measuring and ranking diocesan online financial ... · measuring and ranking diocesan online...

Measuring and Ranking Diocesan

Online Financial Transparency: 2018

In the wake of ongoing revelations about the clerical sexual abuse crisis, genuine financial

transparency will be an essential step in rebuilding the trust of U.S. Catholics in our

bishops. We must be sure that our gifts to the Church cannot ever again be used to cover

up crimes against our children. Some bishops have made a public commitment to financial

transparency, while others reveal almost nothing about the financial operations of their

dioceses. This report is one tool in the hands of faithful Catholics who want to understand

how their donations are being used, to help them exercise good stewardship of the gifts God

has given them.

The Nature of the Review

The heart of VOTF‟s 2018 review consists of a 10-question worksheet that touches on

several areas of financial accountability and transparency. The same questions were used

to review diocesan transparency in 2017. They are described in detail in Appendix A. They

were developed by a committee composed of VOTF officers and members, several of whom

possess life-long experience in the fields of accounting and finance. Special emphasis was

given to making the questions as objective as possible in order to minimize the role

of personal opinion. Each question has a point value between 5 and 15 points. The

maximum total score achievable is 60 points.

Why is Financial Transparency Important?

In the absence of clear and accessible financial reports, certified by audits, as well as

properly implemented collection and reporting protocols, the funds donated by the members

of a diocese are susceptible to fraudulent diversion by clergy or by laity; they may also be

used in settlements to keep clerical sexual abuse under wraps or for other purposes that do

not support the mission of the church. Guarding against such diversion and misuse is a

responsibility of all the Faithful, not just the pastors or bishops. Every Catholic shares

in the responsibility to ensure that funds donated for Church work actually go towards

those purposes. Without access to financial reports and information on diocesan finance

councils, budgets, and the overall financial health of a diocese, ordinary Catholics cannot

exercise their full responsibility of stewardship or verify where their donations to the

diocese go.

Measuring and Ranking Diocesan Online Financial Transparency: 2018

Voice of the Faithful®

These can be donations made directly at the diocesan level, such as money given

in response to an annual appeal, or made indirectly through the diocesan tax or

cathedraticum that is paid by their parish to the diocese. By the same token, parishioners

in parishes that do not issue financial reports to their members should request that their

pastors issue quarterly or annual financial reports so they are able to determine how their

donations that stay in the parish are being used.

If the extent of the settlements made by bishops to hide clerical sexual abuse had become

known through transparent financial reporting when the abuse reports first started break-

ing—long before 2002—lay Catholics would have been aware that the abuse was not a rare

exception, but widespread. If they had demanded change then and the bishops had imple-

mented it, many children could have been spared the devastation that often comes in the

wake of such abuse. Some cases of abuse would still have occurred, but the abuse would

have been reported, not covered up, and abusers called to account for their crimes. Victims

of serial abusers would have been protected.

2018 Summary and Highlights

In the 2018 review, the average overall score achieved by all the 177 territorial dioceses

in the U.S. (including 32 archdioceses) was 39.7 out of 60, or 66% if scoring were on a

percentage basis. This represents an increase of 5% over the 2017 average score. While

the transparency scores of 21 dioceses dropped from 2017 to 2018, more than 70 had higher

scores and some achieved very significant increases. The Archdiocese of Omaha went from

a dismal 26 to 56, and the Diocese of Orlando from 26 to a perfect score of 60, tying with the

Diocese of Burlington, which also scored a full 60 points. However, Burlington received a

qualified opinion1 whereas Orlando received an unqualified (good) opinion on its audit.

The Diocese of Santa Rosa was the only one of 177 to post the „highlights‟ or any aspect

of their Finance Council meetings—another significant factor in diocesan transparency.

(You can read the accounts at http://www.santarosacatholic.org/lay_consultative_bodies.)

After the publication of the 2017 report, some dioceses contacted VOTF to discuss the

review or clarify the nature of the questions in the worksheet. It is gratifying to note that

some of them have achieved significant increases in their 2018 scores. The Diocese of Ft.

Wayne-South Bend, for example, had a score of 34 in 2017 and a 56 in 2018.

Table 1 (page 3) shows the dioceses with the highest and lowest scores in 2018. Thirteen

dioceses scored 56 or higher in 2018. Eleven dioceses scored 19 or lower. As in the 2017

review, there was no correlation of scores with diocesan size or geographic region.

1 A qualified opinion is an adverse statement issued by a professional auditing firm after it has

conducted an audit of a corporate entity‟s financial statements.

http://www.santarosacatholic.org/lay_consultative_bodies



Table 1 – Highest and Lowest Financial Transparency Scores in 2018 (archdioceses in bold)

Top Scores (56 to 60 points) Bottom Scores (12 to 19 points)

Diocese Score Audited Report? Diocese Score Audited Report?

Orlando FL 60 Yes Harrisburg PA 19 No

Burlington VT 60 Yes*(Qualified) Orange CA 19 No

Atlanta GA 59 Yes Santa Fe NM 19 No

Baltimore MD 59 Yes Salina KS 18 No

Sacramento CA 59 Yes Brownsville TX 10 No

Bismarck ND 56 Yes Knoxville TN 15 No

Bridgeport CT 56 Yes Lubbock TX 15 No

Buffalo NY 56 Yes Portland OR 15 No

Des Moines IA 56 Yes Tulsa OK 15 No

Ft. Wayne-South Bend IN

56 Yes Grand Island NE 13 No

Milwaukee WI 56 Yes St. Thomas VI 12 No

Omaha NE 56 Yes

San Diego CA 56 Yes

It is worth noting that the dioceses in Pennsylvania whose failures to protect children were

the subject of the recent grand jury investigation fared poorly in the 2018 review, with an

average score of 33.5 as compared to the national average of 39.7.

Results of the 2018 Review

Table 2 shows average scores for all 177 dioceses in the USCCB in the 2017 and 2018

reviews. Details of the data for 2018 may be found in the data tables at the end of the

report. The changes in average scores are incremental but generally increasing.

Table 2 - Average Diocesan Scores in 2017 and 2018

Question 1 2 3 & 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Max. Score 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 10 60

2017 3.6 4.6 8.1 4.9 4.1 4.8 2.1 2.3 2.1 36.5

2018 4.3 4.5 9.0 5.0 4.5 4.9 2.4 2.5 2.6 39.7



Table 3 - Changes in Diocesan Scores from 2017 to 2018

Scores Dioceses Archdioceses Total % of Total

Increased 58 14 72 41%

Decreased 18 3 21 12%

No Change 69 15 84 47%

Total 145 32 177 100%

Table 3 shows the nature of the changes in individual diocesan scores that occurred

between 2017 and 2018.

