episcopalyale.orgepiscopalyale.org › ... › 2019 › 09 › national-survey-final-re… · web...

A Feasibility Study for a National Survey of Episcopal Campus Ministries

In the United States

Produced by:

The Episcopal Church at Yale

And Supported by:

The Episcopal ChurchOffice of Young Adult and Campus Ministries

The Rev. Paul J. Carling, Ph.D., ChaplainMargaret E. Williams, Co - Chair, Congregational Council

Nolan J. Crawford, Co - Chair, Congregational CouncilThe Rev. Cheryl McFadden, Ed.D., Research Design & Data Entry

The Rev. Holly Christine Clark, Data EntryThe Rev. Kyle Pederson, Deacon, Research Design

Daryn David, Ph.D., Research Analysis

October 30, 2018

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1: Introduction and Purpose 3

Section 2: Research Assumptions 4

Section 3: Research Methods 5

Section 4: Characteristics of Campus Ministry Programs 6

Section 5: Relationships Among Variables 10

Section 6: Conclusions & Limitations of this Research 12

Section 7: The Critical Need for Further Research 12

Section 8: Next Steps 13

Appendix A: Summary Data on Episcopal Campus Ministries 14

Appendix B: Relationships Among Key Characteristics 37

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

2

Campus ministry programs for college students represent perhaps one of the greatest contradictions in the landscape of the postmodern and post - Christian church.

On the one hand, studies of the diminishing role of religious institutions in society - of the major declines in church attendance, the “graying” of the church, in which the average age of church members is consistently growing older, and the wholesale exodus of younger people from any church interest or affiliation - all suggest that engaging college students and young adults is simply vital to the survival and flourishing of churches. The “emerging church” movement, along with a core value of redefining church more consistently with God’s mission of reconciliation and restoration in our communities, both assume that a revitalized church, which incorporates strategies for forming disciples and sending them as apostles to minister to the world, is a necessary precondition for healthy churches in the future.

On the other hand, support for the kinds of programs on college campuses that will provide spiritual formation for young people, so that they can integrate their faith and their vocation as adults, and thereby become the next generation of lay and ordained leaders, is virtually nonexistent at either the national church or local diocesan levels. Further, there is almost no systematic information available on the characteristics of such programs.

Campus ministries have been a major source of vocations to ordained ministry historically. However in the last quarter of the 20th century, the Episcopal Church, along with other mainline denominations, began to withdraw financial support to these ministries, and it does not appear that dioceses have picked up the slack. As a result, many of these programs struggle with becoming sustainable.

The Episcopal Church (TEC) has responded by developing the Young Adult and Campus Ministry (YACM) program, which convenes national and regional conferences of campus ministers to share knowledge, and a grant program that provides modest funds for either starting new ministries, or reviving ones that have declined.

The Episcopal Church at Yale (ECY), after a period of decline, applied for and received a two-year National Leadership Grant in 2016 to revive their ministry and also to begin thinking about how best to approach the glaring lack of information in the field that would promote the innovation and creativity absolutely vital in a church that is in such flux. That grant led to a renaissance at ECY - creating a new board, increasing student attendance by tenfold, doubling the Chaplain’s time, launching multiple new programs, including one area-wide network of young adult Episcopalians 21 - 35 years old (YAE), and creating strong partnerships on campus and beyond.

3

One task specified in the grant award was to begin addressing the extreme scarcity of actual data on the characteristics and practices of Episcopal campus ministries throughout The Episcopal Church, and to make recommendations for gathering such information and sharing it with the field. The YACM Office generously made available to us the only existing database in this area, a list of websites of current “young adult and campus ministry programs, and we chose that for the target of preliminary analysis. This proved to be essentially a “very blunt instrument,” in that many websites are not up to date, many in fact were ministries focused on young adults and not college students, and decisions about what to include in one’s website and what to exclude were highly variable. Nonetheless, this data had a huge advantage as well, since it could describe what was missing in terms of answers to important questions in the field and this inform what we would want to see on an actual national survey. Therefore, we believe that examining this data in detail could begin to provide a road map for how to gather consistent, reliable and useful information from Episcopal campus ministries in the future.

