What is a home teaching visit?

[mormonmusic]

Just wondering what you think a home teaching visit should be defined as for "counting".

I pose this question because whether you agree with it or not, home teaching statistics are important to the Stake leaders, and probably the people above them.

So, how do you define a "visit"? I know Relief Society splits visiting teaching between contacts and actual visits, but quorums will often go by the gold standard of a "sit down meeting with a prayer and a message in the members' home". There is no column for reporting "contacts" in the Quorum reporting section of MLS either.

Some quorums will want to include letters from a mailing list, while others will not include mailings at all.

Do you see a visit as the home teacher's best effort to see a family? Or is it to be measured by the gold standard (if you think one exists). And do you think home teaching numbers have a motivational effect, as well as being an indicator of home teaching activity? And should the impact on the home teacher's/quorum's motivation be a consideration when deciding if an attempt to home teach should be counted? Or is this irrelevant?

[applepansy]

In my opinion it is "contact" with that family or person.

What is the purpose of home teaching? To check on the family, to be available should there be a need, to know the family well enough that if there is a need they might call for help. The lesson is nice but its secondary to the purpose.

There are conference talks about the purpose of home teaching and visiting teaching. If the visit fulfills the purpose, nothing more is necessary.

[MarginOfError]

The instructions on the Quarterly Report are that home teaching numbers should be reported for families that were visited by their home teachers. For visiting teaching, sisters only need be contacted by their visiting teachers.

For statistical and reporting purposes, the only number that should be reported is the number of families that received visits. Phone calls and letters do not count (consistent with the scriptural basis of home teaching, that priesthood holders should "watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them" (D&C 20:53).

Local priesthood leaders may track contacts by phone and letter, but these home teaching contacts should not be reported to the stake and Administration Office.

[pam]

What is a home teaching or visiting teaching visit? It's been so long since I've had either I forget what they are.

[mormonmusic]

Originally Posted by MarginOfError

For statistical and reporting purposes, the only number that should be reported is the number of families that received visits. Phone calls and letters do not count (consistent with the scriptural basis of home teaching, that priesthood holders should "watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them" (D&C 20:53).

But let me ask some questions....

What if you have families who want only letter contact? They don't want their name removed. Visiting them is a mistake as it shows a lack of respect for their wishes. As the stats are used to judge the effectiveness of priesthood leaders in administering home teaching, why shouldn't these families be counted as home taught -- at the highest level they are willing to receive?

People who have written name removal letters, and it takes over two years to get the paperwork processed.

Or the family who has moved with no forwarding address, and you've sent mail in hopes of getting a forward, checked with the neighbours, and tried to contact relatives and family members and have nothing? You've tried to move them out, but then SLC sends the record back to you?

Or the people who just don't want to be bothered with a home teaching, in spite of willing priesthood holders to go there?

Do you feel this very letter of the law standard applies?

Personally, I don't, because Stake leaders use the gross number as a judgment of how well the Ward is getting out there to try to strengthen their families. I've seen the gross number used over and over again to decide if the ward is paying sufficient attention to home teaching. For me, it's a misuse of the numbers, as rarely are questions asked about resources available, how many families are on the rolls, or the number of people who simply refuse to be home taught.

I actually went through our rolls once, and found that if I'd done everything I could reasonably do with each family, and therefore counted them as home taught, then home teaching was 90-95%. If went off actual visits, it was 35-45%. This is on a total membership of 200 families in my area.

I'm interested in views on this, as to keep my own personal motivation up, I started reporting Visits/Companionship to the quorum, and set that as a starting point goal for home teaching.

Here are the Ward Stats, on average:

Families Assigned to Quorum: 190 to 210
Home Teaching Companionships: 12-14

[MarginOfError]

Originally Posted by mormonmusic

But let me ask some questions....

What if you have families who want only letter contact? They don't want their name removed. Visiting them is a mistake as it shows a lack of respect for their wishes.