Out of the 177 U.S dioceses, 84 (47%) had no change in their scores. VOTF had advised all

dioceses that a second review would be conducted in 2018, giving adequate time for them

to make changes to their websites. Although a number of dioceses with unchanged score

were in the top 25%, these results suggest that a sizable percentage of the low-scoring

dioceses were not motivated to make significant improvements in their online financial

transparency between the 2017 and 2018 reviews. In addition, 12% of diocesan scores

actually dropped from 2017 to 2018.

On the other hand, 72 dioceses (41%) posted gains in their scores—sometimes very

significant gains. Among archdioceses, the standout was the Archdiocese of Omaha,

which increased its score from 26 to 56. The top-scoring archdioceses were Atlanta and

Baltimore, both scoring 59. Milwaukee tied with Omaha for third place, both scoring 56.

Among dioceses, the Diocese of Orlando increased from 26 in 2017 to a perfect score of 60

and a tie with Burlington for first place. Other notable improvements include Lexington

(increasing from 19 to 47), San Diego (31 to 56), and Trenton (15 to 40).

Figure 1 (page 5) shows the 15 dioceses with the most improved scores. Figure 2 (page 6)

shows the 15 dioceses whose scores dropped the most.



Figure 1 – Most Improved from 2017 to 2018



Figure 2 – Regressing from 2017 to 2018

Posting of Audited Financial Reports

The availability of current audited financial reports on a diocesan website is in many ways

the hallmark of financial transparency. In the case of the 2018 review, a current audited

financial report would cover fiscal year 2017. Because timeliness of reporting is of key

importance, only current audited reports receive the maximum 15 points on questions 3

and 4. Reports that are 1-2 years old receive only 10 points and reports that are 3-4 years

old receive only 5 points. Beyond that, no points are awarded for a financial report.

Many large dioceses post multiple financial reports on their website so as to include reports

for separate entities such as schools, hospitals and cemeteries. For the purposes of the 2018

financial transparency review, we have considered only the audited financial report for the

operations of the main diocesan entity itself.



The data in Table 4 indicate an 8% increase in the number of dioceses posting current

audited financial reports between 2017 and 2018, from 83 dioceses to 97. This may be

in part because the reviewers went back at the end of the 2018 review period and gave

full credit to any diocese that had posted a current report by September 7, 2018. Since a

similar grace period and final check were not part of the 2017 review, this might account

for a higher percentage of current reports. In any case, the total number of dioceses posting

audited financial reports went from 100 in 2017 to 108 in 2018.

In 2018, 24 of the 177 dioceses provided only online summaries of diocesan finances, often

with pie charts and other graphics, instead of audited financial reports. Unfortunately,

such self-reporting is not the equivalent of an audit by an independent accounting firm.

The Archdiocese of New York is the largest U.S. diocese to post only summary financial

data rather than the full audit.

The remaining 45 dioceses, or 25% of the 177, provided no financial reporting whatsoever.

Table 4 – Audited Financial Reports Posted in 2017 and 2018

Scores Dioceses Archdioceses All % All

2017 Review

Current FY 65 18 83 47%

Not Current 14 3 17 10%

Summary Only 12 4 16 9%

None Posted 54 7 61 34%

Totals 145 32 177 100%

2018 Review

Current FY 77 20 97 55%

Not Current 9 2 11 6%

Summary Only 18 6 24 14%

None Posted 41 4 45 25%

Totals 145 32 177 100%



Occurrence and Significance of Qualified Reports

After a professional auditing firm has conducted an audit of a corporate entity‟s financial

statements and finds nothing in its audit that would cause it to limit its own endorsement,

it gives a “clean” or unqualified opinion. A qualified opinion, on the other hand, is an

adverse statement issued by the auditing firm. By issuing a qualified opinion, the auditor

indicates that the entity being audited has not included all parts of its entity in its financial

statements or has not followed generally accepted accounting procedures (GAAP, which are

the procedures that every entity should follow when preparing its financial statements).

The auditing firm will elaborate in its qualified opinion what the entity has failed to do

appropriately.

In 2018, nine dioceses posted audited financial reports with qualified opinions. They were

Amarillo, Burlington, Evansville, Fargo, La Crosse, Las Cruces, Memphis, Saginaw and

Venice. None of these are archdioceses. However, some of the 10 archdioceses that did not

post any reports may have received qualified opinions and chosen not to share them

publicly.

Overall, it is likely that most dioceses commission yearly audited reports for internal use,

but only 55% post current audited reports to their websites—i.e., within nine months of the

previously completed year. Another 6% post audited reports but later than the previous

cycle. Among the 39% failing to post audited reports at all, some no doubt receive qualified

or other adverse opinions.

Receiving a qualified opinion reflects a certain lack of financial transparency, but an

audited financial report with a qualified opinion is more transparent than self-reporting

alternatives. The auditor‟s notes on a qualified opinion will provide information about what

aspects of the diocesan financial operations are not included in the report or provide other

information that would be helpful to lay members of the dioceses seeking to understand the

situation.

Members of a diocese with a qualified opinion from its auditor, and in particular the

members of the diocesan finance council, should ensure that they understand the

significance of the opinion. In order to encourage posting of audited reports, our review

did not deduct any points in 2018 if a diocese received a qualified opinion.



Diocesan Finance Councils

Because the role of the diocesan finance council (DFC) is critical in ensuring prudent use

of the resources of the diocese, a transparent diocesan financial operation would require

that laity have a way of ensuring that lay members of the DFC are “truly expert in financial

affairs and civil law, outstanding in integrity,” as Canon 492 specifies. Question 8 in our

review asks if the members of the DFC are identified on the diocesan website. If a list

of members and their credentials is not posted, it is not possible to judge whether the

diocese is meeting the requirements of Canon 492.

The 2018 review showed that 21 of the 177 dioceses posted their finance council

membership with the lay members‟ credentials. An additional 79 posted their finance

council membership without the lay members‟ credentials. The remaining 77 dioceses did

not post their membership. This represents some improvement over 2017 when 16 of the

177 dioceses posted their finance council membership with the lay members‟ credentials,

and an additional 71 posted their finance council membership minus the lay members‟

credentials, thereby leaving 90 dioceses, or more than half, that did not post their finance

council membership.

Protection of Collections

For the nation‟s more than 17,000 Catholic parishes spread among its 177 dioceses, the

weekly collections (a significant amount of which comes in the form of cash) are their

primary source of income. Due to the manner in which this income is received, i.e., placed

into open baskets in the middle of religious services each weekend, it is particularly

vulnerable to theft. It must be effectively secured at the first opportunity and kept secure

up to and including the point at which it is properly deposited into the parish‟s bank

account. It is essential to create an environment that prevents any one person from gaining

lone, unobserved access to the funds prior to their documentation and deposit.

