Defending Youth Ministries from 8 Critical Risks

Youth ministry offers many churches their best—and perhaps only—opportunity to reach middle- and high-school students and teach them about the love of Christ. It’s a critical effort that deserves our full attention as we watch an increasingly changing landscape of beliefs, attitudes, and morals unfold in American culture.

Connecting with these students requires the full commitment of church leaders to properly staff and resource their youth ministries, and to make certain the work done speaks deeply to these students in contexts they know and understand.

This is hard work. It often requires creativity and flexibility, ranging from socially minded service projects to pick-ups and drop-offs of students to ongoing exchanges of texts with students to remind them of upcoming events.

This creativity and flexibility may be essential. It also may introduce potential risk and legal liabilities that the church must be prepared to address.

Unfortunately, many do not prepare as well as they should. Many headlines only confirm this. Consider the following examples:

These situations are tragic and heartbreaking, especially because most were likely preventable. These situations also hit close to home: How many of these events could happen at your church?

Unfortunately for many, the answer is at least one—and possibly more. We know this because Christianity Today’s Church Law & Tax Group collaborated a number of years ago with Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company to conduct the “Youth Ministry in America” survey. The purpose of the survey was “to gain a better understanding of the activities and practices of youth ministries in America to help create meaningful content to assist churches in ministering safely and effectively to the young people in their churches.”

More than 800 youth ministry leaders and pastors nationwide participated. The results of their responses revealed eight specific vulnerabilities that churches must address, especially because of the legal implications they pose. In this article, I review the survey responses and the ways churches can respond to potential problems in their youth ministries.

In a media-saturated culture such as ours, effective communication is a key to getting the attention of middle- and high-school students—and keeping that attention. Social media and texting are two of the popular methods, although face-to-face conversations remain a vital approach.

The survey asked survey respondents whether their church had a written policy on communicating with youth; 32 percent said yes, but 63 percent said no and 5 percent did not know.

The communication methods most often used involved social media and in-person contact.

The survey also asked youth pastors about the frequency of one-on-one communications. More than one-third (35 percent) said a few times each week, while 19 percent said daily, and 8 percent said several times each day. Another 19 percent said weekly, and 18 percent said occasionally.

Together, these responses reveal critical risks. A whopping 81 percent of respondents said they engaged in one-to-one communication with youth group members at least weekly. Many did so much more frequently. This level of personal and intimate communication with minors is troubling for several reasons. Most significantly, it opens the door to an intensification of the relationship that can lead to sexual intimacy, either physically or indirectly.

Allowing youth leaders to communicate with minors without any supervision or accountability is a dangerous practice. It is no different than a church’s senior pastor texting adult females in the church.

In some cases, such an unrestricted practice leads to the transmission of sexually explicit text messages or images (“sexting”) using a cellphone or an electronic device. In many states, sexting with minors is a felony criminal offense. Such messages also can be used as evidence in civil lawsuits against youth pastors by adolescents with whom they had a virtual or physical relationship.

For example, assume that an adolescent female in a church youth group claims that the youth pastor had nonconsensual sexual contact with her. She sues the church, claiming the church is responsible for the youth pastor’s acts on the basis of negligent hiring and supervision. The victim subpoenas the youth pastor’s text messages to establish the truth of her claims.

Several courts have addressed the issue of criminal liability of pastors for engaging in sexting. Consider the following examples:

How should a church’s respond to this risk? Consider the following:

Survey respondents were asked: Does your youth ministry document who participates in youth activities (i.e., using a sign-in sheet or other forms of documentation)?

In response, 77 percent of youth pastors said “yes,” but only 58 percent of senior pastors agreed. Regardless of which response is accurate, the fact remains that a significant number of churches do not document ministry participation by youth.

Documenting youth participation in ministry events is a desirable practice from a legal perspective. Churches, like schools, are generally responsible for the safety of minors from the time they receive custody until the time custody ends. For younger minors, custody is ordinarily transferred when a minor is physically dropped off at church by a parent, guardian, or older sibling. In the case of older minors who drive (or are driven) to church, custody generally is transferred at the time they enter the church’s premises.

Problems arise when minors leave the custody of the church without permission before the end of a ministry activity.