Then you send a letter each month and don't report the visit. The bishop should be aware of which families are in this category and when he has his interview with the stake president he can report on the frequency with which letters are sent. Remember, the purpose of the face-to-face interviews is to bring the stake president up to speed with things that aren't reflected in the reported numbers.

Speaking as a clerk and as a statistician, it is imperative that you report only the visits, because if you report other things, then the aggregated numbers don't mean anything.

People who have written name removal letters, and it takes over two years to get the paperwork processed.

Get on your ward clerk, bishop, and stake president to get them off the records.

The families who say they want a home teacher, but continually miss or refuse to set appointments until they lose the benefits of a home teacher due to more responsive families who need limited HT resources.

Wards and branches in this situation would be best off to focus their resources where they will be the most effective. That may mean you prayerfully select the 45 families your 15 companionships can reach out to with the best prospect of reactivation. When you reactivate members, you can then expand your home teaching numbers.

While 100% home teaching is an admirable goal, it is meaningless if the members aren't being nourished and strengthened. The principle to focus on is "growing the ward." So you may not be able to reach 100% (or even 80%) home teaching at the moment. That's fine. Focus your efforts where they are of the most value. Then hope your bishop has the cahones to stand up to the stake president if the stake president says that 40% isn't good enough.

40% with ward growth is incalculably better than 100% with no growth.

Or the family who has moved with no forwarding address, and you've sent mail in hopes of getting a forward, checked with the neighbours, and tried to contact relatives and family members and have nothing? You've tried to move them out, but then SLC sends the record back to you.

Salt Lake has a lot more resources to find members than the local units do. They use national registries to locate people and do a pretty good job of it. If they send a record back to you, odds are that the member lives at the address they give you. If you can verify otherwise (for example through white pages search) then provide that information to Salt Lake and send it back.

Do you feel this very letter of the law standard applies?

Yes. The aggregated home teaching numbers are worthless if they are not reported consistently across units. You report the letter of the law on the Quarterly Report. You report the spirit of the law to your stake president.

Personally, I don't, because Stake leaders use the gross number as a judgment of how well the Ward is getting out there to try to strengthen their families. There are rarely questions asked about resources available, how many families are on the rolls, or the number of people who simply refuse to be home taught.

If these questions are not being asked of your bishop during the monthly interviews, the bishop should start bringing it up. These questions should absolutely be part of the discussion at the local level.

I actually went through our rolls once, and found that if I'd done everything I could reasonably do with each family, and therefore counted them as home taught, then home teaching was 90-95%. If went off actual visits, it was 35-45%. This is on a total membership of 200 families in my area.

I'd say you're trying too hard. Focus your efforts. President Hinckley spoke of concerted efforts in his talk about increasing convert baptisms. That means focused, coordinated efforts. Put your efforts where they will do the most good now. Grow the ward, and then expand.

I'm interested in views on this, as to keep my own personal motivation up, I started reporting Visits/Companionship to the quorum, and set that as a starting point goal.

Here are the Ward Stats, on average:

Families Assigned to Quorum: 190 to 210
Home Teaching Companionships: 12-14

With 12 - 14 companionships, you could reasonably reach 36 - 42 families, and perhaps a few more. Pick out 10 less active families to focus your efforts on. Each time you reactivate two families (assuming a priesthood holder), you can expand to include 3 - 4 more families. In the meantime, use the Relief Society to supplement your efforts.

Sometimes there's only so much you can do. Don't worry about what the numbers say about your efforts. Think instead about what the Savior is going to say about your efforts when you report to Him.

[mormonmusic]

Hopefully my point-by-point responses here aren't perceived as argumentative -- I'm saying what comes to mind to each of these points you've made.

Originally Posted by MarginOfError

Then you send a letter each month and don't report the visit. The bishop should be aware of which families are in this category and when he has his interview with the stake president he can report on the frequency with which letters are sent. Remember, the purpose of the face-to-face interviews is to bring the stake president up to speed with things that aren't reflected in the reported numbers.

Speaking as a clerk and as a statistician, it is imperative that you report only the visits, because if you report other things, then the aggregated numbers don't mean anything.

