Board of Trustees
 |
Home About Us | Programs & Services | News & Events | Publications | Giving & Funding | Press Room |
Agenda for
UUA Board Meeting
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RSCC Region | Interviewed | Green | Yellow | Red | Percentage of Total |
| CANADA | 7 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3% |
| MID-ATLANTIC | 29 | 18 | 8 | 3 | 14% |
| MID-WEST | 46 | 38 | 7 | 1 | 22% |
| NEW ENGLAND | 52 | 42 | 11 | 1 | 25% |
| SOUTH | 14 | 12 | 4 | 0 | 7% |
| WEST | 61 | 37 | 15 | 0 | 29% |
| Total | 209 | 157 | 48 | 6 | 100% |
| Percentage | 100% | 75% | 22% | 3% |
Perhaps even more importantly, it is the perception of many people working with the RSCC system that a good number of aspirants, when made aware of the rigor of the RSCC process, have self-selected to drop out of the credentialing process on their own. However, there is no statistical data available to support this learning.
Of course, we also heard some complaints, and received many suggestions for improvement.
We found a remarkable consistency in the responses of all surveyed groups, to the extent that they were familiar with operation of the RSCCs. Consequently, we drew on the sum of information from all of the surveys as well as analyses conducted by the MPLSG and committee members themselves to arrive at our conclusions and recommendations. A summary of the recommendations is provided below.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations were based upon the feedback we received. We make these recommendations hopeful that existing UUA budgetary concerns will be temporary.
1. Our findings indicate that the RSCCs focus more on evaluation than on nurturing or support. Many aspirants report that the amount of nurturing and support is inadequate.
We recommend that the RSCCs, while continuing to perform necessary evaluative functions, place greater emphasis on the guidance of aspirants, and experiment with ways to provide ongoing support. We further recommend that, before the time of the next evaluation, the MFC and the RSCCs enter into discussion and consideration regarding how the RSCCs can most effectively fulfill the guidance aspects of the responsibilities as set forth in the RSCC Policies and Procedures Manual.
2. There was a significant amount of negative feedback received from aspirants and seminaries concerning the use of the green-yellow-red light rating system.
We recommend the elimination of the light rating system in determining candidacy status, and instruct the RSCCs to communicate at the time of the interview (and in the letter sent to the aspirant after the interview) whether candidacy status is granted, candidacy status postponed at this time (with the requirement of a return interview), or candidacy status is denied.
3. Our findings indicate that there is a great deal of concern about the lack of diversity in the membership of the RSCCs. There are no community ministers, few persons of color or from historically marginalized communities, and few younger members on the RSCCs.
Therefore, we recommend that the Committee on Committees address these concerns when making future appointments.
4. Aspirants indicate a perception of varied bias favoring parish ministry over community ministry and the ministry of religious education, against those with a Christian orientation, and against those preparing for service as military chaplains.
Therefore, we recommend that RSCC members receive ongoing training to address and eliminate these perceived biases.
5. Some students of color or those from historically marginalized communities reported feeling that there was an expectation that they assimilate into the dominant European-American UU culture.
Therefore, we recommend that RSCC members receive ongoing training in anti-racism, anti-oppression and multiculturalism during each term of service on an RSCC.
6. Our findings indicate that the current practice with respect to the aspirant's financial planning is inadequate. Aspirants and committee members report that insufficient time or attention is given to this aspect of the committee's work.
Therefore, we recommend that each aspirant be required to submit a financial plan before the interview for review by the RSCC committee.
7. Our findings indicate that the concept of retreats should be broadened. While most RSCC members and many aspirants were very positive about the value of retreats, the surveys also showed that only about 60% of the respondents had attended a retreat. Most of those who attended were from UU schools. The retreats posed challenges for students in terms of time, travel and cost. The surveys indicated mixed reviews as to the effectiveness of the retreats. There was confusion as to the primary purpose of the retreats: were they to be informational, evaluative or supportive?
We recommend that alternative retreat programs or formats be
considered in addition to the models currently used. Alternatives might include RSCC members making regular visits to theological schools attended by UU students, RSCCs developing workshops to be offered at district meetings and at General Assembly, and increased use of the internet for information, communication and training.
8. Our findings suggest the accounting practices of the RSCCs are inconsistent with each other, and do not provide evidence of adequate financial management or control.
Therefore, we recommend the following steps be taken:
a. Centralize control of RSCC financial planning, cash management, record keeping and reporting at the UUA. A common chart of accounts should be established and used by all of the RSCCs.
b. Require the RSCCs to submit budget proposals and requests for payment of expenses, subject to approval by the Ministerial Credentialing Director.
c. Make expense reimbursements through the UUA Treasurer's Office, which will also be responsible for preparation of monthly reports.
d. The line of responsibility should run from the Ministry and Professional Leadership Staff Group, through the Ministerial Credentialing Director, to each of the RSCCs in analyzing the results of RSCC operations.
e. Any balances of budgeted amounts remaining in an RSCC at year-end should revert to the UUA General Fund.
9. Our findings indicate that there is lack of consistency regarding the use of sermons or presentations as part of the interviews. Some RSCCs require a sermon or presentation; others do not.
Therefore, it is our recommendation that RSCCs offer all aspirants the choice of delivering a sermon or presentation.
10. Our findings indicate that, in some instances, there is a lack of understanding regarding the relationship between the RSCC Administrator, the District Staff, and the RSCC. For example, some RSCCs choose to have the RSCC Administrator and/or District Staff present during aspirant interviews, while others do not.
Therefore, we recommend in those instances in which the RSCC Administrator and/or District Staff are present at interviews, they do not participate in the interview process.
11. Our findings indicate that some District Staff feel they are not involved early enough in the credentialing process. Some are not aware of aspirants or candidates in their district, and some aspirants and candidates are unaware of the role of District Staff.
Therefore, we recommend that the initial interview of each aspirant be with a District Staff member or his/her designee. Further, we recommend that the Ministerial Credentialing Office Administrator notify appropriate District Staff when an aspirant becomes a candidate and when a candidate is granted Preliminary Fellowship.
12. Responsibilities of the RSCCs as stated in the RSCC Policies and Procedures Manual include being involved in the recruiting of students, helping educate congregations on the function of the RSCCs and establishing and relating to Advisory Teams. Our findings indicated that these three responsibilities are not being undertaken by the RSCCs. Most RSCCs feel that there is neither time nor finances to undertake these responsibilities.
Therefore, we recommend that the following three functions be eliminated from the list of responsibilities in the RSCC Policies and Procedures Manual :
1) recruitment of students
2) education of congregations and
3) establishment of Advisory Teams
13. Our findings indicate that there are a number of inconsistencies in the implementation of the RSCC Policies and Procedures. These include the manner in which committee members relate to students, the role of the sponsor, follow-up procedures after interviews, the form and content of letters to the MFC, and confusion about who can attend retreats.
Therefore, we recommend that the Ministry and Professional Leadership Staff Group review and update the RSCC Policies and Procedures Manual . In addition, templates for letters used by the RSCCs should strive toward greater consistency.
