Can We Measure Dependency?

by Miles Jarvis

How can we analyze the level of dependency in a church or ministry that has support from overseas? Can we monitor the effectiveness of measures that are implemented in order to increase local sustainability over time?

How can we analyze the level of dependency in a church or ministry that has support from overseas? Can we monitor the effectiveness of measures that are implemented in order to increase local sustainability over time?

I want to consider the answers to these questions and attempt to provide an objective analysis model when examining the issues of dependency and sustainability in missions resourcing.

Although there is an increasing awareness of dependency in modern missions and the dangers associated with this (Stout 2008), the concept that missions-established churches should be self-supporting has been discussed since the middle of the nineteenth century (Beaver 1970). Dependency is increasingly being realized in various settings across the globe (Johnson 2012), and as we seek to establish churches and ministries on the right foundation, there will be a growing need to understand more objectively the scale and nature of dependency in a church or ministry setting so that effective sustainability strategies can be devised, implemented, and evaluated.

I propose a model which allows an objective assessment of the levels and nature of dependency that may exist. This model can be applied either as a one-off assessment to understand any dependency that may exist in a particular situation, or as part of an ongoing measurement monitored over time to assess the impact of sustainability strategies as they are implemented.

By breaking down the concept of dependency into various categories, the model provides insight as to where sustainability measures are most needed.

This model will be a useful tool for churches, mission agencies, and NGOs to enable their ministry to be as effective as possible and provoke further discussion around the topic. This is surely a vital area of our shared mission together to reach all nations with the gospel and see the kingdom advance.

Why Is Dependency a Problem?

Dependency can take different forms, such as reliance upon overseas funding and overseas staff for leadership, governance, and accountability. This (1) creates a lack of local ownership, (2) creates an inability to make decisions and take responsibility, (3) perpetuates superiority in the outsider and apathy in the receiver, and (4) is ultimately a form of benign colonialism (Schwartz 2007).

This can lead to stunted growth in ideas, initiative, and motivation for moving the church or ministry forward. It creates a model that is not sustainable long term, especially if the mission to preach the gospel and make disciples to all nations is to be fulfilled.

Other issues relating to creating unhealthy dependency mean that there can be mixed motives in leadership, confused accountability, and suspicion of foreign influence in the surrounding community. This can compromise the very witness the church or ministry is intending to make (Stout 2008).

Dependency also creates problems such as loss of self-esteem and dignity in local people, and a perceived inability to overcome problems and find local solutions (Lupton 2011). To overcome dependency, processes such as Asset Based Community Development, which encourages local creativity, skills, and knowledge, should be employed. These can be powerful tools when facilitated with skill and sensitivity (Corbett and Fikkert 2008).

Analyzing Dependency

Ken Stout proposes three categories of financial dependence when attempting to analyze dependency (2008). I propose that there are two further categories of dependency relating to personnel, which can all be assessed individually. The intention behind articulating and expressing different categories of dependency is an attempt to understand the nuances of what is a very complex subject and not related to finance alone.

• Source of funding
• Duration of funding
• Nature of funding
• Ownership dependency
• Functional dependency

Table 1 below outlines in more detail these five categories of dependency that can be assessed.

Table 1: The Five Categories of Dependency

CATEGORY	DESCRIPTOR	ASSESSMENT
SOURCE OF FUNDING	Where does the funding for the ministry come from? What proportion comes from outside the locality of the ministry?	Calculate the % of funds that are given to the church/ministry from overseas.
DURATION OF FUNDING	How long will funding continue? Short term (0-10 years), medium term (10-20 years), long term (>20 years), or is the funding completely open-ended?	Specify and plot the number of years support has been given/promised (on a scale of 0-100, each year scores 4 points; totally open-ended with no expectation or discussion re. withdrawal of funding scores 100). E.g. 10 years = 40; 15 years = 60
NATURE OF FUNDING	What is the support for? Is it a core church leader salary or other supplemental activities such as community development? Would the core activity continue if funding were stopped?	Estimate the % of how much core activity is being supported. 0% is equivalent to no core activity; 100% is equivalent to all core activity being supported from overseas. E.g. 50% would be where 50% of core activity is being supported externally.
OWNERSHIP	Who owns and shapes the vision and direction for the church/ministry? Who is providing the leadership and taking responsibility, and where are they based?	Estimate the % of how much the ownership of the church or ministry lies with expatriates or even actually overseas, where 0% is where all leadership, decisions, and authority lie in the local context, and 100% is where all these aspects of ownership described lie with expats or even overseas.
FUNCTIONAL	Who is being used to run the ministry on the ground from a functional perspective? Are there internationals occupying senior positions that need to be handed over to national members of staff?	Estimate the % of key leadership and management staff on the ground who are from overseas. 0% means all staff are local and 100% means all key leadership and management staff are from overseas. This also requires a reflection on the types of role that exist in the church or ministry.