Makes perfect sense. However, there was never any such conversation I was aware of. Our SP would show up at Ward council concluding the records weren't clean because there were so many less actives.

Also, Ward leaders been "called out" by high councilors or members of the Stake Presidency on the basis of the gross number. The worse case scenario was when a Stake Leader called the entire quorum to repentence on home teaching (those words), when the Ward was doing an average of 3.5 visits per companionship, and 3 weeks prior, 8 companionships had done a blitz of 35 families to help contact families who hadn't been seen.

I hope you end up being my Stake President some day, because you seem to understand the need to do the necessary research to understand the Ward's efforts on HT. You can't just go off a gross number and think it tells the whole story -- you have to do research to truly understand the effort being put into home teaching and its impact. And if you start punishing on the basis of gross numbers, then people will bend the rules to produce numbers that reflect their overall effort.

Get on your ward clerk, bishop, and stake president to get them off the records.

This was your suggestion for getting name removals processed that sat round for years.

On that note, I mentioned it in each PEC dedicated to Home teaching for a period of 6 months, mentioned it in a PPI with a member of the Stake Presidency, and also to our High Councilor. I also ran a list of name removals that needed to be processed, and put it in the Bishop's mailbox with the home teaching report, highlighting the names to be removed, and the comments next to them. Did this every month for about a year.

Finally, myself and the Ward Clerk filled out the necessary report in MLS, and made it ready for the Bishop. Those name removals are still on our Ward records two years later. Finally, the High Councilor just said to count them if I'd reminded the Bishop through my highlighted list.

I've learned that it's not good to be too much of a pest to the people above you; they don't appreciate it. And as our Stake clerk said "Our Stake Presidency moves at their own pace".

We carried about 12 name removals for a few years -- that represented 5% of our total stewardship.

[mormonmusic]

The last thread was long, so I continued it here:

Wards and branches in this situation would be best off to focus their resources where they will be the most effective. That may mean you prayerfully select the 45 families your 15 companionships can reach out to with the best prospect of reactivation. When you reactivate members, you can then expand your home teaching numbers.

In our Ward, I had 12-14 companionships. The faithful brethren were tied up with people who had real needs -- elderly, welfare recipients (our Bishop relied heavily on me to train home teachers to do needs analysis and help with follow-up), and the vocal members of the Ward who demanded home teachers. Also, new converts who we didn't want to lose also received good home teachers immediately.

Also certain brethren were so reluctant to do home teaching, you had to give them active families that were easy to see or they would't make the effort. So, we never got the activation thing happening. There wasn't the capacity.

While 100% home teaching is an admirable goal, it is meaningless if the members aren't being nourished and strengthened. The principle to focus on is "growing the ward."

I'm not sure if growth is the only metric. The metrics did include activity, but also endowed members with temple recommends, prospective elders advanced to the priesthood, people receiveing endowments who were previously unendowed, sacrament meeting attendance etcetera, new convert baptisms, retention, and yes, activation. Those are the metrics they should be looking at. It's the whole pie.

In my view, home teachign stats are a measure of energy expended, nothing more. They are not outcomes based. And if we can't count letters, and its important for the SP to know these letters are happening, we should be able to report visits AND contacts just as RS does.

So you may not be able to reach 100% (or even 80%) home teaching at the moment. That's fine. Focus your efforts where they are of the most value. Then hope your bishop has the cahones to stand up to the stake president if the stake president says that 40% isn't good enough.

That's what was missing. So, I had to do it constantly -- remind the High Councilor and SP of the effort and resources we were expending, and it got wearing. The month we were called to repentance at 3.5 to 4.5 visits per companionship, HT well-organized, and the solid brethren did an extra 35 visits the month previously, it put me in an awkard position. Do I stand up to the SP in the meeting, or just let it slide and let everyone be depressed? After so much of this, you want those numbers to look decent, and to reflect the actual effort expended reaching out to others, not visits that were not possible with so many in our stewardship.