For example, a 14-year-old girl is dropped off at church by her mother. The girl enters the church building, and exits out another door where her boyfriend is waiting for her. They drive off together, and return in time for the girl to be picked up at church by her mother. On one occasion the girl is severely injured in an accident caused by her boyfriend’s negligent driving. The church youth group does not keep records documenting the attendance of minors. Had it done so, and had it sent notifications to parents that their child had missed a specified number of events, then the parents would have been tipped off to their daughter’s activities, giving them a chance to confront her and perhaps spare her from being involved in the accident.

In summary, documenting youth participation in ministry activities can promote accountability.

Survey respondents were asked, “What is your adult-to-youth ratio for activities?” Church leaders struggle with this question, and so, predictably, their answers varied. More than four in ten respondents said they have one adult for every six to ten youth. One-third of the respondents said they have one adult for every one to five youth.

Any activity involving minors should be staffed with an adequate number of qualified adults. This will help demonstrate that the church exercised reasonable care to protect participants in youth ministry events, thereby reducing the risk of liability based on negligence in the event that a minor is injured or molested.

The appropriate ratio of adults to minors in youth ministry events will depend on several factors, including:

It is often helpful to contact other institutions for assistance with staffing ratios. For example, some churches base their adult-to-child ratio in the nursery on what the state requires of licensed day care facilities. You may also contact the Red Cross, Salvation Army, or similar organizations. But the best comparable institution will be your public schools, since they are state agencies that reflect the official policy of your state government.

If your church can demonstrate it based its adult-to-child ratio on the established practices of other similar organizations in its community, and especially public schools, then it possesses a strong defense in the event that it is accused of liability (for an injury to a child) on the basis of negligent supervision.

Consider these examples:

The dissenting judge also noted that the church was not guilty of negligence since “greater supervision would not have prevented the victim from losing his grasp of the monkey bars.”

Survey respondents were asked, “What percentage of your youth group activities involve physical games, contests, or challenges?” Two-thirds of the respondents said that 25 percent or less of their youth group activities involve physical games, contests, or challenges. But substantial numbers of respondents indicated that their church’s youth ministry uses physical games, contests, or challenges. This is significant, since such high-risk activities can result in unanticipated liabilities for the church. This risk is illustrated by the following case.

This case illustrates the risks associated with games and challenges at youth ministry events.

Here are some steps that church leaders can take to reduce these risks with physical games, contests, or challenges:

Survey respondents were asked, “Does your youth ministry require signed consent forms before allowing youth to participate in activities?” Nine in ten respondents require signed consent forms before allowing youth to participate in activities:

One-third said each participant signs one form that covers all regular, recurring activities for the year plus individual forms for unique activities.

More than two in ten said each participant signs a form for each activity (24 percent) or only occasionally as needed (21 percent).

Another 7 percent of the respondents said they do not require a signed form to participate in activities.

Once again, these responses reflect considerable diversity in approaches.

Churches should not allow a minor child to participate in any church activity (such as camping, boating, swimming, hiking, or some sporting events) unless the child’s parents or legal guardians sign a form that:

Ideally, the form should be signed by both parents or guardians (if there are two), and the signatures should be notarized. If only one parent or guardian signs, or the signatures are not notarized, the legal effectiveness of the form is diminished. Having persons sign as witnesses to a parent’s signature is not as good as a notary’s acknowledgment, but it is better than a signature without a witness.

The form should require the parent or guardian to inform the church immediately of any change in the information presented, and it should state that it is valid until revoked by the person who signed it. The parent or guardian should sign both in his or her own capacity as parent or guardian, and in a representative capacity on behalf of the minor child.

Consent forms should be drafted, or reviewed by, an attorney.

Many churches use “release forms,” which purport to release the church from legal responsibility for injuries inflicted by the negligence of its employees and volunteers. These may be stand-alone forms, or, more commonly, they may be incorporated directly into a consent form. Besides being of dubious legal value, such forms primarily protect the church’s insurance company.

If injuries are caused by the negligence of a church worker, then the liability insurer will pay for such damages up to the policy limits (if no exclusion applies, and no condition is violated). If the church is not negligent, then it ordinarily will not be assessed any damages.

A release form, even if deemed legally valid by a court, would have the effect of excusing the church’s liability insurer from paying damages to a victim of the church’s negligence. Imagine, for example, an adult who signs a valid release form as a condition to participating in a church activity. The adult breaks a leg as a result of the negligence of a church worker, and incurs $20,000 of medical bills—only to discover the release form he signed prevents him from obtaining insurance benefits under the church’s insurance policy, which would have been available to him had he not signed the release. The pastor of this church will have a very unhappy member.

