Legal, operational and cultural implications
of implementing cell phone policies
By Sharon Orr
As the holidays approach, mission-based organizations such as parochial schools and
nonprofits are preparing to offer camps and other activities for youth who are out of school. Along with developing their programming, they’re also considering the rules and policies they want to implement.
One of the most pervasive issues in youth management right now is the use of personal technology—especially cell phones. Even if teens’ phone use is restricted during the school day, they may expect to have full access to technology when they’re involved in camps or after-school programs.
And that’s where the problem begins: Instead of being engaged in an activity, some teens are glued to their phones, checking every notification as it arrives and firing off responses to messages they feel must be answered right away. So, organizations may want to enact a policy that bans cell phones for the duration of the time the teens are at their facility.
That’s an admirable goal—and one that many schools and organizations certainly are considering right now. But if an organization is considering policy changes or implementing tech boundaries, it’s essential that leaders understand the legal, operational and cultural implications of these decisions.
Liability considerations
As with any other new policy, there are legal risks associated with banning or limiting cell phones. If organizations don’t take special care to address these risks within the language and scope of their policies, they could face a lawsuit.
Phone damage and loss. At the top of the list of potential liability exposures is the prospect of damaging or losing phones. This is a distinct possibility if an organization forces young people to put their phones in a location other than on their own person. Depending on how the phones are stored (all in one bin vs. in compartmentalized containers), they could be subject to jost-ling, scratching or dropping.
There’s also a chance someone may leave the activity with the wrong phone.
Medical and accessibility needs. Some young people rely on their phones to help them manage chronic conditions, such as diabetes. Tailor-made apps track blood sugar levels, food intake and the amount of carbohydrates they have consumed; and if a teen doesn’t have access to their phone, they could make a dangerous mistake. Other young people—such as those who are deaf or hard of hearing—need their phones to help them with communication.
When an organization fails to consider these special situations, that can lead to legal challenges and reputational damage.
Emergency communication. Emergency situations—such as an active shooter, for example—are tricky to navigate when it comes to cell phone use. On one hand, you don’t want everyone using their phones at the same time because it could jam cell signals or alert an intruder to their location. On the other hand, systems still need to be in place to ensure that staff and students can communicate in the event of a crisis.
Some potential solutions could include walkie-talkies or designated emergency phones. Having these devices available can help organizations demonstrate their commitment to safety and preparedness.
It’s clear that a cell phone policy is not as simple as an across-the-board “no phones allowed” rule. There need to be exceptions and special-use situations.
The DONUT framework
As organizations work to develop a policy that can help them manage cell phone use and abuse, they can use the acronym “DONUT” to emphasize collaboration, transparency and equity.
Development. New policies are much more likely to succeed when all the stakeholders believe that they have a say in their development. Organizations that sponsor youth activities and camps should include staff members, parents and youth when they are fine-tuning various aspects of the policy.
- Opportunity. Pilot programs and phased rollouts give organizations the opportunity to test new policies before they become “official.” These early versions of a technology policy will allow them to gather data on both the positive outcomes of limiting cell phones and any potential liabilities. Leaders of the organizations will be able to refine their strategy before investing their effort into a full rollout.
It doesn’t set a great example if leaders,
staff members and volunteers are glued to
their phones while teens must put away their devices.
Notice. If entities plan to start a “no cell phone” policy during activities this holiday season, now is the time to give families plenty of notice. Make sure that parents are fully aware of the new policy before they sign up their teens for a camp or program. It’s also a good idea to include a line in the registration process on which teens themselves acknowledges they are aware of and understand the cell phone policy.
- Uniformity. Consistency matters—especially when it comes to the adults in an organization. It doesn’t set a great example if leaders, staff members and volunteers are glued to their phones while teens must put away their devices. A uniformly applied policy will garner more buy-in.
- Timeliness. If there are to be consequences for not adhering to the rules, they should be timely and fair. Staff members need to implement consequences at the time of the infraction—not a day or two later.
Policy development best
practices
When creating the new policy, organizations should keep the following important tips in mind:
- Make sure that the legal team and board are involved with approval. Mission-based organizations should always keep their mission top of mind with any big change. Their attorneys can check for any loopholes, and their board can provide oversight to ensure that they aren’t missing something important.
- Frame the new policy in a positive light. Any change is bound to encounter some resistance—especially from teens. Organizations should focus on how the new policy will help with team building, reduce cyberbullying and help them concentrate on the activities at hand.
- Include exceptions for students with medical and special education needs. As noted above in the DONUT framework, failure to take this step could result in costly lawsuits if a young person experiences a medical emergency or communication problem.
- Consider different rules for different age groups. An organization might be serving both teens and younger children in its after-school or school break programs. What works well for teens may be overwhelming for elementary-aged children, so it may be best to take a tiered approach.
Implementation of the policy
Once the cell phone policy is established, organizations will need to focus on how best to move forward. This includes giving both staff and youth the tools they need to succeed. It’s important to:
- Train staff members on the best ways to reinforce the new policy. Some of the adults who work with youth will understandably be anxious about the young people’s reaction to a cell phone ban. Organizations should role-play scenarios and provide clear guidelines for what they should and shouldn’t do.
- Educate students about why the policies were put into place. Staff members aren’t the only ones who need education. Organizations should give youth a clear understanding of why these boundaries exist, and how they can use technology responsibly.
- Model expected behaviors. As noted above in the DONUT framework, an organization will be more successful enforcing a cell phone policy with youth if adults put their phones away, too. If needed, there can be a designated break room where adults can use their phones—away from young people’s eyes.
- Enforce the rules fairly. Everyone should be held accountable to the same rules—unless, of course, they fall into one of the exception groups noted above, such as students with medical conditions.
Change is difficult for anyone—and any group that offers programs for young people knows how hard it is to modify already-existing rules. But once an organization gets over the initial hurdles with a new policy, it can make a real difference. All it takes is some forethought and preparation.
The author
Sharon Orr is Director–Risk Control, Education, for Church Mutual.
