Survey of Judicatory Executives
 

Thanks to everyone who participated in our two surveys: one for clergy and laity in congregations and one for judicatory executives.

The number of responses received from the survey for clergy and laity in congregations (7) was too small for us to tabulate any meaningful results.

However, we were able to tabulate some results from the survey for judicatory executives. Here they are; we hope you will find them interesting and helpful.

The Congregational Resource Guide received a total of 23 responses to the survey of judicatory executives. The largest faith group represented was the United Methodist Church (35% of survey respondents), with the second largest group being the Disciples of Christ (17%). Other groups represented were Presbyterian (PCUSA), Jewish, Lutheran (ELCA), American Baptist, Christian Reformed, and Mennonite.

The number of congregations in these judicatories ranged from 13 to 828, with a median number of 90. Fifty-six percent (56%) of the judicatories had fewer than 100 congregations, 22% had between 100 and 200, and 22% had more than 400.

For 70% of executives, the balance of systems maintenance work ("managing what is") versus transformational work ("working toward what is not yet") in their congregations was 75% to 25%. For a slightly smaller percentage (61%), this same balance applied to their own middle judicatory work.

Seventy percent (70%) of executives anticipated an increase in the regional body budget within the next five years, while 30% anticipated a decrease. Over 30% expected an increase of 6-10%, but only 13% expected an increase of more than 10%.

Executives were asked to rank the importance of the following training and development efforts for clergy leaders in their judicatories: preaching; evangelism; systems theory and application; spiritual development; leadership development; empowerment of the laity; and managing conflict or change (with "1" being the highest rank). They were also asked to estimate the percentage of their judicatories' training and development budget allocations to these efforts.

The highest median ranking ("2") was for spiritual development and leadership development. The next highest ranking ("3") was for evangelism and empowerment of the laity, followed by a ranking of "4" for systems theory and managing conflict or change and a "5" for preaching.

The highest median percentage of budget allocations was for evangelism (13%) and for leadership development (13%). The next highest percentage was for spiritual development (10%) and for systems theory and application (10%), followed by 8% for empowering laity, 5% for managing conflict or change, and 3% for preaching.

Both by "ranking of importance" and by budget allocation, leadership development was a relatively high priority, and preaching was a relatively low priority. Evangelism and systems theory had slightly higher budget allocations relative to their rankings, and spiritual development and empowerment of the laity had slightly lower budget allocations.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of executives believed that their resources and mission were "somewhat aligned," with the remainder believing that they were either "not very aligned" or "completely misaligned."

Approximately 41% of the executives worked in judicatories with annual budgets of $500,000 or less; for another 27% the budget ranged from $500,000 to $750,000; for the remaining 32% the budget was greater than $750,000.

The median budget alignment for "transformational work" overall was 10%.

Asked how their systems define "transformational work," the executives provided a variety of responses. Common themes focused on the formation of disciples, on commitment to mission, and on openness to change or renewal. A few respondents said they had not really thought about it.

Asked about the criteria by which they evaluate transformational work, a number of executives spoke about faith formation and the development of disciples. Nearly half talked about change, growth, and vitality. Some said that they refer to characteristics of healthy congregations, such as those published by "Church Smart."

While these survey results show some interesting trends, they should not be taken as conclusive or indicative of judicatory trends overall.

If you have any questions or observations about these results, please email Claudia Greer, Research Associate at the Alban Institute.