Release forms that purport to excuse a church or other organization from liability for injuries to a minor are the most likely to be invalidated by the courts, often on the ground that they violate public policy.

There are two exceptions to the enforceability of releases that often are recognized by the courts. First, releases generally will not prevent an organization from being liable for its gross negligence. Second, releases will be scrutinized closely by the courts, and must clearly point out exactly what is being released. This is a very exacting standard that many release forms used by churches will not meet.

There are other exceptions to the enforceability of release forms that have been recognized by other courts, including the fact that the person signing the release is a minor. Churches should not use releases without discussing them with their insurance agent and a local attorney.

Consider these examples:

Survey respondents were asked, “How does your ministry typically transport youth participants to off-site events?” Note the following:

There are three important issues raised by these responses.

There are significant legal and safety concerns associated with the continuing use of 15-passenger vans. Many 15-passenger vans carrying passengers have been involved in horrific accidents resulting in death or serious injury to occupants. In response, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) investigated several of these accidents, and in April 2001 issued a rare “consumer advisory” regarding an increased rollover risk for 15-passenger vans under certain conditions.

The advisory concludes that 15-passenger vans with more than 9 occupants have a rollover rate in single vehicle crashes that is nearly 3 times the rate of vans with fewer than 10 occupants. Since 2001, the NHTSA has taken the unprecedented step of reissuing its safety advisory on three additional occasions, in part due to “several tragic rollover crashes involving religious groups on trips.”

The NHTSA advisories make the following 10 recommendations to reduce the rollover risk associated with 15-passenger vans:

No more than 9 occupants.

Load occupants from the front of the van.

Each occupant is required to wear a seat belt at all times. The van owner should adopt a written seatbelt policy, and drivers should be informed that they are personally responsible for enforcing it. Nearly 80 percent of those killed in 15-passenger van rollovers in 2000 were not wearing seatbelts.

Absolutely nothing should be loaded on the van roof.

Van drivers should be well rested.

Drivers should drive cautiously (maintain a speed that is safe, given road and weather conditions, and be especially careful on rural and curved roads).

Inspect tires monthly to check for wear and proper inflation. Worn or improperly inflated tires increase the risk of a blowout. And, a 15-passenger van’s tendency to rollover increases dramatically during emergency maneuvers, such as a panic response to a tire blowout.

If the van’s wheels drop off the roadway, gradually reduce speed and steer back onto the road when it is safe to do so.

Only use drivers who have received specific training on the use of 15-passenger vans. Several options are available, including a van driver certification course offered by the National Safety Council. This training should be repeated every three years.

Drivers should keep the van’s gas tank as full as possible.

Some churches remove the back seat of their 15-passenger van in order to meet the NHTSA’s “no more than 9 occupants” recommendation, but then load the empty space with luggage, equipment, or other items. Such an arrangement does not work in most cases, since the problem involves weight; replacing people with equipment or luggage fails to address the underlying problem.

While not mentioned directly in the NHTSA recommendation, the safety problems associated with 15-passenger vans are compounded when towing trailers.

Any church or ministry that continues to use a 15-passenger van, following four NHTSA safety advisories regarding these vehicles, assumes enormous risks—risks of injuries or loss of human life, and potential legal liabilities caused by an accident. If one or more occupants are seriously injured or killed, a court might conclude that the use of a 15-passenger van was negligent. It is also possible a court would conclude that the church and its governing board were “grossly negligent” as a result of their disregard of the NHTSA safety advisories and the NHTSA’s recommendations. A finding of gross negligence is very serious, since it would expose the ministry to “punitive damages” that are not covered under its liability insurance policy. In addition, the members of the board could be personally liable for their gross negligence. While state and federal laws provide uncompensated board members of nonprofit organizations with limited immunity from liability, these laws do not protect against gross negligence.

It will become increasingly difficult to obtain liability insurance for 15-passenger vans because of the concerns mentioned above. The largest insurer of school buses in one state no longer insures 15-passenger vans that carry children to or from school. If your church owns one or more of these vehicles, be sure to confirm coverage under your insurance policies.