This report summarizes the information that the ECY Chaplain, two seminarians, and two undergraduate student leaders were able to glean from an examination of the websites of all known Episcopal campus ministries in the United States, and makes suggestions for the next steps in this critically important exploration of the practices of this vital area of ministry to the emerging church.

SECTION 2: RESEARCH ASSUMPTIONS

Our efforts were based in the following key assumptions about the characteristics of a national survey of Episcopal campus ministries:

1. Before conducting such a study it will be critical to develop a clear list of actual campus ministry programs, as distinct from other ministries (e.g., to young adults).

2. It will also be important to identify the key study variables that would be most helpful to leaders in TEC, dioceses, and the programs themselves to foster strengthening and expanding campus ministry programs.

3. In order to identify desirable practices that are replicable (variously referred to as “vital” practices, “best” practices of “sustainable” practices among campus ministry leaders), it is first necessary to:

a. describe the universe of these ministries;

4

b. identify, using a consultation process with leaders in the field, a consensus on which practices appear most significant in developing and sustaining strong ministry programs, taking into account cultural, geographical and other factors; and

c. Determining a process through which such practices are actually being used in the field

SECTION 3: RESEARCH METHODS

ECY assembled a team consisting of the Chaplain, the Deacon, two seminarians from Berkeley Divinity School and two undergraduates interested in the project to design and implement this feasibility study. They proceeded as follows.

Step 1: Select Software and Begin Examining the Data Set

A seminarian set up a Qualtrics software program to enter both quantitative and qualitative information from the websites.

Step 2: Determine Which Sites Were Actual Campus Ministries

Since this was a combined list of “Young Adult” and “Campus” ministries, we first determined which sites were in fact campus ministries. Of the 169 sites we examined, 141 were determined to be campus ministries, either through self - identification on their website, or through further investigation on our part of diocesan and college / university Google searches.

Step 3: Use Qualtrics to Query these 141 Sites on 23 Basic Variables of Interest

The team then met several times to review an overview of the content of the websites, and to map out basic analyses. Our seminarian and a faculty colleague then ran these basic analyses and tabulated the results.

The results of these analyses provide a basic profile of the current state of Episcopal campus ministries with one important caveat, as described on their websites. Some of these sites are out of date. Many take a unique approach to describing their ministry, often with basic information not available, such as the presence or absence of a chaplain, the number of students served, and so forth. This is to be expected, of course, and strengthens the argument that the field absolutely requires better descriptive and uniform data on the actual condition and practices of these vitally important ministries.

5

These findings are displayed in Section 4 of the report, below.

Step 4: Conduct a Series to Chi Square Analyses to Determine Initial Patterns of Relationship

In this stage of the project, the team worked to identify which potential relationships among the data would be of interest to the field, including TEC staff, dioceses, campus ministers, oversigt bodies, and student leaders. Our two undergraduate leaders then performed chi square analyses to determine whether there were significant relationships among the variables.

These findings are displayed in Section 5, below.

Step 5: Summarize Basic Descriptions of Campus Ministries & Produce Report

SECTION 4: CHARACTERISTICS OF CAMPUS MINISTRY PROGRAMS

This section of the report displays the 23 variables we examined on the 141 websites determined to be “campus ministry” programs. As can be seen, many of the websites failed to include very basic information such as the presence or absence of a chaplain, but nonetheless suggest a variety of important follow - up questions.

Following is a list of the basic characteristics through which campus ministries describe themselves on their websites. The number of each item below refers to the research question, and a tabular presentation of these results is found in Appendix A.