14. Participants in the September 2002 Diversity of Ministry Team Conference expressed concern that the ministerial credentialing process is oppressive to students of color.
Therefore, we recommend that the UUA Diversity of Ministry Team review RSCC forms and processes through an anti-racism, anti-oppression and multicultural lens and make recommendations for needed changes.
15. Our findings indicate that some Internship Supervisors feel that information from the RSCC concerning their interns would be helpful for their supervisory relationships. The present policy is that each RSCC is responsible for establishing its own policies for sharing information.
Therefore, we recommend that RSCCs and the MPLSG urge candidates to share RSCC interview letters with Intern Committees and Intern Supervisors, CPE Supervisors, and any other persons who assist students in professional growth.
16. Our findings suggest that the full impact of the RSCC system will take a number of years to be revealed, and that the system deserves ongoing assessment to determine if it is meeting stated goals.
Therefore, we recommend a follow-up evaluation of the RSCC system in five years.
II. RESPONSE TO GOALS IDENTIFIED IN 1998 RSC CONSULTATION AND AT 2002 UUA BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING
In this section, the RSCC Evaluation Panel specifically addresses evaluation issues and concerns identified in the 1998 RSC Consultation which was affirmed by the MFC, and further issues and concerns identified at the September 2002 meeting of the Ministry Working Group of the UUA Board of Trustees.
RSC CONSULTATION EVALUATION SUGGESTIONS
The MFC hoped that fewer category III's, IV's and V's would be granted with the involvement of the RSCCs . From May 2001 to September 2003, of the candidates seeing the MFC who had been interviewed by an RSCC (about 20% of all interviews) only two candidates received a category IV, and none a category V. When comparing those candidates who saw the MFC from May 2001 to September 2003 who had no RSCC interview to those who did, the candidates with a prior RSCC interview had a 15% increase in the likelihood of getting a category I or a II.
The MFC hoped a number of inappropriate applicants would be counseled out of the process early . Although to date only 3% of aspirant interviews have resulted in a red light, there is considerable anecdotal evidence to suggest that a number of students are opting out of the credentialing process when they learn of the requirements. However, it is not possible to know conclusively if some of these individuals would have received red lights had they continued preparation toward fellowship.
The MFC was also hopeful of increased diversity in our ministry . Here the results are mixed. There are an increasing number of ministers who self-identify as Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, or Transgender. But, the experience within the association regarding successful settlements of ministers of color or from historically marginalized communities is not good, and for African-American men, a crisis.
The MFC hoped for better financial planning and decreased student debt load. This is difficult to quantify because the UUA knowledge of educational loan debt is entirely dependent upon a minister's willingness to request relief. Many new ministers (and aspirants) feel quite reluctant to admit to UUA staff that they are in financial crisis out of concern for possible retribution. Aspirants are not required to submit financial data to the RSCCs, and need only to sign off that they have considered the financial requirements of pursuing the ministry. The RSCCs are educating aspirants about the perils of indebtedness, but no RSCC has connected anticipated debt, or lack of a financial plan with the withholding of candidate status despite the fact that there are some aspirants who anticipate loan debt in excess of $100,000. Our sixth recommendation was designed to address this concern.
The MFC hoped that there would be increased availability of scholarships funds for students, to be awarded on the basis of need. This variable was difficult to measure because the availability of funds is largely dependent upon a robust economy. RSCC Administrators have been instructed to mention the availability of career assessment grants only on the basis of financial need.
The MFC was also interested in an increased sense of partnership, decreased reactions and antipathy toward authority (UUA, schools, etc.) and decreased attrition. Measuring these variables is also difficult, although some aspirants report a more positive awareness of the UUA through contact with their RSCC. The MFC is now meeting with Meadville Lombard and Starr King faculty and staff to discuss mutual concerns.
The MFC hoped for a greater sense of ownership and support for professional ministry by UUA congregations including more thoughtful sponsorships, more intern opportunities and money for the support of students. These are also difficult variables to measure and quantify. There are more congregations willing to sponsor candidates, despite the lack of a sustained effort to educate and support congregations. Perhaps the involvement of laity on the RSCCs has helped connect the work of formation to some congregations. The struggling economy has had significant impact upon availability of parish-based internship sites, and on financial support for the Living Tradition Fund.
Finally, the MFC was interested if candidates have a stronger and clearer sense of vocation due to the RSCC system. Again, quantifying this variable is challenging, but unquestionably, aspirants are getting the full advantage of an interview with RSCCs who are very interested in an aspirant's sense of call to the Unitarian Universalist ministry. This is particularly helpful for aspirants who attend non-UU schools (representing most of those preparing for the UU ministry) where opportunities for serious UU vocational reflection are limited.
UUA BOARD WORKING GROUP EVALUATION CONCERNS
Just prior to the meeting of the RSCC Evaluation Panel, the MFC approved an appeal process for aspirants who received a red light , which had been identified as a primary concern. With RSCCs needing to address a decrease in funding for FY 2003-04, there has been no new discussion regarding expanding the size of some RSCCs . The recruitment, nomination and appointment process of RSCC vacancies has been made more transparent by shifting this task to the UUA Committee on Committees. Feedback from those surveyed clearly express the need for further anti-racist, anti-oppression and multiculturalism training concerns , and has been addressed in our recommendations. We hope that our recommendations to eliminate the light rating system and encourage RSCC members to pay more attention to guidance functions will address anxiety about the RSCC process communicated by aspirants at UU schools.
In completing the RSCC Evaluation process, the panel chose to survey a broad range of stakeholders affected by the RSCC process. We attempted to make contact with every aspirant/candidate who had been interviewed, no matter the outcome of the visit. We used email surveys as the primary vehicle for gathering data, with the exception of direct conversation with members of the MFC, a DRUUMM representative and a few District Staff.
ASPIRANTS/CANDIDATES
The RSCC Evaluation Panel sent surveys by e-mail to 232 aspirants/candidates who interviewed with an RSCC in the period from May 2001 to January 2003. We received responses from 106 people, with 4 responses arriving after the June 13, 2003 deadline. These 4 were not included in the summaries prepared. The RSCC Evaluation Panel learned from several sources that some aspirants/candidates chose not to respond to our request for concern that any negative comment would have an affect on their ability to obtain preliminary fellowship.
We had responses from 21 ministers who are now in Preliminary Fellowship, 67 candidates, 6 aspirants, 2 former aspirants who are no longer considering ministry, 1 who claims to be an "unfellowshipped" minister (a red light) and 4 who did not report any particular status. (Through the balance of this appendix, this group will be referred to collectively as "respondents.") 77 are seeking parish ministry, 3 are preparing for the Ministry of Religious Education and 31 are seeking fellowship as community ministers. Some indicated multiple preferences. 37 respondents are male and 62 are female. The average age was 42. 87 indicated self-identified as white/Caucasian/Euro-American. 1 person self-identified as Asian, 1 as Native American, 3 as African-American and 5 responded as mixed race. Responses came from all six RSCCs. The panel received responses from 88 who received green lights, 14 with yellow (of which some later received greens) and 4 who received red lights.
