Why home teaching is a horrible model for emergency communications

[tfurrows]

PREFACE: I have a solid testimony in the value and importance of the home teaching system of the Church, and believe with all my heart that it is an inspired program, given to help the saints care for each other and meet the needs of God's children on earth. I would not change this program for the world.

-----

I have a strong feeling this idea and opinion is not new or uniquely mine, but I would like to share it and get your thoughts. My premise / hypothesis is simply this:

Home teaching is a horrible model for emergency communications.

Now, I used the word "horrible" intentionally here - I don't think it is a "bad" model or a "less than perfect" model, I truly believe it would barely work. The first part of the "why it is a horrible model" involves how I feel communication "value order" works:

• Cell phones are better than landlines (when they work)
• Landlines are better than ham radio (when they work)
• Ham radio is better than GMRS/FRS/CB radio
• GMRS/FRS/CB radio is better than physical contact
• Physical contact is the last resort

In other words, I would not start driving out to people's houses after a disaster; I would first try my cell phone, then my landline, then my radio(s), and use physical contact as a last resort. The reasons for this list are obvious in terms of time, energy and effectiveness.

So with that in mind, the "horrible" claim comes down to these three points:

1. Home teaching is modeled around cell-phone, landline and physical contact. In a serious disaster, as no one here would dispute, cell and landline are the first to go, and physical contact is a last resort and most difficult way to contact.
2. Home teaching does not, in almost all cases, take physical location into account. Routes are not designed to be physically efficient, nor should they be. A home teacher and their families might be on opposite sides of a ward. Supervisors and quorum leaders might be equally distant from companionships.
3. Home teaching is a non-emergency system, designed to operate in normal times. Companionships and leaders aren't thinking about their routes, families and reporting in terms of emergency prep. They are not coordinated for such an effort by default.

As an exercise, and to put my hypothesis to the test, I drew a flow chart of how home teaching is organized. The inspired program is very organized, and when applied, works exceptionally well. For the illustration, I included visiting teaching, plus home teaching for both quorums (EQ and HP):



You can see by this flow chart that the Bishop has a clean and effective route to understanding the needs of everyone in the ward. The presidents of the organizations have district leaders, who in turn manage companionships who then are in direct contact with families. I do realize this is not the organization everywhere (they differ based on need) and that there is also some crossover in the lines of communications, but I feel the above chart illustrates the general program.

Now, remove phones and landlines, and ask one organization to check in on all of its families and report back to the bishop. The chart below shows just one organization of the three in the chart above... but this time instead of an organizational chart, the chart below is a geographical chart showing a simulated location of each member on a map, with lines connecting the points of contact from the Home Teaching model:



Try to imagine that multiplied by the three main organizations. You can see very readily that the home teaching model is a horrible model for emergency communications. People are driving right by ward members to get to others that are farther away. The whole ward would be running around in a disorganized fashion accomplishing little. Getting information about the welfare of each ward member this way would be amazingly difficult, time consuming, and wasteful.

CONCLUSION:

I do realize that being critical does not provide a foundation for solving problems. My reason for this post is to encourage anyone working on a ward or stake communications plan to let home teaching serve the purpose that it is intended for, and consider creating a comm plan that is inspired in its own right. Perhaps there are some that strongly feel that the home teaching model in their ward/stake is perfect for emcomm, and I am not going to argue with that kind of individual inspiration. But for the rest who might be wondering if they are passing up a gem with the home teaching model, I would submit that you may want to dig deeper.

I would also love to hear what wards are doing for emergency communications plans, and possibly share some of my own ideas in this thread (though I am not our ward communication specialist).

[tfurrows]

In case there is any confusion, a key for the charts: (DL=District Leader, C=Companionship, F=Family)

[AZ Prepper]

Good points. This is why an emergency communications network it critical in branches/wards/stakes and should be independent of home teaching assignments (although the home teachers should have responsibility to find out through the communications network if their assigned families are ok). The sad thing is that I have rarely seen these organized effectively. However, with very little time, it can be accomplished in a reasonable geographical setting (streets, neighborhoods).

One exception to this would be some communities where there are large numbers of members and wards are just a few streets. Then it might not be too unreasonable. But this is the exception, not the norm.

My personal opinion is that the members should work out the plan and details, then invite all those within the area that are of other religions to get involved. I can't imagine running up and down the street checking on ward members and skipping the rest of the homes who are not members of the church. An optimal plan would find out the skills of all those within the area (doctors, medics, electricians, etc.) so that an organized effort could be best utilized in areas of strengths. Then a list (periodically updated) should be kept by those in charge of particular geographic areas for quick reference when needed.

I would also highly recommend that wards and communities look at getting CERT certified. This outline could be easily integrated and create a great structure.