1. Campus Ministries vs. Young Adult Ministry Sites (83%)

Of the 161 websites provided by TEC’s Young Adult and Campus Ministry program, 141 or 83% were determined to be college or university campus ministries.

2. Relationship of Website to College or University Domain (18%)

This variable was used as a proxy for whether the ministry was part of the college or university infrastructure or not, an admittedly weak proxy at best, since websites often have multiple addresses. Nonetheless, we found that 81% of the ministries were not

6

part of the higher education (.edu) website, which suggests the importance of further investigation into this relationship.

3. Single vs. Multiple Sites Served (63% vs. 31%)

In a surprising finding, 31% of the sites reported “serving multiple campuses.” This certainly contradicts the popular impression of a single ministry serving a particular site. It may be explained by the fact that multiple dioceses appear to be taking responsibility for oversight and / or expansion of campus ministries and, to a lesser extent the possibility of chaplaincies in multi - site undiversites serving multiple campuses.

4. Annual Website Updates (65%)

Most (65%) of the sites updated their websites in the last year. This provides validation for the initial approach of using ministry websites as a very preliminary proxy for the characteristics of campus ministries.

5. Use of Social Media (88%)

The great majority (88%) of sites use social media. Of those that do, 97% use FaceBook, while 70% use more than one social media application.

6. Current Activity on Websites (53%)

A little more than half of the sites (53%) have current activities, posts or notices on their sites, either suggesting a low level of programming activity or using social media rather than websites as their primary form of communication.

7. Presence of a Chaplain (61%)

Interestingly, only 61% of sites identify having a Chaplain. In addition, 8% identify the Chaplain as a local Rector or other parish clergy person, while 5% report having a combined Episcopal / Lutheran chaplain arrangement. It is not clear whether the use of the word “Chaplain,” as contrasted with “priest” or “campus minister” may lead to the potential underreporting here 8. Additional Chaplain Resources (37%)

About one third (37%) of the sites indicate the presence of clergy in addition to the Chaplain. It will be important to investigate what the numbers and variety of clergy involved in these ministries are more precisely.

7

9. Student Leadership Named (28%)

Only about one quarter (28%) of the sites listed student leaders. This is an important finding which may relate to the turnover of leadership, or may indicate lower levels of student engagement in leadership of the ministry. Since producing student leaders is seen by many as a key responsibility of these ministries, this will be an important variable to examine.

10. Governing Body Indicated (44%)

Fewer than half of the sites (44%) identified their governing body or organizational structure. Those that did mention a governing body, reported a Vestry (31%), a Board (14%), the Diocese (20%), a Parish Vestry (12%) or a Student Vestry or Leadership Team (7%). This result indicates a broad diversity of governance structures, and a relatively modest level of student leadership, even if some or all of the first Vestry category (31%) are students.

11. Student Governing Body Indicated (13%)

Even fewer sites (13%) mentioned any student governance structure such as a Vestry, a Congregational Council or the like.

12. Relationship with a Parish (51%)

Over half of the ministries (51%) indicates a relationship with a local parish. 13. Offer Weekly Worship Service (72%)

The great majority of sites (72%) offer weekly worship.

14. Offer More than One Service Weekly (46%)

These include Compline, Evensong and weekday prayer services.

15. Offer Services in Other than English (3%)

The low prevalence of non - English services suggests the need to explore where such services are offered and whether there are other opportunities for worship for students for whom English is not their first language.

16. Events Posted Other than Worship (88%)

8

This finding suggests a high level of activity and suggests that these ministries have created multiple “access points” for students to become involved.

17. Joint Episcopal / Lutheran Ministry (17%)

Combining this finding with that in Question 7 (above), in which 5% of the sites report both Episcopal and Lutheran Chaplains, this indicates that an additional 12% may have either an Episcopal or Lutheran clergy person.

18. Serve Other Faiths Beside Episcopalians and Lutherans (12%)

It is not clear whether this means that sites are finding students from other traditions joining their ministries, or whether they are part of a larger chaplaincy network which serves all faiths represented on campus.