Two components are of particular importance to a parish‟s ability to establish a genuinely

secure collection system. Question 10 asks whether detailed Sunday collection procedures

are posted by the diocese and whether those procedures require the use of numbered

collection containers as well as counting teams composed of three or more persons.

By a very wide margin, dioceses scored most poorly on this question.

Of the 177 dioceses, only 90 posted details of their Sunday collection procedures at their

website, and only 16 of the 90 require the two components noted above. Of the remaining

74 dioceses that posted their procedures, 33 require neither component and 41 require one



or the other but not both. The absence of either of those two components virtually

guarantees that the affected parish‟s collections are vulnerable to weekly theft.

Under Canon Law (Canon 455), the USCCB could mandate the conference-wide use

of genuinely secure collection procedures that would significantly decrease collection

thefts. Doing so would require a two-thirds vote of the members of the conference and

Vatican approval. This is the approach the bishops used to implement the Dallas Charter

for the Protection of Children and Young People that was adopted by the conference in 2002

and most recently revised in 2011.

Conclusions

The results of this report show that, based on diocesan transparency scores, diocesan

financial transparency is increasing in the U.S. Positive signs include more dioceses posting

audited financial reports and greater openness concerning activities of Diocesan Finance

Councils (DFC), of which Santa Rosa is a good example. Approved highlights of their DFC

meetings are posted on their website. Such transparency gives the laity a level of confidence

that their financial support of the bishop and the good works of the diocese will accomplish

their intended goal. It also enhances the sense of lay stewardship and promotes generosity

within the diocese.

These improvements are not universal, however. Although many dioceses have made a

commitment to transparency, others have lagged behind. They have failed to exercise

openness concerning their financial operations. High-performing dioceses serve as an

example and demonstrate that significant improvements in transparency can be achieved,

but lay involvement is crucial in making openness in financial affairs more widely practiced

across the country. Lay Catholics must be vigilant about diocesan finances. We must let our

bishops know if we find their financial transparency lacking.

Recommendations

If you are a faithful Catholic who supports your parish and diocese, you should check your

diocese‟s overall score and its question-by-question scores as determined by this review. If

your diocese does not post its audited financial statement or, worse, not even an unaudited

financial report, your diocesan leadership is being less than forthright about its finances.

If your diocese does not mandate safe collection procedures, it is failing in its duty to protect

the resources you have provided to them.



Their message to you is that financial reports and financial guidelines are need-to-know

information, and that the laity—without whose financial support the hierarchy could not

function—do not have a need to know. That can be likened to the officers of a major

corporation declaring their stockholders have no need to know how the assets of their

company are being used.

If that describes your diocese, don‟t be afraid to let your bishop knowof your concern.

If you receive no response and the level of financial transparency does not improve, you

might consider this: On the Annual Appeal pledge slip, write the following and place it

in the return envelope: “I cannot in good conscience contribute to the annual appeal until

the Diocese publishes its audited financial reports. Sincerely, [your name].” Remember, it‟s

your Church too!

Remember also that the members of your DFC represent you in ensuring that your

donations advance the mission of the Church. The function of the DFC parallels in some

ways that of a corporate board of directors. Secrecy of the operation of the council is not

mandated by Canon Law, although bishops may require it. The example of the Diocese

of Santa Rosa shows that greater openness is a possibility. Check your diocesan website

to learn who the members of your DFC are and if there is any indication of their expertise.

If DFC members are identified, you might contact your diocesan bishop or Chief Financial

Officer to ask if highlights of DFC meetings can be posted to the website. If DFC members

are not identified, you might ask why not.

In his August 16, 2018, statement in response to the PA Grand Jury‟s report and the

revelations about Cardinal McCarrick, USCCB President Daniel Cardinal DiNardo stated

“We are faced with a spiritual crisis that requires not only spiritual conversion, but practical

changes to avoid repeating the sins and failures of the past that are so evident in the recent

report.” For lay Catholics in the U.S., such “practical changes” are essential in rebuilding

trust in our bishops. Bishops must adopt reforms that include meaningful involvement

of the laity and should empower a lay review board to help guide this new effort.

It seems likely that Pope Francis will ask the national bishops‟ conferences to take on a

larger role in dealing with the current crisis of confidence in the church, since they should

understand the local challenges in greater detail. As one “practical change,” the USCCB

should adopt procedures, parallel to the Dallas Charter, to mandate accountability for

bishops and to put measures in place to ensure that covering up crimes of clerical sexual

abuse cannot reoccur. Mandating financial transparency will be an important part of such

reforms. It is doubtful that the Pope would refuse his approval for them if two-thirds of the

conference supported them. It is time for U.S. Catholic bishops to step forward and

translate their words into actions.

Appendix A: Methodology

The 2018 review began on June,1, 2018, and concluded on September 7, 2018, to provide every opportunity for dioceses to post their most recent financial reports. Diocesan websites change constantly as information is added or deleted, and the links that existed at the time of the 2018 survey may have changed after the reviews were completed.

In reviewing the diocesan websites, the following 10 questions were asked.

Question 1: Can any financial data be found within a few to several minutes? Maximum value – 5 points

Reviewers typically withheld credit only when no data could be found no matter how long they searched.

Question 2: Is there a workable internal “search” function? Maximum value – 5 points

A workable search function allows a visitor to the website to locate hard-to-find information and is key to website transparency.

Question 3: Are audited financial statements posted? Question 4: If the answer to #3 is “No,” is financial info reported in another format, e.g., booklet form? Maximum value – 15 points

If any of the review’s 10 questions can be characterized as representing the heart of the review—financial accountability and transparency—Questions 3 and 4 merit that description. They ask whether the arch/diocese posts its audited financial statement on the website and, if not, whether a less-detailed annual financial report is posted. These reports are essential for showing contributors how their donations support the Church’s administrative structure and fund its many charitable works.

Question 5: Is the Annual Appeal’s purpose explained somewhere on the website, and/or is it reported on the financial statements? Maximum value – 5 points Question 6: Is the annual parish assessment (cathedraticum) explained somewhere on the website, and/or is it reported on the financial statements? Maximum value – 10 points

Annual Appeals and parish assessments are key diocesan financial resources. Questions 5 and 6 ask whether the annual appeal and the annual parish assessments, respectively, are explained somewhere on the website and/or are reported on the financial statements.


Voice of the Faithful® Page A-2

Question 7: Is contact info for the business office posted? Maximum value – 5

Posting contact information for the finance staff makes it easier for website visitors to initiate finance-related inquiries.

Question 8: Is the finance council identified? Maximum value – 5 points

Canon Law (specifically Canon 492), requires that every diocese have a Finance Council consisting of “at least three members of the Christian faithful truly expert in Financial affairs and civil law, outstanding in integrity, and appointed by the bishop.” Absent either the list of members or their credentials, it is not possible to judge whether the Canon Law standard is met.