Overwhelmingly, the responses to the RSCC system were positive. 75% of those surveyed rated the interviews as useful or very useful to them, while 77% rated their overall experience with the RSCCs as helpful. The retreats were regarded favorably, too. Although not everyone attended, among those who did, 66% found them helpful. Typical comments included: "The experience was life-changing, very valuable, growth producing;" "I experienced my meeting with the RSCC to be an affirmation of my call to ministry. It had the resonance of a rite-of-passage. I put a lot into it, and got a lot out of it. I continued to think of their questions and my answers long after the actual meeting;" "I think going to the MFC without an RSCC would be even more daunting than it is anyway;" "It was very helpful to get feedback about my ministerial potential from a group that had some deeply personal information about me. It was very affirming to know that my personal issues were not so great as to prevent me from becoming an effective minister to others;" "Sometimes I think they were too fair. Now being in parish ministry, I see so much that I continually need to adapt to - the places where my own joys and passions and hurts intersect with the congregation's joys, passions and hurts."
Other aspirants were supportive of the RSCCs, but with reservations. One person wrote: "(It seems) the interview process has been most successful in compelling aspirants to address identified deficits that could easily be glossed over. While this end result seems worthwhile, the means is haphazard and dispiriting for many of us. It feels more like a job interview than an instrument encouraging spiritual discernment."
INTERVIEWS: Regarding the interviews, as was to be expected, there were a number of complaints and comments on how the system could be improved. A number of perceived biases were reported. Some respondents from historically marginalized communities reported a sense that they were expected to assimilate into a Euro-American/white culture. A comment received from those marginalized in some way more than once was: "They never asked me what my experience was with living and working in a white culture."
Many aspirants preparing for community ministry think the process is biased towards parish ministry. They report that the packet materials and the reading list are both geared towards the parish. They believe that the RSCC system should have a community minister on each panel. Others reported an anti-Christian bias. Some aspirants at non-UU schools reported feeling frequently isolated and others felt that they are "looked down upon" for not attended a UU school. One person perceived a bias against service in the military. One transfer did not believe his candidacy was being taken seriously. "I feel like I'm a square [peg] trying to fit into a round hole." However, it should also be noted that BGLT aspirants/candidates uniformly reported feeling welcomed and included.
There was complaint about a lack of consistency among the committees in requiring a sermon, or not. Some thought the lack of consistency unfair. There were questions about the "lights" system. Some aspirants found that form of rating uncomfortable. Several reported the interview experience as "another hurdle" to overcome. There was a question as to what a "yellow" light really means: must the aspirant return for a second interview? There were complaints from aspirants about their treatment by the RSCCs. Some found their RSCC (or a member on it) to be adversarial. Several commented that they thought the results of their career assessments were handle unfairly by the committee. A number complained about comments that were made outside the interviews by RSCC members (e.g. - "one committee member disparaged my Divinity School's ability to prepare people for a Ministry of Religious Education.") Another questioned, "Why would anyone ever want to become a minister?" Several respondents reported feeling as though the committees were trying to mold them to a particular style of ministry, "Is there really only room for one kind of UU minister? Must we all be cut from the same cloth?”
There were many expressions of the need for more support, both before and after the interviews, particularly from those who are not going to UU schools. "I thought this process was supposed to have more of a mentoring aspect to it than it does." There were several comments that the feedback from the interviews was either (1) unclear or (2) that the verbal and written comments offered by the Committee were inconsistent with each other. Several commented that suggestions made by the RSCCs after the interview were unfair and unreasonable, or that they were transformed by the MPLSG from suggestions into requirements.
A number found the interviews not helpful, off the mark, overwhelming. Some felt not cared for. Others felt unprepared, or did not know what to expect. In three cases, there was confusion as to the first question. Students receiving a yellow light reported feeling "marginalized in my student peer group. The new RSCC system does introduce an element of competition among students earlier than before."
Among respondents who had received red lights, there is a clear dissatisfaction with the process. Usefulness of both the interviews and the process were rated with 1's and 2's (1 is low), fairness was rated 1 (unfair). When asked if they felt treated with respect, ratings were 1's and 2's, and comments included "Not affirming" or "some committee members were rude" or "if this was a fair process, I can't imagine what unfair would look like." Yet, one candidate who received a green light observed, "I hope the RSCC process continues to do this the way they have. I am sure there are some people who received feedback they didn't like and so have felt the process was not helpful. Personally, it is the one process which has helped me feel connected and on-track as I move beyond the seminary experience."
RETREATS: Most responses regarding the retreats were positive. 68 of the respondents attended one or more retreats. 45 of these reported the retreat as useful. Timing was a major factor for the students. In response to the question "Was the timing of the retreat easy or difficult for you?" there was a wide range of responses from easy to difficult. Cost was a factor, too, particularly for aspirants from Iliff School of Theology and other schools who have to go meet with the West RSCC in California for both interviews and retreats.
Facets of the retreats which respondents found most helpful were: meeting the RSCC members (35), meeting other aspirants (34), and the mock interviews (17.) Negative comments included: "I begrudged the time to do this," or "I was exhausted when I got home," "I needed child care," "I wanted a chance for anonymous voicing of concerns," "This was not a retreat, it was work." Respondents identified a wide range of topics, which were not addressed, which they would have liked, but no one topic was supported by more than 2 or 3 respondents.
Perhaps the biggest and most common complaint was that the retreat set a collegial, informal atmosphere, which contrasted sharply with the formality of the interviews. One aspirant said: "There were mixed messages." Another: "the interview is just a conversation; 'no big deal' went along with a pretty intense atmosphere." A third said: "I got to know them (the RSCC members) at the retreat (and) came to trust them. Then, when the interview occurred, I felt that trust go away. I am still dealing with the resentment I feel."
RSCC COMMITTEES (6 of 6)
We heard from all six committees, which are located in New England, Mid-Atlantic, South, Midwest, West and Canada. The committees report their impression that the retreats are useful for disseminating information about ministry: models of ministry, challenges of ministry, its "joys and difficulties," its "nuts and bolts," and strategies for handling congregational dynamics. They also report sharing information related to aspirant life: financial planning, and the process of training for ministry.
To support discernment at retreats, the committees report using: time for reflection, informal discussion, panel presentations by participants, and "reality testing." One committee reported asking aspirants to prepare discernment-related questions, then holding a "directed conversation between an aspirant and a committee member." One committee stated their hope that discernment had already taken place before an aspirant had entered seminary. The committees tended to report that anti-racism, anti-oppression and multiculturalism is not emphasized at their retreats.
Regarding the interviews the committees were asked: Do you believe your interviews are encouraging aspirants to identify personal strengths and deficiencies for ministry and effectively discouraging inappropriate candidates? Any challenges or other comments in this area?
The committees report that their interviews discourage those "not cut out for this work," help clarify aspirant "awareness and focus," and support aspirants to identify their strengths and weaknesses. The committees express some confusion about "the issue of options after a yellow light," the implications of a yellow light, and what to do with someone who has met committee requirements, yet still does not have the potential for ministry. Regarding strengths of the system the responses were as follows: Committee members cited the early opportunity for intervention, the opportunity for guidance for candidates, better preparation for candidates before reaching the MFC, and early warning for candidates who need more work.