How should church leaders respond to the risk associated with 15-passenger vans? Consider the following four options:

First, continue to use 15-passenger vans but strictly comply with all 10 recommendations made in the NHTSA safety advisories quoted above, including to limit occupants to 9 or fewer per van. If continual compliance with all 10 recommendations cannot be guaranteed, without any exceptions, then this option must not be considered. In most cases, such an assurance will not be possible. In the rare case that continuous compliance with the 10 recommendations can be assured, a church then will have a defense to liability in the event of an accident. The defense may not be successful, but it at least can be made.

Second, sell all 15-passenger vans and replace them with smaller vans or “small school buses.” Small school buses are the safest form of transportation. While the initial cost of a new “small school bus” is slightly higher than a fully equipped 15-passenger van, the cost of operation is less expensive because buses are more reliable and last longer.

Third, rent a vehicle other than a 15-passenger van.

Fourth, use a commercial carrier to provide transportation services.

The second, third, or fourth options should be selected in any of the following five situations:

A church cannot obtain insurance for a 15-passenger van.

A church uses a 15-passenger van on a regular basis to transport school children (preschool through high school) to or from school or any school-related activity. In such a case, the van would be considered a nonconforming “school bus.” While it is still legal to use nonconforming school buses in most states, there is legislation pending in Congress and many state legislatures to change this. Further, even if the use of a nonconforming school bus does not violate state or federal law, such use may result in liability. The largest personal injury verdict in the history of one state resulted from the death of a student in a nonconforming school bus operated by a church.

A church wants to reduce the risk of death, injury, and liability (including uninsurable punitive damages, and personal liability for board members who authorize or allow the use of 15-passenger vans).

A church wants to send a message that it values human life.

A church cannot guarantee continuous compliance with the 10 safety recommendations contained in the NHTSA safety advisories.

An advantage of the second option is public image. The public is increasingly aware of the risks associated with 15-passenger vans. When people see a small school bus operated by a church, many will say, “There is a church that takes the safety of human beings seriously.” It really sends a positive message. On the other hand, when people see 15-passenger vans operated by churches and other ministries, many will have the opposite reaction.

In the final analysis, why would any rational person want to use 15-passenger vans in light of the potential for death, serious injury, and astronomical damages? There is only one reason—to save money. This justification is inexcusable. It also is erroneous when one considers the true “cost” of using these vehicles (death, injury, and staggering legal liability).

The transportation of minors to off-site events raises the important question of a church’s liability for injuries occurring at such events. Consider two illustrative cases.

Several students at a church-operated secondary school (the “school”) received cards inviting them to an “end-of-the-year party” at the home of two of the students. On some of the cards a bottle of liquor was faintly visible in the background. The cards were not prepared or distributed by the school, its faculty, or administration.

On the morning before the party, the school principal called the two students (brothers) hosting the party into his office so that he could question them. The students told him their parents would attend the party as chaperones.

School was dismissed for the year at noon on the last day of classes. Students began to arrive at the home where the party was to take place between 1 and 1:30 p.m. The mother of the “hosting” students arrived at the home sometime between 1:45 and 3:30 p.m., but went to her room and stayed there with the blinds drawn. Her husband joined her. Neither parent called the police or attempted to stop the party at any time.

Alcohol was consumed in the house and in cars. One student (the “victim”) and a classmate, though minors, had obtained 2 12-packs of beer and a bottle of vodka from a convenience store and arrived at the party at 2:30 p.m. The victim and the classmate drank in the victim’s car for an hour, and then went into the party with the remainder of their alcoholic drinks.

At about 4 p.m., the school’s principal and another school employee arrived at the party. The principal wanted to make sure things were okay, and that the parents were present. After a few minutes, the principal and the other school employee left and returned to the school. They did not notify police, visit the back of the home, call any parents (including the homeowners hosting the party), consume or provide alcohol, participate in the party themselves, or direct any students to leave.

Some 30 minutes to 45 minutes after the principal and school employee left the home where the party was in progress, the victim and his friend got into the victim’s car and drove away. Several miles away from the party and from the school, the vehicle struck a tree (traveling in a residential area at 100 miles per hour, according to police estimates) and split in half, instantly killing the friend and catastrophically injuring the victim. Two hours after the accident, the victim had a blood alcohol level of .09 percent (a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or higher subjects the vehicle operator to a criminal charge of driving while under the influence). The victim is now a quadriplegic, and he suffered traumatic brain injury as well.