Question 9: Are parish financial guidelines posted? Maximum value – 5 points Question 10: Are detailed collection & counting procedures posted? Maximum value – 10 points

Questions 9 and 10 are related because the collection and counting procedures referred to in Question 10 are typically (though not always) found within the guidelines referenced in Question 9. Like Questions 3 and 4, Question 10 is a crucial element in this review. Weekly collections are the primary source of the Church’s revenue, making proper collection and counting procedures essential. Both the use of serially numbered, tamper-evident containers and counting teams of three or more individuals are absolutely essential to establishing and maintaining a genuinely secure weekly collection system.

APPENDIX B: Worksheet for Measuring Transparency Worksheet to Summarize Financial Transparency & Accountability Criteria Concerning U.S. Dioceses/Archdioceses

Depending upon the specific question, the rating scale is between 0 and 15, with the highest possible total score being 60. Diocese: URL address: Date of Review: Reviewer’s Initials:

Score Yes No Somewhat Notes 1. Can any financial data be found within a few to

several minutes? Score: 0 or 5

2. Is there a workable internal “search” function? Score: 0-5 Note: Deduct 3 points if present but not on homepage. Deduct 1 point if not on the other criteria pages.

3. Are audited financial statements posted? Score: 0-15 Note: Enter the latest year in “Notes.” Deduct 5 points if the latest statement is 1-2 yrs old, 10 points if 3-4 years old and 15 points if 5 or more years old.

4. If the answer to #3 is “No,” is financial info reported in another format, e.g., booklet form? Score: 0 or 2 Note: Score 0 if answer to #3 is "Yes."

5. Annual Appeal Score: 0 or 5 Is the appeal's purpose explained somewhere on the website, and/or is it reported on the financial statements? Note: Deduct 5 points if neither is true.

6. Annual Assessments (cathedraticum) Score: 0 or 5 Is the cathedraticum explained somewhere on the website, and/or is it reported on the financial statements? Note: Deduct 5 points if neither is true.

7. Is contact info for the business office posted? Score: 0-5 Note: Deduct 2 points if only one name is posted and their contact info is shown.

8. Is the finance council identified? Score: 0-5 Note: Deduct 3 points if there are not 3 lay members. Deduct 1 point if credentials are not posted.

9. Are parish financial guidelines posted? Score: 0 or 5

10. Are detailed collection & counting procedures posted? Score: 0-10 Note: Deduct 4 pts for each "No" answer below.

- Are serially numbered containers required? - Are three (3) or more counters required?

TOTAL SCORE: __________ (maximum possible score = 60) Page B-1

APPENDIX B COMPLETED WORKSHEET EXAMPLE

Worksheet to Summarize Financial Transparency & Accountability Criteria Concerning U.S. Dioceses/Archdioceses Depending upon the specific question, the rating scale is between 0 and 15, with the highest possible total score being 60.

Diocese: Spokane URL address https://www.dioceseofspokane.org/ Date of Review: 9/8/18 Reviewer’s Initials:

Score Yes No Somewhat Notes 0 1. Can any financial data be found within a few to

several minutes? Score: 0 or 5 X

5 2. Is there a workable internal “search” function? Score: 0-5 Note: Deduct 3 points if present but not on homepage. Deduct 1 point if not on the other criteria pages.

X

0 3. Are audited financial statements posted? Score: 0-15 Note: Enter the latest year in “Notes.” Deduct 5 points if the latest statement is 1-2 yrs old, 10 points if 3-4 years old and 15 points if 5 or more years old.

X

0 4. If the answer to #3 is “No,” is financial info reported in another format, e.g., booklet form? Score: 0 or 2 Note: Score 0 if answer to #3 is "Yes."

X

5 5. Annual Appeal Score: 0 or 5 Is the appeal's purpose explained somewhere on the website, and/or is it reported on the financial statements? Note: Deduct 5 points if neither is true.

X

5 6. Annual Assessments (cathedraticum) Score: 0 or 5 Is the cathedraticum explained somewhere on the website, and/or is it reported on the financial statements? Note: Deduct 5 points if neither is true.

X https://dioceseofspokane.org/documents/2015/6/5.01.01.pdf

5 7. Is contact info for the business office posted? Score: 0-5 Note: Deduct 2 points if only one name is posted and their contact info is shown.

X

4 8. Is the finance council identified? Score: 0-5 Note: Deduct 3 points if there are not 3 lay members. Deduct 1 point if credentials are not posted.

X https://dioceseofspokane.org/documents/2015/10/5.02.15%20.pdf

5 9. Are parish financial guidelines posted? Score: 0 or 5

X Included here: https://dioceseofspokane.org/green-book

10 10. Are detailed collection & counting procedures posted? Score: 0-10 Note: Deduct 4 pts for each "No" answer below.

X https://dioceseofspokane.org/documents/2018/3/5.02.03_032018.pdf

- Are serially numbered containers required? X - Are three (3) or more counters required? X

TOTAL SCORE: ___39_______ (maximum possible score = 60) Page B-2

APPENDIX C: 2018/2017 Scores Diocesan Financial Transparency Alphabetical listing ( archdioceses in bold) Maximum score = 60

Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Albany, NY 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

20 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0Alexandria, LA 29 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 0

29 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 0Allentown, PA 27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0

15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0Altoona-Johnstown 31 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2

22 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 2Amarillo 49 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 0

47 5 5 15 5 5 3 4 5 0Anchorage, AK 45 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 0

45 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 0Arlington, VA 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Atlanta, GA 59 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 10

50 5 0 15 5 5 5 4 5 6Austin, TX 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10

51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6Baker, OR 27 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 2

27 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 2Baltimore 59 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 10

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10Baton Rouge, LA 25 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 6

23 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 4Beaumont, TX 46 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 10

46 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 10© 2018 Voice of the Faithful, Inc. Page C-1

Total Scores

Diocesan Financial Transparency: 2018/2017 ScoresAlphabetical listing ( archdioceses in bold) Maximum score = 60

Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Belleville, IL 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6Biloxi, MS 20 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0

10 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0Birmingham, AL 24 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0

24 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0Bismarck, ND 56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

47 5 5 10 5 5 5 5 5 2Boise ID 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Boston 53 5 2 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

46 5 0 15 5 5 5 5 0 6Bridgeport, CT 56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

55 5 4 15 5 5 5 5 5 6Brooklyn, NY 35 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 0

35 5 0 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Brownsville, TX 15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0

10 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0Buffalo, NY 56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6Burlington, VT 60 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 10

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Camden, NJ 25 5 5 0 5 0 5 5 0 0

10 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0© 2018 Voice of the Faithful, Inc. Appendix C Page C-2

Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Charleston, SC 54 5 0 15 5 5 5 4 5 10