 

To carry out the dependency analysis, we need to assess each of the categories individually and then plot them on a bar chart. This leads to a helpful, yet potentially provocative, representation of dependency. This analysis could potentially be used in three ways:

1. As a standalone assessment

2. As part of a holistic evaluation of a ministry

3. As part of monitoring the effectiveness of sustainability measures that are implemented

Demonstrating dependency in this way is elegant in simplicity; the greater the red shaded area in the bar charts below as shown in the case studies, the greater the dependency.

Although this is an attempt to move towards an objective assessment of dependency, elements of the assessment are naturally much more subjective than others and are difficult to assess entirely objectively. Therefore, the process of assessment should be carried out in a team setting to avoid inconsistency and subjective bias.

It is intended that this analysis will help frame conversations relating to sustainability and dependency and should naturally lead to further discussion and action plans being developed in a team setting.

The level of dependency that can be tolerated will depend upon the underlying philosophy of ministry of the church or ministry being analyzed. Some churches may be comfortable with a certain level of dependence; others will not.

In terms of oversight and support, an element of dependency may be considered to be reasonable or even desirable for accountability and support purposes. However, this does not alter the fact that dependency creates problems for churches and ministries that are very hard to undo.

The case studies below provide real-life examples of how the assessment is used.

But first, a note about context. It is critical to consider the context of the ministry being assessed since this underpins the whole discussion around dependency and sustainability. Too often, conclusions about what is right or wrong are generalized without attention to the context (Gilliland 1998). The context itself does not create dependency; instead, it provides the setting for the different categories of dependency to be established and rooted.

Consideration should be given, for example, as to whether the context is a new pioneering situation breaking into a new nation with the gospel, or whether funding is being provided for long-established ministry situations where support is being drawn from overseas that should be raised locally. Or perhaps funding is being given into a fragile or conflict-affected state, or into an established work in a stable, better-reached situation.

This will also change over time. As the church/ministry grows and people are added, reliance upon external funding and personnel support should reduce. All stakeholders should be involved in the assessment process, as each will have a different perspective and appreciation of the contextual detail.

Case Study 1: A Church Plant in Europe

The first case study examines the dependency on foreign resources that exists in a church that was started in Western Europe in 2009. This church was started by a small international group of reformed, charismatic, Evangelical churches using a team of approximately twenty people, consisting of members of a nearby ‘mother’ church in the same country and expatriates from the U.K. The church leader has been provided salary support and other financial support from external funding for the church since launching in 2005. The context of church planting in Western Europe is very difficult—it is hard, slow ground to see the gospel bear fruit in terms of people joining the church. Catholicism and secularism dominate powerfully. The leaders would liken the context in terms of establishing the church there to be similar to reaching a nation that is closed to the gospel. An analysis of the five categories revealed the following:

CATEOGORY	BACKGROUND OF ASSESSMENT
SOURCE OF FUNDING	Since beginning, the church plant has relied heavily upon funding from overseas (U.K.). The church has not grown significantly and the reliance upon overseas funds has actually increased in the last two years due to a drop in giving in the church plant. 75% of funding is required from the U.K. this current financial year. This, therefore, scored 75/100 on the scale.
DURATION OF FUNDING	Funding has been continuous for five years; unfortunately, no time limit has been discussed with the leadership regarding funding length. This has been a difficult issue to work through and there is no resolution, with ever-increasing funding being given. The senior leadership team discussed funding amounts (though not duration), which is the first encouraging sign in tackling this difficult issue. The score therefore allocated to this category is 90/100 rather than 100/100.
NATURE OF FUNDING	The funding given is supporting the salary of the local church leader and some additional ancillary church and social action ministry costs. Given this reliance upon outside funding for such core activities, a score of 90/100 is given. It is very doubtful that the church would continue if the leader were not supported from outside funding.
OWNERSHIP	Despite the reliance upon outside funding for financial resources, the majority of the ownership of the church in terms of setting vision, value, and accountability for running the church lies in the country itself—to the mother church nearby. Legal governance is national. Due to the nature of the leadership structure in the family of churches, they regularly seek some guidance and advice from the senior leadership team in the U.K. The scoring allocated is therefore 15/100 as although minimal, leadership is still sought in a certain form from overseas.
FUNCTIONAL	The church is led by a national and mostly by a national team, although there are a number of key individuals from overseas. It is estimated that one-fifth of the core team are from overseas and will not be living long term in the country. Therefore, a score of 20/100 was given in this category.

The following bar chart represents the figures estimated in the analysis.

Case study 1: Analysis of European church plant

When we look at the bar chart, it is clear which aspects of dependency need to be addressed—duration, nature, and source of funding. This process can be used with church leaders so that they are involved both in the assessment process and also in the inevitable and necessary discussion about dependency and sustainability.

Potential solutions must be discussed as a team, allowing the creativity of the local leaders to bring ideas that will foster sustainability. It is important that the national team are the ones who take ownership in finding solutions that will potentially work.