The school’s parent and student handbook contained a section titled “Outside (Home) Parties,” which states:

Parents should be positive that responsible adults properly supervise activities that their child attends. We recommend the parents call the hosting family to ensure the activity has been planned for their home and that they plan to chaperone the event. In advance, if the school becomes aware of any party that involves illegal or immoral activities we will inform the proper authorities. We would ask that any parent who learns of any such party or event contact the administration so we could help prevent any tragedy that might result. THE SCHOOL WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY EVENT THAT IS NOT OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED BY THE ADMINISTRATION. We also strongly discourage allowing students to stay out after any official function is completed, or to rent facilities after any function, especially a dance or prom.

The handbook also contains a substance abuse policy applicable to alcoholic beverages that prohibited the use or possession of such beverages “by any student on school property or while attending or participating in any school-sponsored activity or at any time the student is wearing a school uniform.” The consequences of a violation were specified: “Transgression of this rule will result in disciplinary action, which may include dismissal from school, even for a first offense.” Another section stated:

The use, possession, or sale of alcoholic beverages or drugs is prohibited at all times on school premises before, during or after school hours or at school-sponsored events. ANY STUDENT WHO APPEARS TO HAVE CONSUMED ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, USED DRUGS, DISTRIBUTED DRUGS, OR ANY STUDENT WHO BRINGS SUCH SUBSTANCES ON THE SCHOOL PREMISES OR PLACE OF A SCHOOL SPONSORED FUNCTION IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL FROM SCHOOL, EVEN FOR A FIRST OFFENSE. The determination of “use” will by necessity be a judgmental decision by any staff or faculty member who may observe the behavior.

The victim and his parents (the “plaintiffs”) sued the school, the religious diocese that allegedly controlled the school, the school’s principal, the parents of the two students who hosted the party, and the convenience store that sold the alcohol to the victim and his friend. The plaintiffs settled with, or dismissed, all of the defendants except the school and diocese (the “defendants”).

The jury rendered a verdict awarding more than $55 million in damages, apportioning 53 percent of the negligence to the plaintiffs, 25 percent to the school, and 20 percent to the parents at whose home the party took place. The trial court allowed certain setoffs and ultimately entered an amended final judgment against the school and diocese for $13 million.

The school and the diocese appealed the final judgment.

The court began its opinion by describing two rules that are used in deciding if a school (or church, or any other youth-serving organization) is legally responsible for injuries to students during off-premises activities:

In this case, however, there was no club “recognized, endorsed, or supervised in any way by the school. The off-premises activity was planned, hosted, and attended by a collection of students having no name, group identity known to the school, or school-related purpose. Of the students attending, only two had been firmly identified (the students whose address was listed on the invitation) by the school, and those two told the school that their parents would be present. The two student hosts did not ask for or obtain the school’s permission to conduct the event, and the academic school year was complete when the students left the school premises (before the event began).”

The court stressed that “mere knowledge of the off-premises party is not a basis for liability.” But, it acknowledged that two additional facts needed to be addressed: the school handbook and the visit by the principal and another school employee to the off-premises residence at which the party took place.

With regard to the “Parent and School Handbook” section on “Outside (Home) Parties,” the plaintiffs alleged that the school undertook a responsibility to notify “the proper legal authorities” because the school became aware, in advance, that the party “involved illegal or immoral activities.” The court disagreed, noting that the school disclaimed responsibility for unauthorized home parties in an all-capitalized disclaimer in the same section:

The party in this case “was not officially sanctioned.” In addition, “the school’s policy in the handbook does not change the fact that the incident occurred at a time when the school had no duty to supervise the students,” since it occurred after the end of the school year.

With regard to the visit to the off-premises party site by the principal and employee, “neither of these visitors undertook a special duty to care for [the victim]. The principal and employee were not invitees of the owners of the residence, and they never spoke to the student hosts’ mother. They did not offer a ride to anyone, offer to call [the victim’s] parents, take his keys, or otherwise render services to him or his parents. Nor was he under these visitors’ authority, control, or supervision. School was out.”