46 5 0 15 5 5 5 4 5 2Charlotte, NC 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6

51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6Cheyenne, WY 30 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0

35 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 0Chicago, IL 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10

50 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 5 10Cincinnati, OH 49 5 5 15 5 5 3 0 5 6

49 5 5 15 5 5 3 0 5 6Cleveland, OH 55 5 4 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6Colorado Springs 27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0

27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0Columbus, OH 44 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 10

39 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 10Corpus Christi, TX 52 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2

47 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 0 2Covington, KY 40 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6

35 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6Crookston, MN 20 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0

20 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0Dallas, TX 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Davenport, IA 52 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2

47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2Denver CO 46 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 10

41 5 4 2 5 5 5 4 5 6Des Moines, IA 56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6Detroit, MI 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2

51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2Dodge City, KS 37 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 2

37 5 5 15 5 0 5 0 0 2Dubuque, IA 47 5 5 10 5 5 5 5 5 2

47 5 5 10 5 5 5 5 5 2Duluth, MN 31 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0

39 5 5 10 5 5 5 4 0 0El Paso, TX 32 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 5 0

32 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 5 0Erie, PA 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

49 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 4Evansville, IN 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

35 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 0Fairbanks, AK 27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0

20 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0Fall River, MA 43 5 5 15 5 5 3 5 0 0

22 0 5 0 5 5 3 4 0 0Fargo, ND 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Fort Worth, TX 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Fresno, CA 24 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0

15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0Ft. Wayne-So. Bend 56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

34 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 4Gallup, NM 25 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 0

25 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 0Galveston-Houston, TX 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Gary, IN 27 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 2

27 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 2Gaylord, MI 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6

51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6Grand Island, NE 13 0 5 0 5 0 3 0 0 0

13 0 5 0 5 0 3 0 0 0Grand Rapids, MI 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Great Falls-Billings, MT 48 5 4 15 5 5 5 4 5 0

44 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 5 0Green Bay, WI 47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2

47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2Greensburg, PA 31 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0

31 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0Harrisburg, PA 19 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Hartford, CT 22 5 4 0 5 5 3 0 0 0

17 5 4 0 5 0 3 0 0 0Helena, MT 29 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0

29 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0Honolulu, HI 37 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 6

37 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 6Houma-Thibodaux 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Indianapolis, IN 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2

51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2Jackson, MS 20 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0

15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0Jefferson City, MO 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

35 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 0Joliet, IL 52 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2

52 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2Juneau, AK 38 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 2

41 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 6Kalamazoo, MI 49 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 0

49 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 0Knoxville, TN 15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0

15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0Kansas City, KS 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6KS City-St. Jos., MO 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10La Crosse, WI 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6

28 0 5 10 5 5 3 0 0 0Lafayette, IN 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Lafayette, LA 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2

31 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2Lake Charles, LA 27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0

18 0 5 0 5 5 3 0 0 0Lansing, MI 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Laredo, TX 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Las Cruces, NM 47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2

47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2Las Vegas, NV 35 5 0 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

35 5 0 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Lexington, KY 47 5 0 15 5 5 5 5 5 2

19 0 0 0 5 5 5 4 0 0Lincoln, NE 31 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0

27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0Little Rock, AR 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Los Angeles, CA 47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2

45 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 0Louisville, KY 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Lubbock, TX 15 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0

20 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0Madison, WI 47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2

27 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 2Manchester, NH 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

40 5 5 15 0 5 5 5 0 0Marquette, MI 44 5 5 15 5 0 5 2 5 2

52 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2Memphis, TN 47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2

47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2Metuchen, NJ 33 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 6

27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0Miami, FL 32 5 5 2 5 0 5 4 0 6

37 5 5 2 5 0 5 4 5 6Milwaukee, WI 56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6Mobile, AL 22 5 0 2 5 5 5 0 0 0

10 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0Monterey, CA 36 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 6

32 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 2Nashville, TN 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0New Orleans, LA 20 0 5 0 0 5 3 0 5 2

20 0 5 0 0 5 3 0 5 2New York, NY 31 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Newark, NJ 42 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 2

25 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0New Ulm, MN 22 5 5 2 5 0 5 0 0 0

15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0Norwich, CT 24 5 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0

19 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0Oakland, CA 39 5 5 10 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Ogdensburg, NY 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Oklahoma City, OK 34 5 4 10 5 5 5 0 0 0

39 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Omaha, NE 56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

26 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 6Orange, CA 19 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0

19 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0Orlando, FL 60 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 10

26 5 5 2 5 0 5 4 0 0Owensboro, KY 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2

47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2Palm Beach, FL 49 5 0 15 5 5 5 4 0 10

50 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 10Paterson-Clifton 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6Pensacola-Tal, FL 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Peoria, IL 34 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 5 2

34 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 5 2Philadelphia, PA 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Phoenix, AZ 25 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0

25 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0Pittsburgh, PA 42 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 5 2

41 5 5 10 5 0 5 4 5 2Portland, ME 27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0

27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0Portland, OR 15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0

15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0Providence, RI 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Pueblo, CO 28 0 5 0 5 5 5 1 5 2

31 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2Raleigh, NC 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Rapid City, SD 29 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0

26 0 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0Reno, NV 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2

31 5 5 0 5 0 5 4 5 2Richmond, VA 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6

47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2Rochester, NY 42 5 5 15 5 5 3 4 0 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Rockford, IL 35 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6

30 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 5 6Rockville Ctr, NY 25 5 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 0

35 5 0 10 5 5 5 5 0 0Sacramento, CA 59 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 10

59 5 4 15 5 5 5 5 5 10Saginaw, MI 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Salina, KS 18 0 4 0 5 0 5 4 0 0

18 0 4 0 5 0 5 4 0 0Salt Lake City, UT 47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2

52 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2San Angelo, TX 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

39 5 5 15 0 5 5 4 0 0San Antonio, TX 35 5 0 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

35 5 0 15 5 5 5 0 0 0San Bernardino, CA 45 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 6

45 5 0 10 5 5 5 4 5 6San Diego, CA 56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

31 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 6San Francisco, CA 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6San Jose, CA 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6Santa Fe, NM 19 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Santa Rosa, CA 50 5 0 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

36 5 0 10 5 5 5 4 0 2Savannah, GA 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10Scranton, PA 23 0 5 0 5 5 3 5 0 0

43 5 5 15 5 5 3 5 0 0Seattle, WA 42 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 6

42 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 6Shreveport, LA 22 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 2

22 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 2Sioux City, IA 35 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6

35 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6Sioux Falls, SD 20 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0

20 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0Spokane, WA 39 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 10

27 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 2Springfield, IL 35 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6

30 0 4 0 5 5 5 4 5 2Springfield, MA 20 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0