19. Offers Peer Ministry (11%)

There has been significant interest in campus ministries over the last several decades in creating peer ministry programs. Whether this rather low utilization of those models has implications for the resources they require to implement, or whether others have tried them without success remains to be seen.

20. Offers Mentoring (3%)

Mentoring programs can be based on volunteers from a local parish, faculty or staff, graduate students and seminarians, or others. Very few ministries report implementing such programs.

21. Involved in Social Justice (52%)

Of all particular activities aside from worship, involvement in social justice is the highest reported. This shows one of the distinct characteristics of campus ministry programs as contrasted with parishes, and suggests the high level of interest among many students in this area. On the other hand, it is not clear from this data whether “social justice” refers to advocacy, or service in local communities, or both.

22. Publishes a Newsletter (26%)

Only about a quarter of ministries produce a newsletter. This involves both staff resources and specialized skills, and is also a crucial component of fundraising.

9

23. Able to Donate on Website (47%)

Almost half of the sites have implemented this capacity, another key element of fundraising.

SECTION 5: RELATIONSHIPS AMONG VARIABLES

Our student leaders conducted a cross tabulation (chi square) analysis of each variables against each other variable to identify any patterns in the data which would indicate that certain types of ministries were more likely to have certain characteristics compared to others, and to identify any potential predictors of certain variables.

In general there were few such relationships among the variable, which is expected, since these are not carefully defined variables with specific parameters, as would be the case in a formal national study. Nonetheless, some potential patterns are of interest. These are displayed in Appendix B, and described below.

Three distinct patterns emerged in these analyses:

Pattern 1: Impact of Campus Ministry Having a Parish Relationship:

Campus ministries with parish relationships have several unique characteristics including:

a. Those which offer non - English services are three times more likely to have parish affiliations

b. Those who emphasize social justice activities are three times more likely to have a parish affiliation

c. Those who publish a newsletter are four times more likely to be those with parish affiliations.

These findings suggest that there may be important benefits of affiliating with a parish in terms of diversity, programming and resources, relationships which need to be examined more carefully.

Pattern 2: Impact of Offering More than One Worship Service Weekly

Campus ministries that offer more than one weekly worship service also appear to have some distinct characteristics including:

a. These ministries are more likely to offer mentoring programs

10

b. They are also more likely to be engaged in social justice

Of course, this increased programming may simply be a matter of size, which would allow the ministry to offer both multiple worship services and additional non-worship programs as well. This bears further examination.

Pattern 3: Impact of Offering Activities Beyond Worship

Campus ministries that offered activities beyond worship were far more likely to be engaged in social justice activities. Again, this may be related either to size of the ministry, or also to the mission of the ministry, and the extent to which it identifies itself primarily as a worshipping community or one that provides programming to meet a variety of needs, and to engage a variety of students. This too bears further examination.

SECTION 6: CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

This report describes an exploratory study intended to develop a set of recommendations for a carefully designed research project that would describe systematically and objectively the current functioning and needs of Episcopal campus ministry programs. The anticipated audiences are several:

1. The Episcopal Church in general and the Office of Young Adult and Campus Ministries in particular, the major source of convening and sharing resources and support to those ministries;

2. Dioceses of the Episcopal Church which increasingly bear responsibility for setting mission priorities and for developing future leadership for the church;

3. Leaders at the diocesan, college or parish levels who wish to develop new campus ministry programs and who wish to understand the variety of approaches and programs that contribute to success; and

4. Existing and potential networks of these ministries, including seminaries and other training organizations that seek to identify and promote “vital practices” and “sustainable practices” which strengthen and extend these ministries, with a goal of serving all Episcopal college students across the church who wish to integrate their faith and vocation and grow into the next generation of leaders in our church.

11

Section 7 (below) describes the need for such research project, and Section 8 describes next steps..