The court concluded its opinion with these words:

It is common for members of a church’s youth group to conduct activities off of the church premises. Such activities may involve worship or Bible study, parties, or recreational activities. In addition, church-operated schools conduct a variety of off-site activities, including club activities and sports teams. Is a church legally responsible for injuries sustained by minors before, during, or after such off-site activities? This case provides helpful guidance. Here are some points to note:

The court also noted that a school can be liable for injuries to students during “school-related” events that involve “some connection to the school’s academic and extracurricular programs.” As examples, the court cited a school athletic team’s participation in a scheduled competition at another location, or a school club’s off-premises meeting. The court noted that the school’s duty of supervision extends to such activities if the group is officially sponsored by the school and the school reserved the authority to control its activities.

The key point is this: While an event may not be officially sponsored by a church, the church may still be liable for injuries to minors who participate in the event if it is “church-related” in the sense that the minors are participating in a group that is church-sponsored and subject to the church’s supervision and control.

The court concluded that the victim in this case was not injured in the course of a school-related event. It cited the following factors in reaching this conclusion:

The court referred to the following cases:

The court noted that the school disclaimed responsibility for unauthorized home parties in an all-capitalized disclaimer in its parent and student handbook: “THE SCHOOL WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY EVENT THAT IS NOT OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED BY THE ADMINISTRATION.” The party in this case “was not officially sanctioned.” In addition, “the school’s policy in the handbook does not change the fact that the incident occurred at a time when the school had no duty to supervise the students” since it occurred after the end of the school year.

An Arizona appeals court upheld a $7 million verdict against a nonprofit youth soccer club as a result of permanent brain injuries suffered by a motorcyclist struck by an SUV driven by a 16-year-old girl. She was driving carelessly while transporting other minors to a scheduled practice.

The club sponsored a youth soccer league, fielding several different teams based on the age and ability of the players. It hired coaches for each team. The coach of one of the teams scheduled a training session in a park 20 miles away. Team members were told that they would all meet at a local mall, and from there they would carpool together to the park. A 16-year-old girl (“Allison”) drove herself to the mall in her mother’s SUV. From there she drove herself and four other players to the park.

The team trained at the park for two hours. Afterward, the coach gave the team driving directions back to the mall. Because a “no left turn” sign was posted at the park exit, the coach instructed drivers to make a right-hand turn out of the parking lot, make a legal U-turn, and then proceed in the opposite direction. The coach exited the parking lot first, turning right and then quickly executing a U-turn. The next driver made a right-hand turn out of the parking lot. Allison was driving the next vehicle, which contained several minors. She pulled into the intersection and began an illegal left-hand turn. She was immediately struck by a motorcyclist, who suffered severe and permanent brain injuries as a result of the accident. The victim’s guardian sued the soccer club, claiming it was responsible for Allison’s negligence on the basis of the legal doctrine of respondeat superior, which makes an employer responsible for the negligent acts of its employees while acting in the course of their employment. This principle has been extended to uncompensated volunteers.

The jury awarded the victim a $7 million verdict. It found the soccer club 1 percent at fault, the coach 16 percent at fault, and Allison 83 percent at fault. However, the soccer club was responsible for paying the entire verdict on the basis of the respondeat superior doctrine, which imposes liability on employers for the negligent acts of their employees and volunteers committed within the course of their duties. The soccer club appealed.

The appeals court noted that, in determining whether the respondeat superior doctrine applies to volunteers, “the two key elements are whether the actor has submitted herself to the directions and control of the one for whom the service is done and whether the primary purpose underlying the act was to serve another.” The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Allison subjected herself to the club’s control on the day of the incident and that the primary purpose of her actions was to serve the club. In support of this conclusion, the court noted that the soccer club did not normally control transportation of the players to and from practices and games. Instead, it relied on parents to provide transportation to and from events.

On the day of the accident, however, the coach directed the players to meet at the mall, rather than the usual practice site, and to carpool to the park 20 miles away. And, there was evidence the coach asked Allison to drive herself and several of her teammates from the mall to the practice site and back again since she had one of the bigger vehicles. The court concluded that reasonable persons could find that she performed this task primarily for the club’s benefit. Under club rules, Allison “had a general obligation to transport herself to and from practice, but she had no obligation to transport several of her teammates, as the coach requested that she do.”

Allison’s mother testified that she did not want Allison to drive from the mall to the practice site on the day of the accident because Allison was a newly licensed driver. Allison never previously drove to the park where the practice was scheduled, leading the mother to believe it was too far for Allison to drive and unsafe. While Allison may have benefitted from transporting herself to practice, it was for the club’s benefit that she was asked to transport her teammates.