Regarding recruitment, some committees state that while some education might have occurred informally, recruitment is not a priority. Other committee members stated that they made reports to District boards, and disseminated their brochure to area congregations. Concerning recruitment, some committees stated that time constraints prevent formal work in this area, while one reported hosting a workshop on ministry and offering a traveling Sunday service on the theme of ministry.
In general the committees feel supported by the UUA, naming Ellen Brandenburg and David Pettee as helpful. They say they understand their jobs, and find the work doable, though the amount is significant. They find it personally satisfying and enjoy their work on teams and express admiration for team members. They find it challenging to find the necessary time, but experience satisfaction helping future ministers and their congregations. Some said that they received on-the-job training by sitting in on interviews as an observer. Others asked for additional training from the UUA, such as an orientation at GA. One RSCC committee reported that a manual has been created for its members.
Committees report considerable variation in the individual competence of their administrators (some high, some low), and a lack of clarity about his/her job description and boundaries.
Finally the committees were asked: What areas need further attention? Committee members suggested the following: further training; involvement in their own member recruitment; the majority of committee members be clergy; dispensing with lights ("Aspirants can be more effectively helped, required to complete certain tasks, or redirected without the stigma of 'lights.'"); more cross-communication between RSCCs; clarification of administrators roles; a better selection process for members; faster replacement of resigned members; and consistency across committees.
RSCC ADMINISTRATORS (6 OF 6) AND DISTRICT STAFF (3 OF 6)
The distinct overall impression conveyed is that there is very little common ground in the administration of RSCCs. Some RSCC administrators work as consultants for the District. Other administrators are employed half time, while others work only part time. In some regions, the District Executive is actively involved in the RSCC process, while in other regions the involvement is not a high priority. Some administrators and District Executives attend RSCC interviews and retreats, while others do not. The attention to fiduciary and budgetary matters is inconsistent, with each RSCC using a different budgeting process to track expenses. In some regions, administrators handle budgetary matters while in others the chair of the RSCC does it. In still others, the District Executive is most responsible.
The only reliable agreement among the respondents seems to be in the efficacy of the retreats. Each of the groups reporting back spoke highly of their usefulness and receipt of positive feedback from the attendees.
As to interviews, each RSCC determines the numbers of meetings per year, with three RSCCs holding interviews basically at the same place each year. Generally, it is the RSCC administrators who handle the details of food and lodging. Four out of six of the committees report that the administrator, generally working in conjunction with the chair or the DE, schedules the interviews. Predictably, the regions with smaller numbers of aspirants have a smaller number of hours for their administrative staff. The regions with larger number of aspirants don't seem consistent in the number of hours paid to staff. This may be reflected in the large number of part-time students in some regions, while other regions deal mostly with students studying full time.
MINISTERIAL FELLOWSHIP COMMITTEE (14 of 14)
MFC members were surveyed at their March 2003 meeting to gather information about the strengths and weaknesses of the RSCC system as they see it, the success or failure of efforts to move toward a more anti-racist, anti-oppressive and multicultural ministry, and any suggestions they had to improve the functioning of the RSCCs.
With regard to strengths, the MFC noted that the candidates seem better prepared, that some early gate-keeping has taken place, that retreats have been helpful, and that some candidates feel the credentialing process has been more caring and less mysterious.
Weaknesses noted addressed practical concerns: inconsistent letters from one RSCC to another with some letters that are overly prescriptive; that the RSCC system is perceived as being one more 'hoop' to jump through; that the light system is not universally appreciated and that the RSCCs are not performing enough gate keeping. Additionally, there was concern expressed relating to budgetary concerns, inconsistency around the requirement of preaching, and that some RSCCs believe they can grant rather than recommend waivers.
The MFC acknowledged the challenges faced with recruiting individuals from historically marginalized communities to serve on the RSCCs, and reiterated the ongoing need for anti-racist, anti-oppression and multiculturalism training for RSCC members.
Significant recommendations included the desire for RSCCs to be better able to discriminate whether an aspirant has psychological deficits that would make ministerial fellowship an unrealistic goal, and that retreats could be replaced or augmented with professionally-led intensive workshops, using an agenda cognizant of our denominational needs and experiences. It was also recommended that the career centers used by the UUA could be more standardized with their use psychological evaluations and rating materials.
Overall, the MFC believes the RSCC system has made much progress toward accomplishing most of the goals outlined for review in the February 1998 RSCC Consultation. The MFC was hoping the RSCC system would lead toward fewer candidates receiving a category V, IV and III, and TABLE D, included in the report, supports that this has occurred.
MINISTRY AND PROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP STAFF GROUP (1 of 4); UUA LEADERSHIP COUNCIL (3 of 11); SELECTED UUA ADMINISTRATION (PAST AND PRESENT) (4 of 10); PANEL ON THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION (2 of 5)
These representative groups of individuals who are members of, or working closely with the Unitarian Universalist Association, were grouped together due to the low number of possible respondents and because their observations and recommendation were consistent with each other.
Strengths noted include awareness that the system represents an opportunity to forewarn and offer reality testing, help prepare candidates for the upcoming MFC interview, and that it further removes seminaries from the screening function that is the responsibility of the credentialing process.
Weaknesses include concern that the current system does not allow a safe place for students deep in discernment about ministerial leadership to get help; particularly where the probable outcome of an RSCC visit would be yellow, which stigmatizes an otherwise healthy process for the aspirant. Others are concerned about the overall cost of this process and observe that the process is only as good as those who serve on the RSCCs themselves.
Recommendations for improvement center around the need for regular and ongoing anti-racism, anti-oppression and multiculturalism training, with one respondent wondering if we have learned anything that would be progressive. Others are clear that the system deserves to be funded. Despite needs for modification, the consensus overall is that the system is functioning well.
LREDA (3 responses)
Respondents from LREDA in noting strengths of the RSCC system offered nothing new, but did reinforce the learning that early screening and feedback saves all involved time and money. The vulnerability of the system to the lack of time and money are also identified as a weakness, and the recommendation is an enthusiastic plea to "keep it going!"
LAMBDA, IDENTITY-BASED MINISTRIES AND DRUUMM (10 of 35)
Strengths noted by these stakeholders include the importance of meeting With a denominationally-centered credentialing panel early in the formation process, the opportunity gained by students of meeting denominational stewards early in the process, and that the RSCC system decreases feelings of jealousy toward seminarians from other traditions who seem to get much more in-care and support.
Strengths related to anti-racism, anti-oppression and multiculturalism are notable. It is felt by one respondent that the RSCC process for aspirants outside the norm helped to decrease stereotyping; that the process makes it more difficult for students outside the norm to hide, thus promoting conversation on integration of that part of their lives that might be construed as different; and that the process offers support to those who are not traditionally represented in our ministry. Concerns for anti-oppression include the observation that there is a lack of diversity on RSCC committees thus making the process much more anxiety-producing for those perceived not normative; and students are typically not challenged about their knowledge and commitment to anti-oppression work.