SECTION 7. THE CRITICAL NEED FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Based on our experience with this project, as well as multiple conversations at national campus ministry conferences, regional gatherings of campus ministry programs, and networking among those chaplains considered among the strongest and most sustainable, we are convinced of several critical and unmet needs of this important mission field:

1. Future research in this field must incorporate the perspectives of multiple constituencies. These include

a. the broad diversity of college and university contexts, including those with seminary resources;

b. the perspectives of different dioceses with varying levels of engagement with this mission filed;

c. the perspectives of students who these ministries intend to attract and serve;

d. and the perspectives of experienced and successful leaders in the field who have developed relatively successful and sustainable ministries.

Each of these constituencies needs to be involved in the design of research, its implementation, and in the disseminations of results.

2. Future research must not only be descriptive, but useful for those wishing to implement campus ministries at the local level, for those wishing to design new approaches to making campus ministry services available across wider geographical areas, such as multiple colleges across dioceses, without simply trying to replicate the traditional one - campus, one - Chaplain model. It is unlikely that this model will either be affordable or sustainable in the future.

SECTION 8: NEXT STEPS

Following are the recommendations that have grown out of this project:

1. Identify funding for a National Survey of Episcopal Campus Ministries

2. Design this survey with significant input from YACM leadership, provincial coordinators, interested diocesan staff, current campus ministry leaders, and student representatives

3. Assure that the survey is easy to complete and that the results have obviously usefulness for the respondents

12

4. Disseminate the survey from TEC to maximize response from the ministries

5. Convene a Leadership Roundtable of bishops and campus ministry leaders to review the results and make a comprehensive set of recommendations for further action to expand the availability of high quality and sustainable campus ministry programs throughout TEC, along with strategies for generating the resources to make this possible, both within the church and from outside organizations.

APPENDIX A

CHARACTERISTICS OF EPISCOPAL CAMPUS MINISTRIES

Q1 - Is this organization either a campus ministry or somehow affiliated with campus ministry?

13

# Answer % Count

1Yes (Please describe - e.g., standalone campus ministry, parish with

campus outreach, etc.) 83.43% 141

2 No 15.38% 26

3 Not Sure 1.18% 2

4 Not Applicable 0.00% 0

Total 100% 169

NOTE RE EXCLUSION OF NON CAMPUS MINISTRY PROGRAMSQ2 - Is this website part of a college or university’s domain (.edu)?

14

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 18.06% 26

2 No 81.25% 117

3 Not Sure 0.00% 0


Total 100% 144

Q3 - Does this organization serve multiple campuses?

15

# Answer % Count

1 Yes (how many?) 29.86% 43

2 No 62.50% 90

3 Not Sure 4.86% 7


Total 100% 144

Q4 - Does this website appear to have been updated in the past year?

16

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 65.97% 95

2 No 8.33% 12

3 Not Sure 25.00% 36


Total 100% 144

Q5 - Are there social media buttons or links on the website?

17

# Answer % Count

1 Yes (which platforms?) 87.50% 126

2 No 11.81% 17

3 Not Sure 0.00% 0


Total 100% 144

Platforms Used % (of 126 using social media) Frequency

Facebook 96.8 122

Facebook only 30.2 38

Facebook and Twitter 17.5 22

2 or more platforms 69.8 88




Q6 - Are there photos/posts/notices/etc. about current academic year events or activities?

18

# Answer % Count

1 Yes (please describe) 52.78% 76

2 No 25.69% 37

3 Not Sure 20.14% 29


Total 100% 144

Q7 - Does this organization appear to have a chaplain?

19

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 61.11% 88

2 No 18.75% 27

3 Not Sure 16.67% 24


Total 100% 144

# Type % (of 88 reporting a chaplain)

Frequency

1 Chaplain 68.2 60

2 Rector of parish/parish clergy 7.9 7

3 Episcopal and Lutheran (2) 4.5 4

Q8 - Are there clergy involved in addition to/other than a chaplain?