[rflistner2000]

I am the Communications Specialist for Orchard 10th Ward. I have been putting the finishing touches (revision 1) on our Communications Plan. It will have two situations. One, if the phone system is working, we use the Home Teachers/Visiting Teachers to gather/disiminate info & status. If the phone system is down, we switch over to the Block Captain/Neighborhood Coordinator plan. Our Ward is fairly compact into four neighborhoods. A Neighborhood Coordinator (NC) has been assigned to each neighborhood. Block Captains (BC) will be assigned per every 5~9 homes. They are set up so that (in most cases) the Block Captain (BC) can basically go out on his/her front lawn, look at the nearby neighbors, and get the status of his/her "block". This would cover ALL the nieghbors. They would then relay this info to the Neighborhood Cordinator (NC) via FRS radios. We are close enough that they will reach. This would then be relayed to the Bishopric, also via FRS radios.

[tfurrows]

I love the dual approach- phone systems when they work, with a fall-back. Often times we plan only for the absolute worst, ignoring the fact that cell and landline trump radio in many ways, when they work! They are familiar, fast, easy, and effective, and everyone has one usually. And like you said, when phones are in play, the HT system is already setup, and is very neat and tidy, and effective.

Our ward has larger boundaries, for example looking out on my street I wouldn't see any other church members, and most of our ward is that way, BUT the GMRS/FRS solution would work for us. I do like your designations of BC and NC as well. Though, if I could decide for our ward, I would have the BC/NC's report to a ham, who would handle communication with the bishop & stake & gov/red cross/etc at the same time, prioritizing the traffic and tracking everything for the bishop.

Is your ward plan something you are going to share on this site or another? I am making a collection so I can get as many good ideas as possible to give to our ward specialist

[Bro Jones]

I think we completely missed a very important point here. The home teaching model is designed to keep track of member families. The CERT model is designed to keep track of everyone within the geographical boundries of each ward, members or not.

[tfurrows]

I don't know much about CERT, but I agree that in a Ward emergency plan, the bishop needs to know about the condition/situation of the members first. I would venture to say that the members themselves should be responsible for reaching out to their neighbors, involving the bishop and his resources only when there is a problem (the bishop certainly doesn't need an alls-well report on non-members). I'm not sure a ward plan should include much provision for the general populous beyond that, but I don't think that absolves the members and church from reaching out. And I believe the church has every intention of reaching out to the general populous in emergencies, but again, the bishop needs to understand immediately the needs of his stewardship.

[rflistner2000]

I had not given thought to the non-members when useing the phone & HT's for status. I need to make sure that is mentioned in the plan. The Stake and Bishopric in my area have stated several times, that the Ward/Stake boundries cover ALL who live there, not just the members. We care about all of our neighbors.

As for sharing the Ward Plan,,,I am still in the process of putting it together. After that, I need to "present it", get comments back and update as needed, then get "approval" on it before I can consider sharing it. But I will keep it in mind. I have been posting/sharing my monthly preparedness newsletters here, and I currently see no problem with sharing the plans in the future.

[AZ Prepper]

The Stake and Bishopric in my area have stated several times, that the Ward/Stake boundries cover ALL who live there, not just the members. We care about all of our neighbors.

Agreed. They need to take care of the ward members, but all within the area are in their stewardship, both members and non-members alike. And they are to seek out the needy in their areas of stewardship.

If we all did what we were supposed to do and were looking out for our neighbors, this would be a natural fit. Unfortunately in today's society, we rarely even know our next door neighbor.

[tfurrows]

Perhaps we all agree here, but are approaching it differently. It is of course our goal as believers to reach out and offer care, concern and assistance to everyone around us, not just church members. It would hardly be Christian to only look out for ourselves! I don't think anyone here is arguing for that.

A logical approach would handle members and non-members, in an order that was as effective as possible. The advice in Mosiah 4:27 comes to mind in this case.

Take the example of "runners" or block/neighborhood coordinators. Lets look at just one runner/bc/nc. If they are sent out to check on a list of members, and stop at every house on the way, what is the time & energy commitment, and how quickly and efficiently is their job done? Wouldn't the area be better served if the runner/bc/nc went directly to member homes and activated/enlisted those members to check on the people around them?

I'm not sure if a smaller group of coordinators should be saddled with checking on everyone in the geographical boundaries of a ward - in my ward, that would put a handful of people in charge of thousands. To me, it makes more sense to expect each member to reach out to their own neighbors, and let the runners/coordinators focus on higher-level response.

[tfurrows]

One other perspective - macro vs. micro. The coordinators should have a macro view of the entire area, but a micro view of each member. The members, for their part, should have a micro view of their neighbors.

In the macro view, the coordinators would understand the overall needs and conditions of an entire area.
In the micro view, an individual family's needs would be considered.

The only exception, which has been mentioned on this forum, might be areas in Utah where the majority of a ward area is populated with members. In those cases, the point is irrelevant.