Weaknesses of the system include concern that the process is not
transparent; it is not adequately communicated by the UUA; that requiring an aspirant to preach a sermon before taking a preaching class makes no sense, and besides this practice is not consistent from one RSCC to the next, thus making the requirement unfair for some aspirants; and that the role/function of the RSCC host/sponsor is poorly defined and inconsistent.
Recommendations to improve the system include making preaching (or not) consistent across all RSCCs; better education; additional scholarship assistance; that BGLT aspirants need support and mentorship more than they need judgment and evaluation; and that a panel of diverse stakeholders should be gathered to brainstorm strategies to promote diversity.
SELECTED SEMINARIES INCLUDING UU SCHOOLS (8 OF 12 SCHOOLS)
Most respondents overall feel positive about the purpose of the RSCC system, but note a number of concerns that are followed by specific suggestions for improvement and for deepening of our anti-racism, anti-oppression and multiculturalism efforts.
Seminary representatives reiterate many of the strengths noted by other stakeholders. They note that the RSCC system has lead to greater connection between the students and the UUA and that the system is a great improvement over what students experienced in the past while preparing for the MFC; that students are reminded of the need for long-term focus for personal and professional development in addition to academic requirements; that students receive up-front guidance; that it helps to screen out those who ought not be preparing for ministry; that there is a two way street- students could bring cutting edge issues to the attention of the RSCCs; and that feedback can help students take responsibility for their growth and learning.
Weaknesses include the concern that the process is designed to benefit UU schools to the exclusion of non-UU schools because retreats are not scheduled around the academic schedules of non-UU schools; the relationship between student and sponsor is very inconsistent; some RSCC members seem focused on past problems of ministry without awareness to current changes and trends; parish ministry is perceived as a default track with no RSCC members understanding community ministry; more hoops need to be jumped through without the benefits being clearly articulated; that RSCCs can't have both support and evaluative functions simultaneously; that the “lights” need to be eliminated; that the process produces a great deal of unnecessary anxiety given the large amount of paperwork required to prepare for an RSCC interview; that each interview seems to have an antagonist who is always very confrontational; that there is too much inconsistency between RSCCs, and that the focus on early discernment raises questions about how this process would be a resource for those who are late bloomers.
Suggestions for improvement include training of RSCC members to the tracks of community ministry and the ministry of religious education; that there be more care given to who is chosen to serve on RSCCs and that members commit to staying on top of current trends and issues; that retreat structures be changed or scholarship aid increased to non-UU school students who must travel long distances to come to retreats, and that an annual report be sent by aspirants/candidates to the RSCC annually regarding how their recommendations should be followed.
Comments to address anti-racist, anti-oppression and multiculturalism concerns include the recommendation that the RSCCs work to provide mentorship opportunities for students from historically marginalized communities; that training for RSCC members be paramount; that additional funds need to be appropriated for students from historically marginalized communities; that students need to be challenged to think more deeply about anti-oppression concerns by RSCC members; that class issues are rife, are never discussed, and need to addressed more transparently, and that the RSCC process risks alienating students from historically marginalized communities if RSCC members are untrained, biased and make comments that suggest students of color should learn how to conform to the norms of largely Euro-American congregations.
INTERN SUPERVISORS (22 OUT OF 75)
An email survey was sent to all to seventy-five ministers who are intern supervisors. Out of those seventy-five, fifteen responded, five said they had no experience with people who had gone before an RSCC, and two said they had no opinions. Generally, most respondents feel that the RSCC is an important committee who are asking the right questions and assessing strengths, weaknesses and ministerial presence. They feel that the regional subcommittees have made a big difference for the congregations, the students, and for the process in general. Interns who have seen the RSCC come better prepared having articulated in their minds the hard questions that are specific, pointed, and personal and they have a better grasp of issues they need to address and a sense of how to prepare for the MFC.
Most respondents feel the single most important issue for the RSCC is to help clarify/discern the individual's identity as a minister, while others feel the RSCC is more instrumental as an evaluative team. This lack of clarity of goal represents one of the main obstacles as to how the RSCC is viewed overall. Another concern is the need for a clearer understanding of the relationship between the RSCCs and intern supervisors, specifically the sharing of information. They feel students are better equipped to benefit from an internship if they have seen the RSCC, have been given honest feedback, and the supervising minister is told what the issues are.
Lastly, respondents feel that cultural differences and minority status need to be explored, such as "how people in minority categories will deal with the issues of our kind of congregation."
Finance is a discipline like history – it cuts across everything. An in-depth knowledge of the finances of an operating entity opens the way to an understanding of the entity's strengths and weaknesses, the sources of its working capital, what its fiscal prognosis is, how well its organizational structure works, and whether its allocation of available resources speaks clearly to its mission statement. A few simple rules apply:
Plans for the future – budgets, for example – have to be constructed from the ground up, line item by line item. This rule ensures a budget (1) based on specific, priced expectations, (2) stated in a consistent language understood by all related parties, and (3) providing a basis for after-the-fact analysis of results compared with expectations. One generally learns nothing from a forecasting process based on a top-down construction – it is essentially a litany of high-level hope. There is no ownership by those who, ultimately, have to
give life to the forecast, nor any sense of responsibility for the way in which it plays out.
Managerial responsibility for an operating entity that does not carry with it financial control is neither managerial nor responsible.
Reporting has to be current and in a degree of detail which informs accountability. The information furnished must facilitate understanding by managers of (1) how the enterprise under supervision is doing, and (2) which elements vary from plan, and – with quick attention – may achieve improved results.
FINANCIAL REPORTING AND CONTROL
The organizational structure of the RSCCs concentrates financial
operations at the regional level. Ultimate financial management responsibility, however, lies with the UUA Board. An allocation is made to each RSCC in the UUA Budget, but not in any line item detail. Budgeted funds are distributed to each RSCC in two semi-annual payments with no particular focus on that RSCC's cash needs. Each RSCC manages its own cash position – regional administrators hold the funds and make payments for expenses, etc.
Periodic reports are made to the Ministerial Credentialing Office by each region – but almost as a courtesy. The reports appear not to be made on a r egular schedule, nor are they complete, nor broken down in a manner consistent among all regions. From an accountability point of view, reported financial results from each RSCC are not matched to line items set out in the UUA budget, or in a regional budget. In fact, there is no direct channel of reporting from each RSCC back to the Association level in the course of which there is an accounting for expenditures by the RSCCs.
Because the aggregate amount of expense may vary widely from one RSCC to another and year to year – primarily as the number of aspirants varies– there are almost invariably debit or credit balances remaining at the year end. Such balances have been retained by the RSCCs. Even on a net basis, the amounts carried over can run to some 15% of the total annual budgeted amount.
THE INEVITABLE COST OF GROWTH
Establishing an additional layer of infrastructure invariably results in additional cost – and the RSCC program has proved no exception. An overview of the fiscal requirements of the credentialing process, before and after inception of the RSCC program in May 2001 is provided in TABLE A.
