- There is a widespread aspiration for growth;
- There is a desire to maintain and develop the parish system, although this is likely to mean in many dioceses further amalgamation of parishes into multi-parish benefices;
- Newer forms of church are a growing feature of the Church of England but diocesan resources, thinking and effort are still largely devoted to the ‘stipendiary clergy + parish’ model of church.
- There is a desire to stabilise stipendiary clergy numbers and increase the number of self-supporting clergy and lay leaders.
- There are concerns about the quality of some current clergy, and those emerging through current selection and training processes.
- The Church cannot find sufficient ministers to lead churches in the most deprived communities of the country and/or exercise specialist leadership roles (e.g. multi-parish benefices, interim ministry).
2) In general the Task group "found a ‘reality gap’ between dioceses’ aspiration for the number of leaders they want and their plans to realise them." (para 13 page 3 and graph - as below - on page 4)
3) Across the church "considerable amounts of resource are being channelled to support parish churches for the simple reason they are declining, not because they are in deprived communities or are serving large populations". (para 16 page 4)
4) Early in the review the Task group agreed "that any national funding system needs to pass the following tests:
- It should target resources sharply in order to deliver the goals of the funding (e.g. supporting mission in the poorest communities and/or proactive investment in growth);
- The method of distribution should incentivise (or at the very least avoid penalising) the following outcomes: Church growth (in all its forms); Efficient asset management; Flexible deployment in line with demographic patterns and emerging missional need; Financial sustainability and development towards independence from national funding; Innovation;
- The workings of the distribution system should be transparent;
- There should be accountability over the stewardship and impact of the Church’s resources.
5) The Task groups assessment "is that the national formula-based distribution systems currently in place do not pass these tests .... both the Darlow and Sheffield formula are no longer fit for purpose". (para 20 & 21 page 5)
Proposals
Overall Goals
1) Investment in mission & growth (with bias to the poor) & mission in poorest communities All national funding to dioceses "should be used as investment in mission and growth", "although distributed in a way which also has a bias to the poor" AND part of this national funding "should be explicitly targeted on supporting mission work in the poorest communities" (para 26 page 6)
2) 50:50 split of funding for mission to most deprived & opportunities for growth
"National funding distributed to dioceses should be split 50:50 between" "a) the support and development of mission work in the most deprived communities and b) proactive investment in new opportunities for growth across the country". (para 27 page 6)
3) Separate funding streams for support for poorest & growth investment
In terms of the distribution of funding, there need to be separate (and tightly focused) funding streams for the support of the poorest and for investment in growth to ensure that both aims are delivered effectively. (para 28 page 6)
4) Extra funding from Church Commissioners & if not then existing funds but prioritised
This report and the other reports proposals require extra investment. (para 29 page 7). If this can't be found from the Church Commissioners then the Archbishops’ Council will need to consider how to use existing national funding or savings in national expenditure to fund such. Any national funding should be distributed in line with a small number of priorities and in a way which avoids long-term operational funding commitments. (para 30 page 7)
Support of Poorer Communities
5) Funds for mission to poorest to Diocese not parishes & targeted where most poorer
Specific national funding for mission in the poorest communities should be given to dioceses rather than parishes. (because dioceses have responsibility for the deployment of ministry and resources within their boundaries.) National funding should be targeted on those dioceses which have most of these poorer communities. (para 31 page 7)
6) Allocation of mission to poorest funds via objective & other measures not bidding
The funding mentioned in 5) should not be subject to a bidding process (relying too strongly on advocacy to distribute such funds risks the needs of the poorest being overlooked). Instead objective measures of need are required; conversation should also play a key role in identifying where resources should be distributed; AND funding decisions should take place within the context of dioceses’ partnership with each other and the National Church Institutions (NCIs). (para 32 page 7)
7) Fund distribution process to use peer review & specific proposals to bias to poorest
The process for distributing funding in respect of mission work in deprived communities should be as follows:
- Before funding commitments are made to a diocese in any three-year period, a dialogue should take place between its leadership team and a reference group established by the Archbishops’ Council which comprises representatives of other dioceses and the NCIs.
- This peer review should discuss the use and impact of dioceses’ current funding and future plans, with the aim of promoting mission and financial strength and sustainability, and facilitating cross-diocesan learning.