With 12 - 14 companionships, you could reasonably reach 36 - 42 families, and perhaps a few more. Pick out 10 less active families to focus your efforts on. Each time you reactivate two families (assuming a priesthood holder), you can expand to include 3 - 4 more families. In the meantime, use the Relief Society to supplement your efforts.

.

Visits were between 42 and 60 visits in each regular month. We hit those numbers regularly.

Sometimes there's only so much you can do. Don't worry about what the numbers say about your efforts. Think instead about what the Savior is going to say about your efforts when you report to Him.

We were never cut any slack on this department.

I hope I don't sound too negative about this, but the fact is, I grew weary of the constant expectations of high gross percentages when the brethren weren't willing to take on any more than 3-5 families, so many were inactive, and there were so many needs from active members of the Ward.

Who would've thought the mandate to "visit the home of every member" would be so challenging!

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by mormonmusic

This was your suggestion for getting name removals processed that sat round for years.

On that note, I mentioned it in each PEC dedicated to Home teaching for a period of 6 months, mentioned it in a PPI with a member of the Stake Presidency, and also to our High Councilor. I also ran a list of name removals that needed to be processed, and put it in the Bishop's mailbox with the home teaching report, highlighting the names to be removed, and the comments next to them. Did this every month for about a year.

Finally, myself and the Ward Clerk filled out the necessary report in MLS, and made it ready for the Bishop. Those name removals are still on our Ward records two years later. Finally, the High Councilor just said to count them if I'd reminded the Bishop through my highlighted list.

Sounds like you've done more than your part -- you shouldn't be held accountable for what your leaders aren't following through on. For that matter, neither should anyone else be held accountable for it (their current home teachers, for example). However, if they've request that their names be removed, and that is (supposedly) in process, they probably aren't willing to accept home teachers in the meantime anyway, and should be included in the numbers at all.

On this issue, I'm with what MOE said in his previous post:

Sometimes there's only so much you can do. Don't worry about what the numbers say about your efforts. Think instead about what the Savior is going to say about your efforts when you report to Him.

[mormonmusic]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Sounds like you've done more than your part -- you shouldn't be held accountable for what your leaders aren't following through on. For that matter, neither should anyone else be held accountable for it (their current home teachers, for example). :

Thanks for the vote of confidence on that one.

My bottom line on home teaching -- you're given a nearly impossible goal, not enough resources to achieve it, and inflexible reporting mechanisms that don't accurately reflect the level of effort expended by priesthood leaders. These inflexible reporting mechanisms and lack of complete information often lead Stake and High Council leaders to jump to conclusions about the level of effort, often concluding little effort is being expended when this isn't the case.

The impact is highly demotivating to Ward priesthood leaders after a period of years. At least in my case, and also the HPGL before me who suggested that at about 1.5 years his frustration level had pretty much maxed out, so he asked to be released.

Now, I'm not dissing the home teaching program -- I think it's highly valuable and essential, however, the way it's reported and monitored, and the disconnect between effort expended and how success is defined is harmful to the motivation of the people who have to administer it and do the home teaching.

But I think the reporting needs to be changed -- visits, contacts, and visit refusals being the three categories. Also a metric that shows the average visit per companionship.

There are two sides to this coin -- one is the nourishment of the members. The other is the motivation of the people who have to carry out the program. Both are important, and I think the current measurement system ignores the latter.

There are times I think our ways of measuring success actually promotes the negative kinds of attitudes that so many brethren have toward home teaching. For me a home teacher who tries to set up an appointment, gets blown off twice, and finally shows up at the door, finds no one home, and leaves a message and a note expressing love and concern has done his job. He can't force the agency of his family.

However, if they've request that their names be removed, and that is (supposedly) in process, they probably aren't willing to accept home teachers in the meantime anyway, and should be included in the numbers at all.

The MLS system won't let you change the denominator of the total families in the Ward. Your only option is to make them unassigned, which is still included in the total. And then, the Stake will be disturbed you have so many unassigned families. They will think you are not administering the program -- every person needs to be assigned to a district of some kind, they think.