TABLE A
ANALYSIS OF EXPENSES OF MFC AND RSCC
Combined MFC RSCC
Actual |
Budget |
Actual |
Budget |
Actual |
Budget |
|
1995 |
61,756.00 |
$65,010.00 |
$61,756.00 |
$65,010.00 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
1996 |
74,869.00 |
$66,950.00 |
$74,869.00 |
$66,950.00 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
1997 |
65,703.00 |
$71,000.00 |
$65,703.00 |
$71,000.00 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
1998 |
78,633.00 |
$73,000.00 |
$78,633.00 |
$73,000.00 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
1999 |
123,858.00 |
$170,090.00 |
$80,162.00 |
$80,090.00 |
$43,696.00 |
$90,000.00 |
2000 |
223,223.00 |
$197,232.00 |
$97,115.00 |
$75,632.00 |
$126,108.00 |
$121,600.00 |
2001 |
224,822.00 |
$226,200.00 |
$97,630.00 |
$97,000.00 |
$127,192.00 |
$129,200.00 |
2002 |
217,152.00 |
$262,000.00 |
$87,912.00 |
$107,000.00 |
$129,240.00 |
$155,000.00 |
2003 |
202,094.00 |
$211,000.00 |
$69,780.00 |
$70,000.00 |
$132,314.00 |
$141,000.00 |
2004 |
0.00 |
$175,000.00 |
$0.00 |
$75,000.00 |
$0.00 |
$100,000.00 |
TABLE A indicates an average annual MFC cost of $79,000 for the fiscal years 1995 through 2003 – the entire period under review. Average cost for the five years preceding the RSCC start-up was $72,000, rising to $88,000 in the following four years. This represents a 22% increase. Coincident with the 22% average increase in MFC costs, RSCC expenditures were building up to an average expenditure of $129,000 per year.
Cost figures by themselves have limited use as an evaluative tool. It is only when looked at in relation to other measurement standards, or the cost of other programs, that they merit attention. The UUA has expended $558,000 on the RSCC program over the five years since inception through Fiscal 2003. The increases can be assessed from three points of view:
1.) Total dollars each year. In other words, how many dollars were expended. This amount can be considered simply as the incremental cost, year-to-year, and is illustrated in TABLE B.
TABLE B: COMBINED MFC AND RSCC EXPENSES
FY |
MFC & RSCC Actual |
Over(Under) Prior Year |
Cumulative Increase |
1995 |
$61,756.00 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
1996 |
$74,869.00 |
$13,113.00 |
$13,113.00 |
1997 |
$65,703.00 |
($9,166.00) |
$3,947.00 |
1998 |
$78,633.00 |
$12,930.00 |
$12,877.00 |
1999 |
$123,858.00 |
$45,225.00 |
$67,102.00 |
2000 |
$223,223.00 |
$99,365.00 |
$161,967.00 |
2001 |
$224,822.00 |
$1,599.00 |
$163,066.00 |
2002 |
$217,152.00 |
($76,701.00) |
$155,396.00 |
*2003 |
$202,094.00 |
($15,058.00) |
$140,338.00 |
** 2004 |
$175,000.00 |
($27,094.00) |
$113,244.00 |
* Preliminary results
** Proposed budget
2.) A percentage of annual UUA expenses. These calculations are set out in TABLE C , and relate MFC and RSCC costs to total UUA costs. This provides a basis for periodic weighing of priorities: MFC, RSCC, UUA.
TABLE C: CREDENTIALING EXPENSE AS % OF UUA EXPENSE
FY |
UUA Total Actual |
Credentialing Expense |
Credentialing as % of UUA |
1995 |
$12,323,804.00 |
$61,756.00 |
0.005000 |
1996 |
$13,032,840.00 |
$74,869.00 |
0.005700 |
1997 |
$13,643,035.00 |
$65,703.00 |
0.004800 |
1998 |
$15,451,634.00 |
$78,633.00 |
0.005100 |
1999 |
$17,254,626.00 |
$123,858.00 |
0.007200 |
2000 |
$19,911,541.00 |
$223,223.00 |
0.011200 |
2001 |
$21,324,013.00 |
$224,822.00 |
0.010500 |
2002 |
$20,844,026.00 |
$217,152.00 |
0.010400 |
*2003 |
$20,521,588.00 |
$202,094.00 |
0.009850 |
**2004 |
$20,176,773.00 |
$175,000.00 |
0.008670 |
* Preliminary results
** Proposed budget
3.) Dollars per aspirant. The significance of the cost to fund the program may be stated as a function of the number of those seeking fellowship who pass successfully through the MFC. Aspirants moving through an RSCC – even if they receive a “green” – are only statistically meaningful when the process moves to a positive conclusion with the MFC. TABLE A reports the combined MFC and RSCC costs for Fiscal 1998 through Fiscal 2003 as being $1,069,782.
TABLE D indicates that 342 candidates were given a Category I or II, earning fellowship status during that period. The current cost to the UUA per successful aspirant, then, calculates at $3,128.
TABLE D: MFC INTERVIEWS OF ASPIRANTS WITH/WITHOUT PRIOR RSCC EXPERIENCE
| SEPTEMBER 1997 - FEBRUARY 2001 NO PRIOR RSCC INTERVIEW | ||||||
| Rating category | I | II | III | IV | V | Total |
| Number interviewed | 166 | 65 | 47 | 22 | 9 | 309 |
| Percent of total | 54% | 21% | 15% | 7% | 3% | 100% |
| MAY 2001 - MARCH 2003 NO PRIOR RSCC INTERVIEW | ||||||
| Rating category | I | II | III | IV | V | Total |
| Number interviewed | 73 | 12 | 17 | 7 | 0 | 109 |
| Percent of total | 66% | 11% | 15% | 7% | 0% | 100% |
| MAY 2001 - MARCH 2003 NO PRIOR RSCC INTERVIEW | ||||||
| Rating category | I | II | III | IV | V | Total |
| Number interviewed | 73 | 12 | 17 | 7 | 0 | 109 |
| Percent of total | 66% | 11% | 15% | 7% | 0% | 100% |
| MAY 2001 - MARCH 2003 PRIOR RSCC INTERVIEW | ||||||
| Rating category | I | II | III | IV | V | Total |
| Number interviewed | 19 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 28 |
| Percent of total | 68% | 25% | 7% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| SEPTEMBER 2003 NO PRIOR RSCC INTERVIEW | ||||||
| Rating category | I | II | III | IV | V | Total |
| Number interviewed | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Percent of total | 80% | 20% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| SEPTEMBER 2003 PRIOR RSCC INTERVIEW | ||||||
| Rating category | I | II | III | IV | V | Total |
| Number interviewed | 14 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 19 |
| Percent of total | 73% | 5% | 11% | 11% | 0% | 100% |
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS AS A BASIS FOR EVALUATION
It was suggested in the charge to the RSCC Evaluation Panel that a
Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) be carried out. CBA is a widely employed “method of measuring the benefits expected from a decision, calculating the cost of the decision, then determining whether the benefits outweigh the costs. Corporations use this method in deciding whether to buy a piece of equipment…“ Barron's Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms.
