Report overload

Discuss where to obtain or how to fill out specific reports or forms.
DRhansen-p40
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: Hillsobor, Oregon, USA

Report overload

Postby DRhansen-p40 » Sun May 17, 2009 10:05 pm

I seem to remembers some instructions a long time ago when the quarterly reports were being introduced. The gist was that many leaders are asking for more and more reports and that the leaders were too learn to live with the quarterly reports that the church has asked for. We were told to not ask for any reports beyond the quarterly reports.

can anyone remember where this instruction came from and where I can find the reference. It seems that we are being asked for more and more reports well beyond the the quarterly reports.

jdlessley
Community Moderators
Posts: 6526
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:30 pm
Location: USA, TX

Postby jdlessley » Sun May 17, 2009 11:59 pm

Only quarterly reports are submitted to Church headquarters through MLS. More information about the quarterly report is found at the Quarterly Report page of the LDSTech Wiki. There is a Monthly Report page of the Wiki describing the monthly report.

I am not aware of any instructions limiting reports to the stake presidency from wards; reports to the bishop from quorums, auxiliaries, or classes; or reports to quorum presidents, auxiliary presidents, or class presidents from teachers. The decision to request reports rests with the leaders making those requests. The CHI describes required reports, including the quarterly report, and even permits weekly reports on member participation (see book 1, pages 143-44 and book 2 pages 170, 189-90, 207, 226, 238, and 244). It is up to leaders to decide the necessary reports to help focus on the progress and needs of members.

Could you be more specific about the reports in question, who generates the report and to whom it goes?
JD Lessley
Have you tried finding your answer on the LDS.org Help Center page or the LDSTech wiki?

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20750
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Mon May 18, 2009 12:36 am

I'll take a guess. Way back when (early to mid 80's), when temple recommends had mag stripes, the temple would provide reports on temple attendance to the local leaders.

Others seem to remember the next event differently, but the way I remember it is the church went though a "reduce and simplify" on the record-keeping. It was determined that it wasn't necessary to record who did the proxy work, and the mag stripe system was removed. As a consequence, the reports from the temple stopped.

Some local leaders, desiring the reports to continue, tasked the RS and EQ Presidencies to gather the information from the members. That was a catch-as-catch-can situation and the effort required almost rivaled the monthly collection of HT/VT stats.

There may well have been a directive shortly after that to curtail this extra reporting as the information gathering was quite burdensome.

Also, over time, the monthly reports have been simplified. The most obvious is that they are now quarterly reports instead of monthly. Also, I remember the old reports requiring us to list the names of those not attending - a more complex communication task then simply getting the numbers. Each time the report was simplified, I'm sure some leaders wanted to continue getting the reports the old way. That would counter the benefits of simplification.

Perhaps this old directive was related to one of those simplifications.

While I'm of the opinion that leaders have the prerogative to ask for various reports, they need to be sensitive to the amount of labor that's required to compile them. I'd have no problems with creating reports from data already in the computer, but would be cautious about any reports that require additional data to be collected.
Have you searched the Wiki?
Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.

lajackson
Community Moderators
Posts: 6137
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: US

Postby lajackson » Mon May 18, 2009 2:47 pm

RussellHltn wrote:I'll take a guess.

Some local leaders, desiring the reports to continue, tasked the RS and EQ Presidencies to gather the information from the members.

There may well have been a directive shortly after that to curtail this extra reporting as the information gathering was quite burdensome.


Good guess. That is exactly what happened, and there followed instructions that priesthood leaders were not to track temple attendance of individual members.

It happened a long time ago, and I do not think I have the letter any more, but I remember it. It was really hard to turn off some of the folks who thought they really needed the information.

RussellHltn wrote:Also, over time, the monthly reports have been simplified. . . . Each time the report was simplified, I'm sure some leaders wanted to continue getting the reports the old way. That would counter the benefits of simplification.


My experience does not count in any official manner, but after the reports went from monthly to quarterly, the next general authority who visited our stake told the stake president to stop asking for monthly reports and concentrate on conducting home teaching stewardship interviews.

That general authority is now an Emeritus Member of the Seventy, but personally, I agreed with him.

RussellHltn wrote:While I'm of the opinion that leaders have the prerogative to ask for various reports, they need to be sensitive to the amount of labor that's required to compile them. I'd have no problems with creating reports from data already in the computer, but would be cautious about any reports that require additional data to be collected.


I agree.

Back when we did monthly reports and were required to include lists of the names of those member who were not attending, not home taught, or not anything else, I actually had a pretty quick and efficient method to produce the lists.

Apparently, many of the wards in our stake did not send lists of names with their reports. My report was usually about 20 pages long and took several dollars in postage to mail each month. At our leadership meetings, the stake president was always asking me, "Did we really ask for all of this information?" And I would say, "Yes you did, president. We will stop sending it any time you wish."

I am glad the long reports have gone away, but I must confess that, during that time, I knew the names of the members of our ward better than at any other time.

mtwerner
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:23 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

Postby mtwerner » Wed May 20, 2009 9:30 am

Our stake doesn't ask for names, but I do regularly suggest to the wards that their organizations should be producing such lists for the bishop and that it's also a good way to double-check the numbers; they should be able to name each person reported as not attending. In fact, I think a list of those not attending is really the important information. We're in the business of ministering to individuals and numbers are just a means to that end.


Return to “Reports and Forms”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest