, or dictated by general policy?

From Handbook 12.5.1:

All adults who work with children must complete the children and youth protection training within one month of being sustained

This goes back to my question about how substitutes are selected and called. The Handbook appears silent on that.

BrianEdwards wrote:I am wondering whether this desire to have every possible substitute be required to first complete the training, is a local discretionary choice, or dictated by general policy?

In some places it is dictated by state law and the training legally has to take place before substitute service begins. Other states allow 30 days.

lajackson wrote:In some places it is dictated by state law and the training legally has to take place before substitute service begins. Other states allow 30 days.

Interesting. You'd think the Handbook's directives would reflect that.

russellhltn wrote:You'd think the Handbook's directives would reflect that.

It is a worldwide handbook based on principles. There is not room to include all of the variables. Leaders are responsible to know local laws and requirements.

Article of Faith 12 and Doctrine and Covenants 58:26.

lajackson wrote:It is a worldwide handbook based on principles. There is not room to include all of the variables.

Understood about the variables, but I would have thought that if it was at all common, the Handbook would reflect the more restrictive cases. As it is, 30 days after sustaining seems quite generous. (I'm guessing Utah doesn't have any such requirement. )

A good example of that (IMO) is the restriction against cooking in church kitchens. I believe it's there to avoid running afoul of local heath regulations that prohibit cooking for groups unless the kitchen is commercial grade and inspected. The restriction is due to law, but the church puts it in their Handbook.

russellhltn wrote:I would have thought that if it was at all common, the Handbook would reflect the more restrictive cases. As it is, 30 days after sustaining seems quite generous. (I'm guessing Utah doesn't have any such requirement. )

From what I have seen, 30 days is the general requirement, which is probably why it is in the Handbook. And truthfully, for places with more restrictive rules, the Church training usually does not qualify anyway.

I have not had a need to look up the Utah requirement. Anyone serving there should know what it is, of course.

Your kitchen example is a good one, but breaking the food heating rules will not land you in prison.

In my mind, there's a difference between "formal" substitute teachers who are already in place and ready to be used, and a "single-use" substitute teacher who is grabbed in the hallway because 5 Primary teachers didn't show up and they need two-deep help with the classes. I know that the Church is now much more careful about which adults are with youth/children and making sure they are trained. I'm just wondering if the spirit of the law also extends to anyone who might be asked to temporarily fill in, or if there's intentional flexibility for a local leader to determine where to make a distinction. If the Handbook and other online materials don't make this clarification, that's fine, -- but I don't want to be charting our own path if there was additional guidance.

BrianEdwards wrote:I'm just wondering if the spirit of the law also extends to anyone who might be asked to temporarily fill in, or if there's intentional flexibility for a local leader to determine where to make a distinction.

The Handbook seems to give some leeway as it calls for training within 30 days of being sustained.

The real question is what the local laws say. They may not be so forgiving.

BrianEdwards wrote:In my mind, there's a difference between "formal" substitute teachers who are already in place and ready to be used, and a "single-use" substitute teacher who is grabbed in the hallway because 5 Primary teachers didn't show up and they need two-deep help with the classes. I know that the Church is now much more careful about which adults are with youth/children and making sure they are trained. I'm just wondering if the spirit of the law also extends to anyone who might be asked to temporarily fill in, or if there's intentional flexibility for a local leader to determine where to make a distinction. If the Handbook and other online materials don't make this clarification, that's fine, -- but I don't want to be charting our own path if there was additional guidance.

Your priesthood leaders are responsible for interpreting the handbook if there are questions. We can all give your opinions on the forum, but that is all they are.

My opinion: In this day and age, I would be wary of any Primary or YM/YW or SS presidency member just grabbing an available member "in the hall" or "from an adult class" to sit in with youth classes. That is a risky proposition at best. It might be fine, but if something bad happens it could get ugly very quickly. If I was bishop (I am not, currently), I would suggest combining classes first as a work around to use the teachers who have had the required safety training.

It would be best to just show the training status for any member; called or not. Delinquent training reports should flag those in an applicable calling. If a Ward Clerk is asked to be a substitute teacher, should he not have had the training? He is obviously trustworthy as a member. I imagine most have tacked the training, but good to show a positive acknowledgment of such.

edhammond wrote:It would be best to just show the training status for any member; called or not. Delinquent training reports should flag those in an applicable calling.

I agree that would be best, but there is no report that shows which members have had the training. Only those in callings that require it are shown. That is the problem that is being discussed, if I understand correctly. If having a report that will show which members have current children and youth safety training (regardless of their calling) is valuable, one should provide feedback from the page where the report can be run.

Your priesthood leaders are responsible for interpreting the handbook if there are questions. We can all give your opinions on the forum, but that is all they are.

I actually am a Priesthood leader directly responsible for interpreting the handbook And I've been asked this question for my interpretation, and I've asked my leader for his interpretation. I'm at the point where I must do what all Church leaders do in the end, look for the Spirit to inspire me specifically. But one good thing about this forum is that many forum members are a bit more "plugged in" to ongoing updates, as opposed to some local leaders that are so swamped with life, that they often don't keep track of all the various new things that come across their email desks.

So I welcome everyone's opinion, whether that's where to look in in the Handbook or online, as well as personal ideas. Gives me more to consider, as I decide what is appropriate for our local unit.

BrianEdwards wrote:So I welcome everyone's opinion, whether that's where to look in in the Handbook or online, as well as personal ideas. Gives me more to consider, as I decide what is appropriate for our local unit.

Your state has mandatory reporting laws (I think they all do), but I am not able to find anything online that requires state-mandated training for those who work with youth (a few states do). And if that is true, you are probably just fine working with the Handbook guidelines.

I think if I found that someone was regularly substituting, I would ask them to take the Church training. If someone only substituted once or twice a year, or was only in the classroom occasionally to be a second adult leader, I would not worry about it, although it would not hurt for anyone who ever teaches children and youth to take the training.

If you are the presiding Handbook interpreter, you will know who is not allowed to work with children and youth, and you would quietly let organization leaders know not to ask them to substitute. Or more likely, you would approve substitutes in advance as requested by organization leaders, and they would ask you if a member had not yet specifically been approved to sub.

I know this is a pretty old thread, but has anyone found a way to get this information? We're looking to confirm training status for adult chaperons (volunteers not callings) for YM's Camp, YW's Camp, and Youth Conference.

The report is the only source. It only includes those with specific callings.

jdlessley wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 8:55 pm The report is the only source. It only includes those with specific callings.

There is an update: Sometime in the past couple of months the availability of members to view their own protecting children and youth training has been added to their "My Home" page on the Church website. The "Youth Protection Training" tile is in the column on the right side of the page. The tile shows your training status, the last completed date, the renewal date, a Start Training button, and a "Learn More" link.

I am not certain whether this tile is available to all members, if it is limited to just adult members, or any other limited list of members. I do not have a calling that puts me on the current training report but I have the tile on My Home page.

Based on this added capability for members to view their own training status then I would expect (speculation) there may be a change coming to the current Protecting Children and Youth Training report to include all (adult?) members of a unit.

To track the training for Primary Substitutes, we created a custom calling, "Primary Substitute" in Primary and we pass a list around for people to sign up as Primary Substitutes. Those who sign up have it recorded as a calling which adds them to the list of people who need to complete the training and we have them complete the training as necessary. This way the Primary President can track who has had the training. If someone signs up as a Primary Substitute but then doesn't do the training, we remove them from the substitute list.