30 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 0 0Springfield-C.G., MO 39 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0St. Augustine, FL 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0St. Cloud, MN 27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10St. Louis, MO 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2St. Paul-Minn., MN 27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0

35 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 0St. Petersburg, FL 47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2

42 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 5 2St. Thomas, VI 12 0 0 0 5 0 3 4 0 0

19 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0Steubenville, OH 24 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0

24 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0Stockton, CA 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10

45 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 10Superior, WI 31 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0

31 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2Syracuse, NY 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6Toledo, OH 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

38 5 5 15 5 5 3 0 0 0Trenton, NJ 40 5 5 10 5 5 5 5 0 0

15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0Tucson, AZ 45 5 4 10 5 5 5 0 5 6

50 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 5 6Tulsa, OK 15 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0

15 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0Tyler, TX 39 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 0 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Venice, FL 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6Victoria, TX 29 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0

24 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0Washington, DC 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Wheeling-C'ton, WV 44 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 10

44 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 10Wichita, KS 38 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 2

19 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0Wilmington, DE 39 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Winona-Roch., MN 31 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2

31 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2Worcester, MA 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2

51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2Yakima, WA 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6Youngstown, OH 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6

49 5 5 15 5 5 3 0 5 6* Questions 3 and 4 are interrelated and must therefore be considered as one insofar as scoring is concerned.

LEGENDQuestion #1: Can any financial data be found within a few to several minutes?Question #2: Is there a workable internal “search” function? Deduct 3 points if not on homepage, and 1 point if not on the other pages.

© 2018 Voice of the Faithful, Inc. Appendix C Page C-14

Total Scores

Questions 3&4: Are audited financial statements posted? If the answer to #3 is “No,” is financial info reported in another format? Question #5: Is the appeal's purpose explained somewhere on the website, and/or is it reported on the financial statements? Question #6: Is the cathedraticum explained somewhere on the website, and/or is it reported on the financial statements? Question #7: Is contact info for the business office posted? Deduct 2 points if only one name is posted and contact info is shown.Question #8: Is the finance council identified? Deduct 3 points if less than 3 lay members and 1 point if no credentials are posted. Question #9: Are parish financial guidelines posted? Question #10: Are detailed collection & counting procedures posted? Deduct 4 points if procedures do not require numberedcontainers or 3 counters aren't required.Question #6: Is the cathedraticum explained somewhere on the website, and/or is it reported on the financial statements? Question #7: Is contact info for the business office posted? Deduct 2 points if only one name is posted and contact info is shown.Question #8: Is the finance council identified? Deduct 3 points if less than 3 lay members and 1 point if no credentials are posted. Question #9: Are parish financial guidelines posted? Question #10: Are detailed collection & counting procedures posted? Deduct 4 points if the procedures do not require numbered containers or 3 counters aren't required.

Total possible score is 60:Question 1 2 3 & 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Max. Score 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 10 60

© 2018 Voice of the Faithful, Inc. Appendix C Page C-15

APPENDIX D: Dioceses Ranked by 2018 Financial Transparency ScoreArchdioceses in bold Maximum score = 60

Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Burlington, VT 60 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 10

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Orlando, FL 60 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 10

26 5 5 2 5 0 5 4 0 0Atlanta, GA 59 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 10

50 5 0 15 5 5 5 4 5 6Baltimore, MD 59 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 10

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10Sacramento, CA 59 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 10

59 5 4 15 5 5 5 5 5 10Bismarck, ND 56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

47 5 5 10 5 5 5 5 5 2Bridgeport, CT 56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

55 5 4 15 5 5 5 5 5 6Buffalo, NY 56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6Des Moines, IA 56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6Ft. Wayne-So. Bend, IN 56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

34 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 4Milwaukee, WI 56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6Omaha, NE 56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

26 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 6San Diego, CA 56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

31 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 6© 2018 Voice of the Faithful, Inc. Appendix D Page D-1

Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Austin, TX 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10

51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6Belleville, IL 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6Chicago, IL 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10

50 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 5 10Cleveland, OH 55 5 4 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

56 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6Erie, PA 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

49 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 4Kansas City, KS 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6Paterson-Clifton, NJ 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6San Francisco, CA 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6San Jose, CA 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6Savannah, GA 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10St. Louis, MO 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2Stockton, CA 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Syracuse, NY 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6Venice, FL 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6Yakima, WA 55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

55 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6Charleston, SC 54 5 0 15 5 5 5 4 5 10

46 5 0 15 5 5 5 4 5 2Boston, MA 53 5 2 15 5 5 5 5 5 6

46 5 0 15 5 5 5 5 0 6Corpus Christi, TX 52 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2

47 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 0 2Davenport, IA 52 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2

47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2Joliet, IL 52 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2

52 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2Charlotte, NC 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6

51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6Dallas, TX 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2

51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2Detroit, MI 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2

51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2Gaylord, MI 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Indianapolis, IN 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2

51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2La Crosse, WI 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6

28 0 5 10 5 5 3 0 0 0Lafayette, LA 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2

31 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2Louisville, KY 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6

47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2Owensboro, KY 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2

47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2Reno, NV 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2

31 5 5 0 5 0 5 4 5 2Richmond, VA 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6

47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2Worcester, MA 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2

51 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2Youngstown, OH 51 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6

49 5 5 15 5 5 3 0 5 6Santa Rosa, CA 50 5 0 15 5 5 5 4 5 6

36 5 0 10 5 5 5 4 0 2Amarillo, TX 49 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 0

47 5 5 15 5 5 3 4 5 0Cincinnati, OH 49 5 5 15 5 5 3 0 5 6

49 5 5 15 5 5 3 0 5 6Kalamazoo, MI 49 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Palm Beach, FL 49 5 0 15 5 5 5 4 0 10

50 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 10Great Falls-Billings, MT 48 5 4 15 5 5 5 4 5 0

44 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 5 0Green Bay, WI 47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2

47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2Las Cruces, NM 47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2

47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2Lexington, KY 47 5 0 15 5 5 5 5 5 2

19 0 0 0 5 5 5 4 0 0Los Angeles, CA 47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2

45 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 0Madison, WI 47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2

27 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 2Memphis, TN 47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2

47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2Salt Lake City, UT 47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2

52 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2St. Petersburg, FL 47 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2

42 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 5 2Beaumont, TX 46 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 10

46 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 10Denver CO 46 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 10

41 5 4 2 5 5 5 4 5 6Dubuque, IA 47 5 5 10 5 5 5 5 5 2


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Anchorage, AK 45 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 0

45 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 0San Bernardino, CA 45 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 6

45 5 0 10 5 5 5 4 5 6Tucson, AZ 45 5 4 10 5 5 5 0 5 6

50 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 5 6Arlington, VA 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Columbus, OH 44 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 10

39 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 10Evansville, IN 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