Case Study 2: Mission School in Asia

The second case study concerns a mission school in the Philippines. This is a long-established mission school which has historic links with supporters and leadership in the U.S. The school was established by an American missionary and his family in the 1970s and continues to be managed by his (now adult) children.

This school is not pioneering in a new situation. Initially, it would have been considered so given the rural location of the school. Forty years later, however, it is very well established, but still relies upon some overseas assistance.

An analysis and graphic representation of the five dependency categories is outlined below.

Analysis of the Five Categories for Case Study 2

CATEOGORY	BACKGROUND OF ASSESSMENT
SOURCE OF FUNDING	An analysis of the funding of the school revealed that 90% of school operating costs are financed from local school fees. A certain amount of overseas funding is still required for operating costs. Therefore, a score of 10/100 was achieved in this assessment. However, capital funding for large-scale developments is still sourced from overseas.
DURATION OF FUNDING	Funding is long term (over 40 years), continuously solicited and sought from overseas, and shows no sign of attempting to reduce reliance upon this. A score of 100/100 is warranted in this situation.
NATURE OF FUNDING	The funding given is for core activities, but it is at a very low level. It is not entirely clear if the withdrawal of funding would mean the school would not function. An objective analysis is difficult here. After consideration and discussion with other team members, a score of 20/100 is allocated given the core activities that are supported.
OWNERSHIP	The (expatriate) leadership of the school and ministry activity is broadly based in-country and almost entirely reliant upon expatriates for leadership, vision setting, and accountability. A very small number of local leaders have been trained, but not at a pace that will see genuine ownership of the school being transferred over to nationals. A score of 90/100 is therefore given in this category.
FUNCTIONAL	The personnel working in the school are a mixture of expatriates (in leadership and governing positions) and local staff. There are a small number of local staff who have been brought into middle management positions and one in senior leadership. A score of 80/100 is given to reflect this.

 

Case study 2 – Analysis of the Mission School in the Philippines

Again, the bar chart illustrates where the issues of dependency lie in this situation. Ownership and functional dependency are the clear issues to resolve and the leadership need to be more intentional in developing local staff who are able to take on more senior management and leadership roles.

The levels of dependency are somewhat surprising when the initial apparent dependence seemed only to be for 10% of funds to finance the operational costs of the school. This illustrates the value of this model in analyzing the more unseen elements of dependency in addition to finances alone.

Discussion

An analysis is not meant to bring negative criticism or comments about the methods of a ministry or church. Instead, it is meant to allow an objective analysis so that a sustainable ministry is built that will ensure longevity for many years.

We should also recognize that establishing and building a local church (compared to the development of a mercy ministry) may be very different, depending upon the philosophy of ministry. Communication of values and expectations is vital, and stakeholders need to clarify among themselves what level of dependence upon outside funds they can tolerate. This is an area for further discussion and will vary between organizations.

Finally, it could be argued that focusing on dependency rather than sustainability is a negative way of both articulating and evaluating the problem. The model could be reversed to ask, “How locally sustainable is this ministry?”

However this model is expressed, my hope is that it will be a valuable tool in facilitating and stimulating discussions in churches, ministries, and NGOs to enable a greater focus on building sustainability in global mission.

References

Beaver, R. 1970. “The History of Mission Strategy.” In Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. Eds. Ralph Winter and Steve Hawthorne, 241-252. Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster Publishing.

Corbett, Steve and Brian Fikkert. 2009. When Helping Hurts. Chicago: Moody Publishers.

Gilliland, Dean. 1998. “Context Is Critical.” In Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. Eds. Ralph Winter and Steve Hawthorne, 664-665. Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster Publishing.

Johnson, Jean. 2012. We Are Not the Hero. Sisters, Ore.: Deep River Books.

Lupton, Robert. 2011. Toxic Charity. New York: HarperCollins.

Schwartz, Glenn. 2007. When Charity Destroys Dignity. Bloomington, Ind.: AuthorHouse.

Stout, Ken. 2008. Fostering Sustainability and Minimising Dependency in Mission Finances. MA thesis, Reformed Theological Seminary.

. . . .

Miles Jarvis is director of operations for the Commission family of churches, part of Newfrontiers, with churches in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. His specific interests include the role of the local church in community development and poverty reduction, sustainability, monitoring and evaluation, and best practice.

EMQ, Vol. 53, No. 1. Copyright  © 2016 Billy Graham Center for Evangelism.  All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMQ editors.
 

Questions for Reflection 1. In the context of world mission, is financial sustainability an important issue? 2. In your experience, is dependency upon mission funding from overseas inhibiting or facilitating the development of indigenous church-planting movements? 3. Are there any categories of dependency that the author has missed? 4. Is there an over-analysis of these issues that is preventing action being taken (i.e. Is our orthodoxy preventing us from taking practical action?)