The court pointed to evidence that the club exercised control over Allison’s driving to and from the practice site. Allison testified that, as the team was preparing to leave the practice site, the coach gave her directions back to the mall and directed her to follow him in his vehicle.

The court rejected the soccer club’s argument that the doctrine of respondeat superior could not apply to Allison’s “informal and temporary” conduct. It cited two cases as examples of court rulings finding that a nonprofit organization may be vicariously liable for the negligence of a one-time or occasional volunteer who injures a third-party while using his or her personal vehicle to transport goods or persons for that organization, so long as the organization exercised sufficient control over the volunteer’s actions:

The court concluded that “there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Allison was an agent of the soccer club and subjected herself to its control at the time of the incident.”

The soccer club argued that “strong public policy concerns should compel rejection of vicarious liability under the facts of this case” and that imposing vicarious liability would subject numerous charitable and youth organizations to liability because their participants are often required to travel to and from sponsored events. It added: “All that would be needed to saddle one of these organizations with the potential for multi-million dollar liability would be a claim that a request was made by the organization.”

In rejecting this defense, the court observed: “To the extent the club is suggesting that charitable organizations should not be saddled with respondeat superior liability, we note that the doctrine of charitable immunity has long been abolished in Arizona.”

The court conceded that an employer is generally not liable for the negligent acts of its employee while the employee is going to, or returning from, his or her place of employment. However, that rule was not applicable in this case since Allison’s “driving to and from this particular practice location formed the very basis of the agency relationship.”

This case is of immense relevance to church leaders. Consider this: If your youth pastor or youth leaders direct members of the youth group to use their own or a parent’s vehicle to transport other members of the youth group to an off-site activity, the church may be liable for any accident or injuries that occur due to the drivers’ negligence. According to this court, all that is required is that the driver attempts to serve the church at the time of the accident, and that he or she is subject to some direction or control by the church, such as following instructions. Obviously, these tests are easily met. It is also worth noting that the soccer club’s culpability was enhanced by the fact that it allowed a 16-year-old girl with a new driver’s license to drive several other kids in a massive SUV, despite her own mother’s misgivings.

What can a church do to manage this risk?

First, build awareness of cases like this one, which demonstrate a potential liability for a church.

Second, understand that using minors to transport other minors at the direction of church leaders can create liability for the church in the event the driver causes an accident. A far better arrangement is to have parents drive. Parents may find it inconvenient and kids may rebel, but that’s often the outcome of implementing effective risk management strategies. Each church needs to determine what level of risk it is willing to tolerate.

Third, don’t use 16-year-olds to transport other minors. In many states, 16-year-olds are prohibited from driving other minors without the presence of an adult in the vehicle. It is imperative for a church’s youth leaders to be familiar with these legal restrictions and ensure that they are scrupulously followed.

Fourth, review the church’s liability insurance policy to ensure that you have nonowned vehicle coverage. This covers injuries and damages caused by members who use their own vehicle while performing services for their church. The driver’s personal car insurance is also available, but if inadequate, the nonowned vehicle coverage may kick in. This is usually available as an endorsement on your general liability policy. Check with your insurance agent for details.

If a church employee or volunteer causes an accident while driving his or her own vehicle on church business, the church may be liable for any deaths or injuries that may result. Since the vehicle involved was not owned by the church, it is possible that the church will end up without any insurance coverage for the accident. This illustrates why non-owned vehicle insurance coverage is important. Be sure your liability policy includes coverage for non-owned vehicles used by church employees and volunteers, and, if it does not, ask your agent how to obtain this additional coverage (usually with a special endorsement).

Respondents were asked if their church youth group participated in overnight events or trips. Nine in ten respondents answered yes to this question. These kinds of events involve significant risks because of the difficulty of providing adequate supervision. Here are several issues to consider when planning such events:

What kinds of activities will be conducted? See the prior analysis of contests and challenges.

Will minors be transported to an offsite location during the night? If so, see the prior analysis addressing transportation issues.

How many adults will supervise the event? See the prior analysis addressing adult-to-minor ratios. Adequate supervision is often difficult during overnight activities. It is essential for a church to provide adequate supervision during a lock-in. If the event lasts all night, then adults must supervise the group all night. They can divide the responsibility by assigning adults to different “shifts.” But, a minimum of two adults must be awake and “on duty” at all times. Anything less will expose participants and the church to an unacceptable level of risk. If young children are present, the area where the lock-in will occur should be thoroughly inspected to remove any toxic or dangerous substances or devices.