35 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 0Fort Worth, TX 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Grand Rapids, MI 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Houma-Thibodaux 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0KS City-St. Jos., MO 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Lafayette, IN 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Lansing, MI 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Little Rock, AR 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Manchester, NH 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

40 5 5 15 0 5 5 5 0 0Marquette, MI 44 5 5 15 5 0 5 2 5 2

52 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2Pensacola-Tal, FL 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Providence, RI 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0St. Augustine, FL 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Washington, DC 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Wheeling-C'ton, WV 44 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 10

44 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 10Fall River, MA 43 5 5 15 5 5 3 5 0 0

22 0 5 0 5 5 3 4 0 0Newark, NJ 42 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 2

25 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0Pittsburgh, PA 42 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 5 2

41 5 5 10 5 0 5 4 5 2Rochester, NY 42 5 5 15 5 5 3 4 0 0

35 5 5 15 5 5 0 0 0 0Seattle, WA 42 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 6

42 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 6Albany, NY 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Boise ID 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Covington, KY 40 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6

35 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6Fargo, ND 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Galveston-Houston, TX 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Jefferson City, MO 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

35 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 0Laredo, TX 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Nashville, TN 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Ogdensburg, NY 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Philadelphia, PA 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Raleigh, NC 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Saginaw, MI 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Toledo, OH 40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

38 5 5 15 5 5 3 0 0 0Trenton, NJ 40 5 5 10 5 5 5 5 0 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Oakland, CA 39 5 5 10 5 5 5 4 0 0

44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0San Angelo, TX 44 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0

39 5 5 15 0 5 5 4 0 0Spokane, WA 39 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 10

27 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 2Springfield-C.G., MO 39 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Tyler, TX 39 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

43 5 4 15 5 5 5 4 0 0Wilmington, DE 39 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

40 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Juneau, AK 38 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 2

41 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 6Wichita, KS 38 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 2

19 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0Dodge City, KS 37 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 2

37 5 5 15 5 0 5 0 0 2Honolulu, HI 37 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 6

37 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 6Monterey, CA 36 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 6

32 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 2Brooklyn, NY 35 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 0

35 5 0 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Las Vegas, NV 35 5 0 15 5 5 5 0 0 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Oklahoma City, OK 34 5 4 10 5 5 5 0 0 0

39 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Rockford, IL 35 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6

30 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 5 6San Antonio, TX 35 5 0 15 5 5 5 0 0 0

35 5 0 15 5 5 5 0 0 0Sioux City, IA 35 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6

35 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6Springfield, IL 35 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6

30 0 4 0 5 5 5 4 5 2Peoria, IL 34 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 5 2

34 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 5 2Metuchen, NJ 33 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 6

27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0El Paso, TX 32 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 5 0

32 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 5 0Miami, FL 32 5 5 2 5 0 5 4 0 6

37 5 5 2 5 0 5 4 5 6Altoona-Johnstown, PA 31 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2

22 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 2Duluth, MN 31 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0

39 5 5 10 5 5 5 4 0 0Greensburg, PA 31 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0

31 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0Lincoln, NE 31 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10New York, NY 31 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0

27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0Superior, WI 31 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0

31 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2Winona-Roch., MN 31 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2

31 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2Cheyenne, WY 30 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0

35 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 0Alexandria, LA 29 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 0

29 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 0Helena, MT 29 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0

29 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0Rapid City, SD 29 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0

26 0 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0Victoria, TX 29 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0

24 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0Pueblo, CO 28 0 5 0 5 5 5 1 5 2

31 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2Allentown, PA 27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0

15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0Baker, OR 27 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 2

27 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 2Colorado Springs 27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0

27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0Fairbanks, AK 27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Gary, IN 27 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 2

27 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 2Lake Charles, LA 27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0

18 0 5 0 5 5 3 0 0 0Portland, ME 27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0

27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0St. Cloud, MN 27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0

27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0St. Paul-Minn., MN 27 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0

35 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 0Baton Rouge, LA 25 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 6

23 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 4Camden, NJ 25 5 5 0 5 0 5 5 0 0

10 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0Gallup, NM 25 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 0

25 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 0Phoenix, AZ 25 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0

25 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0Rockville Ctr, NY 25 5 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 0

35 5 0 10 5 5 5 5 0 0Birmingham, AL 24 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0

24 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0Fresno, CA 24 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0

15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0Norwich, CT 24 5 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Steubenville, OH 24 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0

24 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0Scranton, PA 23 0 5 0 5 5 3 5 0 0

43 5 5 15 5 5 3 5 0 0Hartford, CT 22 5 4 0 5 5 3 0 0 0

17 5 4 0 5 0 3 0 0 0Mobile, AL 22 5 0 2 5 5 5 0 0 0

10 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0New Ulm, MN 22 5 5 2 5 0 5 0 0 0

15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0Shreveport, LA 22 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 2

22 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 2Biloxi, MS 20 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0

10 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0Crookston, MN 20 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0

20 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0Jackson, MS 20 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0

15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0New Orleans, LA 20 0 5 0 0 5 3 0 5 2

20 0 5 0 0 5 3 0 5 2Sioux Falls, SD 20 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0

20 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0Springfield, MA 20 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0

30 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 0 0Harrisburg, PA 19 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0


Total Scores


Scores per Question (see Legend for total possible on each)Diocese 2018 2017 Q 1 Q 2 Qs 3&4* Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10Orange, CA 19 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0

19 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0Santa Fe, NM 19 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0

19 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0Salina, KS 18 0 4 0 5 0 5 4 0 0

18 0 4 0 5 0 5 4 0 0Brownsville, TX 15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0

10 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0Knoxville, TN 15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0

15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0Lubbock, TX 15 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0

20 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0Portland, OR 15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0

15 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0Tulsa, OK 15 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0

15 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0Grand Island, NE 13 0 5 0 5 0 3 0 0 0

13 0 5 0 5 0 3 0 0 0St. Thomas, VI 12 0 0 0 5 0 3 4 0 0

19 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0* Questions 3 and 4 are interrelated and must therefore be considered as one insofar as scoring is concerned.

LEGENDQuestion #1: Can any financial data be found within a few to several minutes?Question #2: Is there a workable internal “search” function? Deduct 3 points if not on homepage, and 1 point if not on the other pages.