- The Darlow formula should be replaced by a new means of calculating dioceses’ allocation of funds based on the resources of the general population of the diocese, rather than any measure of diocesan income. This will target funds more explicitly on deprived communities and remove the existing perverse incentives which reduce a diocese’s funding if its attendance grows and/or improves its financial position.
- Dioceses’ funding should be calculated by a) taking the average income of residents in each diocese; b) modifying this income figure to take account of the percentage of people in the diocese who are the most deprived (because their income is derived from benefits for basic needs); and c) ranking dioceses according to this modified income figure and their population, so that the poorest, most populous dioceses receive the most funding.
- In discussion with the reference group, each diocese allocated funding will set out plans for its use, the anticipated outcomes and how these will be monitored. In future triennia, the reference group may recommend to the Archbishops’ Council that (part or all of) a diocese’s funding is withheld if there are serious concerns about its failure to achieve the outcomes it planned or if there is a lack of evidence that the monies are being directed to the poorest communities. (para 33 page 7)
8) The new allocation system should not be set in stone but be reviewed at regular intervals. (para 34 page 8)
Deployment of Clergy
9) Need to ensure the Church ministers to the whole nation, not just the well-resourced - parts of the country is ongoing, (para 35 page 8)
10) The national Church bodies should support dioceses’ plans - rather than impose a central planning system on them.
11) Proposals should contribute to greater equity of ministerial provision across country
The proposals to align the national funding more closely with dioceses’ plans, with the bias to the poorest communities, should help contribute to greater equity of ministerial provision across the country. The proposed use of national funding to stimulate an overall increase in the number and quality of church leaders will also benefit poorer areas.
12) On "hard to fill" poss there are other options the Ministry Council should consider
(and its Deployment Group) to address the issue of ‘hard to fill’ posts.
13) Continue arrangements to fairly share stipendiary deacons and review them
So such arrangement , as at present, to ensure all dioceses have a reasonable share of the stipendiary deacons emerging from training each year should continue, though their basis and effectiveness should be subject to review by the Archbishops’ Council (advised by the Ministry Council and its Deployment Group).
(para 36 page 8)
Proactive Investment in Growth
14) Funds for investment in growth allocated via bidding & linked to diocese plans
Funding for proactive investment in growth opportunities should be explicitly linked to dioceses’ plans for mission and growth, and in a way in which encourages evaluation of outcomes, sustainability and shared learning. To do this, it is best that the funding is allocated by a bidding mechanism similar to the one currently in operation for the strategic development funding. The current formula-based mission development funding should, therefore, come to an end. (para 37 page 8)
15) Diocese discretion on use of funds - informed by diocese strategy & national priorities
The criteria attached to the new funding stream should give dioceses wide discretion about the use of funding - so long as their applications fit with their strategic plans and they can demonstrate the proposals will lead to a significant difference to their mission and financial health. It should be open to the national Church bodies to identify a limited number of priorities to inform funding decisions. (para 38 page 8)
16) Diocese need to be strategic on mission activity & leadership requirements
This report's proposals about funding are critically dependent on dioceses being strategic about their mission activity and leadership requirements. Some dioceses may, therefore, wish to apply for some development funding to help develop their strategic capacity. This will put them in a better position to make a more substantial application for funding to advance their mission and growth. (para 39 page 8)
17) Diocese must commit their own funds if applying for national funds, wealthy more so
All dioceses should be eligible to apply for the funding stream for proactive investment in growth but there should be a ‘bias to the poor’. There should be a clear expectation that any diocese which applies for funding must have already committed their own funds to their proposals. Some simple rules should be devised so that the greater a diocese’s wealth, the larger the financial commitment they must make. (para 40 page 8)
18) National funding decisions to encourage use of diocese capital in stipend funds
Dioceses will benefit to differing degrees from legislation currently being prepared which will give them more flexibility over the use of the capital in their stipend funds. Decisions about the national funding must be taken in a way which encourages the use of these monies to support mission and growth. (para 41 page 8)
Transitional arrangements
19) Transition to new funding arrangements to take 10 years from start of 2017
This recognises the need for an orderly transition so dioceses have time to adjust, (and so the transition period can be used strategically to advance their mission and financial health) (para 43 page 9) It allows a steady build-up of the new funding stream for pro-active investment in growth. The 50:50 goal will only be reached by 2026. para 44 page 9)