Any overnight youth event, including the activities that will be conducted, should be approved by the church board.

Have parents sign permission slips that describe the activities that will be conducted. Permission slips also should contain parents’ contact information (home and cellphone numbers, and so on), as well as the designation of a staff member to make emergency medical decisions in the event a parent cannot be located.

Churches that conduct lock-ins for both male and female adolescents run the risk of sexual contact among the adolescents. This risk can only be managed by strict segregation of male and female students, and continuous supervision by an adequate number of adult leaders. Consider conducting same-sex lock-ins.

Some lock-ins are inherently safer than others. For example, lock-ins that restrict participants to young girls, and limit supervisors or chaperones to adult females (including several mothers) are safer in most cases than lock-ins with male and female adolescent participants.

If possible, remote and isolated areas of the church should be locked.

It is a good practice to check with other charities in your community to see what precautions they use when conducting lock-ins. For example, consider contacting the Boy Scouts of America and Girl Scouts of the USA, and the YMCA and YWCA. Make a written summary of the precautions followed by these other groups, and align your practices with the “community standard.” Note the adult-to-minor ratios that they follow, as well as procedures to manage risk.

Acts of sexual molestation during lock-ins often occur when the group is watching videos in the dark. This risk is easily remedied by leaving lights on when showing videos, and prohibiting adults from lying next to minors. Be alert to the use of blankets to conceal acts of molestation.

It is essential for supervisors to know if a minor leaves the church building during a lock-in. The church is legally responsible for the care and supervision of minors until custody is returned to a parent or guardian at the end of the event. If a teenager sneaks away during a lock-in for a rendezvous with a friend, the church is responsible for whatever injuries occur. Steps must be taken to prevent such unauthorized departures from happening. These may include some or all of the following:

It is unwise to have minors of significantly different ages at the same lock-in. Power imbalances can lead to acts of sexual victimization of younger children, as well as a greater risk of injuries caused by “roughhousing.”

Restroom breaks present a significant risk. Appropriate safeguards will depend on the building layout and the age of the minors. Children must not be allowed to wander off to a restroom alone, or with one or more older children.

All adult workers should be screened. Hopefully, the church already uses a screening program for persons who will work with minors. Every person who assists as a supervisor or chaperone at a church-sponsored lock-in should be prescreened according to the church’s policy. At a minimum, the screening program should include:

If the event involves swimming, use only facilities where certified life guards are on duty and assume responsibility for supervising activity.

If a trip involves sleeping at hotels, you will need to decide how to allocate members of the youth group to separate rooms. Consider these key points:

Avoid power imbalances (older youth sleeping in the same room with young children). Minors in each room should be about the same age.

Contact your local public school district to see how they handle sleeping arrangements in hotels. A key issue is whether to have adults in the same rooms as minors. While this is often appropriate, and necessary, for younger children, it is best to restrict the adults to parents of one or more children in the room.

For adolescents, it is common to have no adults in a hotel room. This option works best if all of the hotel rooms the youth group uses are on the same floor, so that chaperones can monitor room noise, and, more importantly, attempts by minors to exit their rooms. Again, check with your local school district. It sponsors overnight trips for sporting, fine arts, and other events, and it will have a policy that not only will be helpful, but will also express the conclusions of the state regarding proper housing arrangements involving minors.

Respondents were asked if their church screens people who work with the youth group. Three-fourths of the respondents said they screen all paid workers and volunteers for their youth ministry. Less than one in ten respondents said they do not screen youth workers or volunteers.

These responses reflect the significant change in church practice over the past few decades. Not long ago, these numbers would have been quite different. But, over time, the numbers of churches that screen youth workers has steadily increased, becoming the standard practice today. Only 10 percent of respondents said that their church does not screen youth workers. These churches are exposing children and youth to an elevated risk of sexual abuse, which exposes the church to significant legal liability. Any church that does not screen youth workers should start immediately.

Respondents also identified ways that their church screens youth workers. While 86 percent said they conduct a background check, only 55 percent said they check references. In other words, nearly half of churches surveyed said that they do not conduct reference checks on youth workers. The key point is that criminal records checks are not an adequate means of screening youth workers. They must be used in conjunction with reference checks in order to reduce risk the most.

There are two basic kinds of references: personal and institutional.