The essence of conducting a CBA lies in the ability to assign a common standard of value to each alternate course of potential or past action. In the course of attempting to assess the effectiveness of the RSCC program, relative values would be assigned to a variety of courses of action taken and which might have been taken. We would be attempting an objective evaluation of a process that is, itself, essentially a series of largely subjective evaluations not readily reducible to dollar amounts. Determining the values making up relevant cost factors would not be difficult – expressing the benefit side of the analysis would be.
APPENDICES
HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE RSCC SYSTEM
HISTORY
Beginning fifteen years ago, a broad consensus among those involved with ministerial education developed regarding the need to change the credentialing process to address a number of vexing issues. In 1994, a Consultation on Professional Ministry was held to address the heavy workload of the MFC, already stressed by interviews with unprepared candidates. There was much concern for the waste of resources, and for the accumulation of debt and disappointment by students who did not receive their preliminary fellowship, either during their first interview with the MFC or not at all. At this meeting a tentative decision was made to move forward with pilot projects for regional student "in care" committees and district-based recruitment committees. The UUA Board affirmed the report, and in response, two pilot projects were initiated.
The experience gained by these two pilot projects informed a proposal to develop the regional sub-committees that was supported by UUA President John Buehrens and passed by the MFC in 1997. A Consultation on Regional Committees was held in Atlanta in 1998, where the details of the RSCC system were discussed. A plan was formulated around fundamental issues that included: RSCC functions, goals and priorities; structural relations of RSCC to other UU organizations; tension between support and judgment; criteria for and consistency of candidacy judgments; RSCC workload issues; training; resources; evaluation; confidentiality and implementation and timeline.
At this meeting an evaluation of the RSCCs was planned after they had been operating for three years. It was to include a cost/benefit analysis.
DESCRIPTION
The primary purpose for establishing the RSCCs was to improve the effectiveness of the credentialing process at its early stages. This was intended for the benefit of both those involved in evaluating potential candidates as well as the candidates themselves. Specific goals include to:
- Identify students showing promise for the ministry who have significant deficiencies, which should be addressed before their MFC interviews
- Identify candidates who are clearly unsuited for the professional ministry at a point before considerable commitments of time and finances are made
- Encourage realistic financial planning
- Improve the range of diversity in candidates for the UU ministry
- Attract candidates with particular outstanding qualities
- Increase the involvement of congregations in the recruitment and nurture of potential ministers
- Improve coordination, clarity of roles, and communication among organizations and individuals involved in developing an ongoing ministry, viz., theological schools, mentors, congregations, the Panel on Theological Education, the Ministry and Professional Leadership Staff Group, the MFC, the Ministerial Credentialing Office (MCO), and District Offices and other regional structures.
As it stands now, the primary function of the RSCC is to make early decisions regarding candidacy status. All aspirants for ministry including those transferring in are required to meet with an RSCC. Each of the six regionally based RSCCs offers honest feedback to aspirants regarding their potential and suitability for the UU ministry. A secondary function is to provide accurate information to potential candidates on the credentialing process, by coordinating the work of some of the organizations or individuals involved in that process.
The evaluative function incorporates a fair and consistent interview process, the use of a consistent model for evaluating aspirants, and the timely reporting of evaluation results to both the aspirant and the Ministerial Credentialing Office. RSCCs are charged to make early decisions regarding candidacy status based on three decision options:
Green Light - candidacy granted and individual is encouraged to proceed
Yellow Light - candidacy postponed with granting of candidacy contingent on the individual fulfilling requirements specified by RSCC, including the request by the RSCC for a second interview
Red Light - candidacy denied, with option for appeal to MFC
The support function of the RSCC is to provide information about the credentialing process, and to maintain an ongoing relationship with aspirants; particularly where guidance in areas identified as requiring improvement is needed. This responsibility includes a requirement that each student have a realistic plan for his or her future financial obligations.
One important additional task for RSCCs involves a yearly retreat for applicants and aspirants. Retreats help with the disseminating of information about the credentialing process, and in the establishment of a communication network between aspirants and various UUA organizations.
QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO ASPIRANTS, CANDIDATES AND MINISTERS IN PRELIMINARY FELLOWSHIP WHO HAD INTERVIEWED WITH AN RSCC
About You
Your name (optional):
Date: May 14, 2003
Your current status:
Preliminary Fellowship ______
Aspirant ______
Candidate ______
No longer considering ministry ______
Your ministry preference:
Parish ministry _____
Community Ministry _____
Religious Education _____
Male ( ) Female ( ) Transgender ( ) Your age:_____
In terms of nationality, race, country of origin or culture, how do you self-identify?
About your RSCC Interview
1. The RSCC with which you interviewed:
New England ____ Mid-West _____ South ______
Middle Atlantic ____ West _____ Canada ______
2. Planning for the interview:
a. Did you receive adequate notice and information about the interview? _______
(Please rate on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being inadequate; 5 excellent) Comments?
b. Did you feel as though you knew what to expect going in? ______
(Please rate on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being no; 5 yes)
Comments?
c. In your opinion, were the interviews fair? (Scale of 1 (no) to 5 (yes)) _____ Comments?
3. The actual interview:
a. Were the scheduling and location workable for you? (scale of 1-5, with 1 = difficult, 5=easy)______ Any comments?
b. Please rate the interview in terms of your perception of its usefulness for you (scale of 1-5) _____ and for the MFC (scale of 1-5) _____ Any comments?
4. The outcome: Green ______ Yellow ____ Red _____
About the Retreat:
1. Were you invited to attend a retreat sponsored by the RSCC? _________
2. Was the timing easy or difficult for you? (1 (difficult) to 5 (easy)) ______ Comments?
3. Did you attend? Yes _____ No ____
4. If no, please say why you did not attend. Then go to the next section.
5. If you attended, was it useful (1 (no) to 5(very)) _____ Comments?
6. What did you find most useful? Please be as specific as you can.
7.Was the planning and advanced notice adequate? (1 (no) to 5 (yes, quite)) _____ Comments?
8. Are there topics you wish had been addressed at the retreat, but were not? Please be specific:
9. Any general comments about the retreat?
About your experience with the RSCC in general:
1. Were you treated with respect? (1 (no) to 5 (very)) _____
Comments?
2. If you are heading towards either a community ministry or the ministry of religious education, did this experience work for you? What changes would you like to see implemented to better serve your branch of our ministry?
3. If you are a member of a marginalized community, was this a welcoming experience for you? What could be done to make it more inclusive?
4. During your time in preparation for the ministry, did you have an opportunity to know the members of your RSCC?
5. Did you find your work with the RSCC to be helpful (5) or not helpful (1)? _____ Comments?
6. During your preparation for the RSCC, were you able to realistically assess your personal finances? Are there ways this could be made easier for you?