20

# Answer % Count

1 Yes (please describe - e.g., deacon, associate chaplain, visi ng priest, etc.) 36.81% 53

2 No 36.81% 53

3 Not Sure 22.92% 33


Total 100% 144

Type % (of 53 reporting yes) Frequency

Parish clergy 33.9 18

Multiple/associate chaplains 22.6 12

Deacon 13.2 7

Q9 - Are student leaders listed anywhere on the site?

21

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 27.97% 40

2 No 65.03% 93

3 Not Sure 4.20% 6


Total 100% 143

Q10 - Is there information about a governing body that oversees this ministry?

22

# Answer % Count

1 Yes (please describe - e.g., Board of Directors, Vestry, Leadership Council, etc.) 44.44% 64

2 No 51.39% 74

3 Not Sure 3.47% 5


Total 100% 144

Type % (of 64 reporting Yes) Frequency

Vestry 31.3 20

Board of Directors 14.1 9

Diocesan 20.3 13

Parish Vestry 11.8 8

Student Vestry/Leadership 7.8 5

Q11 - Is there information about a student-led governing body involved in the governance of this ministry?

23

# Answer % Count

1 Yes (please describe - e.g., Student Vestry, Congregational Council, etc.) 13.19% 19

2 No 79.17% 114

3 Not Sure 4.86% 7


Total 100% 144

Q12 - Does this organization appear to have a relationship with a parish?

24

# Answer % Count


2 No 32.64% 47

3 Not Sure 13.19% 19


Total 100% 144

Q13 - Does this organization offer a regular weekly worship service?

25

# Answer % Count

1 Yes (day and me?) 71.53% 103

2 No 18.06% 26

3 Not Sure 6.94% 10


Total 100% 144

Q14 - Does this organization offer more than one weekly worship service?

26

# Answer % Count

1 Yes (please describe - e.g., compline, evensong, weekday prayer services, etc.) 45.83% 66

2 No 41.67% 60

3 Not Sure 7.64% 11


Total 100% 144

Q15 - Are there services regularly offered in languages other than English?

27

# Answer % Count

1 Yes (which language(s)?) 2.78% 4

2 No 88.89% 128

3 Not Sure 4.17% 6


Total 100% 144

Q16 - Are events or activities other than worship offered?

28

# Answer % Count


2 No 3.47% 5

3 Not Sure 6.94% 10


Total 100% 144

Q17 - Is this a joint Episcopal-Lutheran ministry?

29

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 17.36% 25

2 No 81.94% 118

3 Not Sure 0.00% 0


Total 100% 144

Q18 - Are any faith groups other than the Episcopal or Lutheran churches involved in organizing this ministry?

30

# Answer % Count

1 Yes (which ones?) 11.89% 17

2 No 84.62% 121

3 Not Sure 2.80% 4


Total 100% 143

Q19 - Does this organization appear to offer any peer ministry program?

31

# Answer % Count


2 No 81.94% 118

3 Not Sure 4.86% 7


Total 100% 144

Q20 - Does this organization appear to offer any kind of mentoring program?

32

# Answer % Count


2 No 90.97% 131

3 Not Sure 4.86% 7


Total 100% 144

Q21 - Does this ministry appear to be involved in any social justice activities?

33

# Answer % Count


2 No 38.89% 56

3 Not Sure 6.94% 10


Total 100% 144

Q22 - Does this organization publish a newsletter?

34

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 26.39% 38

2 No 66.67% 96

3 Not Sure 5.56% 8


Total 100% 144

Q23 - Is there a way to make a donation on this website?

35

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 47.22% 68

2 No 51.39% 74

3 Not Sure 0.69% 1


Total 100% 144

APPENDIX B

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG KEY CHARACTERISTICS

36

episcopalyale.orgepiscopalyale.org › ... › 2019 › 09 › national-survey-final-re… · web...

Documents