7. Any general comments?
SURVEY QUESTIONS FOR RSCC COMMITTEE MEMBERS
The Regional Sub-Committees on Candidacy (RSCC) of the Ministerial
Fellowship Committee (MFC) began formally interviewing ministerial aspirants in February 2000. To date, more than 230 aspirants have been interviewed, and an evaluation process is underway to confirm that the RSCC process is working effectively. As a member of an RSCC, we need your input into this evaluation process. Your input is crucial. Thank you for your help.
1. How well is the RSCC working for candidates:
Is your retreat supporting the discernment process for those
exploring the possibility of a career in the UU ministry? What are your best strategies for promoting deep discernment?
Does your retreat invite individuals into personal discernment (not just providing information) in the areas of realistic financial planning, the 16 attributes, and anti-racism, oppression and multi-cultural concerns? How do you do this?
Do you believe your interviews are helping aspirants identify personal strengths and deficiencies and discouraging inappropriate candidates?
Any challenges or other comments in this area?
2. How well is the RSCC working for our congregations and our denomination:
Is your team raising awareness in congregations and among congregants in your region regarding the path toward UU ministry and the RSCC process? How are you doing this?
Does your team use any direct methods for attracting youth and young adults in your region who may be interested in a career in the UU ministry? What methods do you use?
Have your efforts in raising awareness affected the number, quality and diversity of applicants to our ministry?
Any challenges or other comments in this area?
3. How well is the RSCC working for you:
Have you felt supported by the UUA? Been adequately trained?
Does your committee understand its job? Does your administrator
understand her job and work well with your committee? Is the amount of work doable? Is it personally satisfying? Do you work well as a team?
What have been your greatest satisfactions as an RSCC member?
What are the greatest challenges you face as a member of an RSCC?
What are the greatest challenges faced by your RSCC committee?
4. What do you perceive to be the strengths of the RSCC system?
5. What areas of the RSCC system need further attention? What are your suggestions for improvement?
SURVEY QUESTIONS FOR RSCC ADMINISTRATORS AND DISTRICT STAFF
When the Ministerial Fellowship Committee established the Regional Sub-Committees on Candidacy system in 1999, it was agreed that a review of the RSCCs effectiveness should be conducted after three years. That time has now arrived. We are a panel appointed by the MFC and the Ministry and Professional Leadership Staff Group of the UUA to conduct that review.
We would like to know about your experience with your RSCC. For that purpose, we have constructed the enclosed questionnaire, which we hope you will take a few moments to complete. This questionnaire has been sent to the six District Staff members who work with the RSCCs and to the six RSCC administrators. We are aware of the heavy demands on your time of the jobs you do. Consequently, we have attempted to keep the questions to only those facts/opinions/etc. we cannot obtain through other sources. Also, we have designed this questionnaire to be responded to on-line. You have simply to copy it, and insert your answers. We would appreciate your candid response. All individual responses will be held anonymous, however we will complete a summary of the responses for our report. Thanks for your help!
I. Meetings:
A. How often does your committee meet, and for how long each time?
B. Does your committee meet at a fixed location? If so, where?
If not, how does the committee decide where to meet?
C. Who arranges for the meeting location/ food/ lodging/etc?
D. Do your committee's meetings include time to get to know the aspirants in your charge personally? How does that happen? Please attach a typical meeting agenda.
E. Is an advanced packet sent out to committee members? How many days ahead?
II. Interviews:
A. Who schedules interviews? How many can your committee accomplish in one meeting?
B. How much lead time do you give aspirants/candidates to prepare?
C. Does your committee require a mini-sermon?
D. Is there other special preparation required for the interviews?
E. What has been your experience about the effectiveness of interviews?
F. Are there aspects of the interview process you would like to change?
G. What steps, if any, have you taken to make the interview process less intimidating for aspirants/candidates?
H. Have you experienced any difficulty in scheduling interviews? Please elucidate.
III. Retreats:
A. Has your committee had a retreat each year? Where? How long does it run? Do the leaders gather early?
B. How many have attended in: 2001 2002 2003
Committee members
Aspirants
Candidates
C. Have these retreats been effective for the participants, in your opinion?
D. Please include a typical agenda. Are there topics, which should be added or dropped?
IV. Office:
A. As District Staff Member or RSCC Administrator have you been able to develop a relationship with the aspirants/candidates? Has this been useful to you?
B. What percent of your time is devoted to staffing the RSCC?
C. Do you maintain a database? What software do you use?
D. Other thoughts about your office operation?
E. Describe the relationship between you and the other staff support member (i.e. the District Staff member or the RSCC administrator.)
F. Please provide a financial report showing your annual budget.
V. General:
A. Do you do any work to keep the District Field Staff in your area apprised of the work of the RSCC and of aspirant/candidate progress? Do they hear about the results of interviews?
B. Does your committee do any sort of mentoring/consulting with aspirants/candidates outside of the meeting times? Please describe how this works.
C. Has your committee examined any of the related aspects of this work?
Recruiting
Working with congregations on their responsibilities toward candidates?
Internship?
Other?
D. How has your communication been with related agencies?
The MFC?
The Ministry and Professional Leadership group?
The local UUMA Chapters?
E. Any other comments?
INTERN SUPERVISORS
If you've worked with interns who have met with the Regional Subcommittees, do you believe their meeting with one of the subcommittees has helped prepare them for their internships?
Based on your experience, what are the most important issues the subcommittees ought to be exploring with the people they meet – and are there things they didn't but should have explored with those who've become your interns?
Do you believe those who are preparing for our ministry should continue to be asked to meet with these subcommittees and, if so, do you have suggestions for how the subcommittees might improve their work?
Finally, is there anything else you might like to say about the role of the Association in the preparation of people for our ministry?
****************************************************
GENERAL SURVEY
This survey (with attachment describing the RSCC system) was sent by e-mail to members of the Ministry and Professional Leadership Staff Group; UUA Leadership Council; Selected UUA Administration, past and present; Panel on Theological Education; LREDA; LAMBDA; Identity Based Ministries Staff Group; Selected seminaries; SLM; the UUMA Community Ministry Focus Group; LUUNA; DRUUMM and the Asian/Pacific Islander UU Caucus. These same questions were asked of the MFC at their March 2003 meeting.
Dear-
We are seeking your help in evaluating a program that has become an important part of the preparation for ministry in our movement. Below you will find the description and goals of the Regional Sub-Committees on Candidacy (RSCC) of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC). We have been appointed to evaluate the effectiveness of the RSCC program and to make recommendations to the MFC and the UUA Board of Trustees.
We would like your views concerning this program. We want to know how, from your vantage point, you view the effectiveness of the RSCCs in meeting their goals.
--What do you see as the positive aspects of this program?
--What weaknesses do you perceive?
--What suggestions do you have for improving or strengthening this program?
-- How is the RSCC process enhancing UUA efforts to achieve a more anti-racist, anti-oppressive and multicultural ministry?
--How is the RSCC process proving to be a barrier for fuller participation of students from historically marginalized communities in the ministerial credentialing process?
We appreciate your help in this evaluation process. As you know, an effective credentialing process is essential to maintaining the quality and competence of ministry for our growing and vital movement. Thank you.
Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Search | Site Map
Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon St. | Boston, MA 02108 | 617-742-2100
      
|