© 2018 Voice of the Faithful, Inc. Appendix D Page D-14

Total Scores

APPENDIX D: Dioceses Ranked by 2018 Financial Transparency ScoreArchdioceses in bold

LEGEND (continued)Questions 3&4: Are audited financial statements posted? If the answer to #3 is “No,” is financial info reported in another format? Question #5: Is the appeal's purpose explained somewhere on the website, and/or is it reported on the financial statements? Question #6: Is the cathedraticum explained somewhere on the website, and/or is it reported on the financial statements? Question #7: Is contact info for the business office posted? Deduct 2 points if only one name is posted and contact info is shown.Question #8: Is the finance council identified? Deduct 3 points if less than 3 lay members and 1 point if no credentials are posted. Question #9: Are parish financial guidelines posted? Question #10: Are detailed collection & counting procedures posted? Deduct 4 points if procedures do not require numberedcontainers or 3 counters aren't required.Question #6: Is the cathedraticum explained somewhere on the website, and/or is it reported on the financial statements? Question #7: Is contact info for the business office posted? Deduct 2 points if only one name is posted and contact info is shown.Question #8: Is the finance council identified? Deduct 3 points if less than 3 lay members and 1 point if no credentials are posted. Question #9: Are parish financial guidelines posted? Question #10: Are detailed collection & counting procedures posted? Deduct 4 points if the procedures do not require numbered containers or 3 counters aren't required.

Total possible score is 60:Question 1 2 3 & 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Max. Score 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 10 60

© 2018 Voice of the Faithful, Inc. Appendix D Page D-15

Appendix E: Data Subsets

Selected snapshots of the findings from the 2018 review of diocesan financial transparency:

Top-scoring and lowest-scoring dioceses (E-1)

Comparisons of assets and demographics among top and bottom scoring dioceses

(E-2)

Dioceses with the greatest improvement in scores (E-3)

Dioceses where scores regressed in 2018 (E-4)

Table 1 – Highest and Lowest Financial Transparency Scores in 2018 (archdioceses in bold)

Top Scores (56 to 60 points) Bottom Scores (12 to 19 points)

Diocese Score Audited Report? Diocese Score Audited Report?

Orlando FL 60 Yes Harrisburg PA 19 No

Burlington VT 60 Yes*(Qualified) Orange CA 19 No

Atlanta GA 59 Yes Santa Fe NM 19 No

Baltimore MD 59 Yes Salina KS 18 No

Sacramento CA 59 Yes Brownsville TX 10 No

Bismarck ND 56 Yes Knoxville TN 15 No

Bridgeport CT 56 Yes Lubbock TX 15 No

Buffalo NY 56 Yes Portland OR 15 No

Des Moines IA 56 Yes Tulsa OK 15 No

Ft. Wayne-South Bend IN

56 Yes Grand Island NE 13 No

Milwaukee WI 56 Yes St. Thomas VI 12 No

Omaha NE 56 Yes

San Diego CA 56 Yes

Thirteen dioceses scored 56 or higher in 2018. Eleven dioceses scored 19 or lower. As in the 2017

review, there was no correlation of scores with diocesan assets, size or geographic region.


Voice of the Faithful® Page E-2

Table 2 – Physical Sizes and Assets of Top-Scoring Dioceses in 2018 (archdioceses in bold)

Diocese 2018 Score Net Assets ($) # Catholics # Parishes

Burlington VT 60 26,327,709 118,000 73 (+20 missions)

Orlando FL 60 65,803,869 418,834 79 (+12 missions)

Atlanta GA 59 219,257,011 1,200,000 103

Baltimore MD 59 73,778,120 500,393 144 (+8 missions)

Sacramento CA 59 104,487,093 1,000,000 102 (+42 missions)

Bismarck ND 56 24,353,553 61,862 97

Bridgeport CT 56 43,013,915 460,000 82

Buffalo NY 56 45,601,864 600,000 163

Des Moines IA 56 11,907,598 97,000 80

Ft. Wayne-S. Bend IN 56 23,961,453 159,825 82

Milwaukee WI 56 61,742,704 544,407 195

Omaha NE 56 72,314,639 230,000 140

San Diego CA 56 41,167,629 1,002,223 98 (+13 missions)

The degree of financial transparency in a diocese does not correlate with its net assets, how many

Catholics reside there, the number of parishes, or various other demographic characteristics reported

in the Voice of the Faithful diocesan finances database. Nor does its status as an archdiocese.

Table 2 – Physical Sizes and Assets of Lowest-Scoring Dioceses in 2018 (archdioceses in bold)

Diocese 2018 Score Net Assets ($) # Catholics # Parishes

Harrisburg PA 19 26,327,709 233,910 88 (+7 missions)

Orange CA 19 110,716,850 1,547,000 62

Santa Fe NM 19 ?? 314,100 93 (+226 missions)

Salina KS 18 ?? 46,671 84

Brownsville TX 10 ?? 1,147,634 71 (+44 missions)

Knoxville TN 15 [did report revenue] 66,000 50 (+2 missions)

Lubbock TX 15 [last report was 2013] 138,772 63

Portland OR 15 ?? 455,080 124 (+23 missions)

Tulsa OK 15 ?? 60,795 78

Grand Island NE 13 ?? 56,993 69

St. Thomas VI 12 ?? 30,000 7

As with highest-scoring dioceses, those with the lowest scores do not demonstrate a correlation on net

assets, number of Catholics, number of parishes, or other demographic characteristics.



Figure 1 – Most Improved from 2017 to 2018



Figure 2 – Regressing from 2017 to 2018

Appendix F: Raw Data VOTF 2018 FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY SCORES FOR ARCHDIOCESES - 2018 SCORING ORDER

ARCHDIOCESE YEAR Ques. 1 Ques. 2 Qs. 3&4* Ques. 5 Ques. 6 Ques. 7 Ques. 8 Ques. 9 Ques. 10 TOTAL PERCENT RANK Opinion

Atlanta 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 10 59 98% 1T U

Atlanta 2017 5 0 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 50 83% 8T

Baltimore 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 10 59 98% 1T U

Baltimore 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10 55 92% 2T

Milwaukee 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6 56 93% 3T U

Milwaukee 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6 56 93% 1

Omaha 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6 56 93% 3T U

Omaha 2017 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 6 26 43% 26

Chicago 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10 55 92% 5T U

Chicago 2017 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 5 10 50 83% 8T

Kansas City 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 5T U

Kansas City 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 2T

San Francisco 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 5T U

San Francisco 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6 51 85% 4T

St. Louis 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 5T U

St. Louis 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2 51 85% 4T

Boston 2018 5 2 15 5 5 5 5 5 6 53 88% 9 U

Boston 2017 5 0 15 5 5 5 5 0 6 46 77% 13

Detroit 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2 51 85% 10T U

Detroit 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2 51 85% 4T

Indianapolis 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2 51 85% 10T U

Indianapolis 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2 51 85% 4T

Louisville 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6 51 85% 10T U

Louisville 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2 47 78% 11T

Cincinnati 2018 5 5 15 5 5 3 0 5 6 49 82% 13 U

Cincinnati 2017 5 5 15 5 5 3 0 5 6 49 82% 10

Dubuque 2018 5 5 10 5 5 5 5 5 2 47 78% 14T U

Dubuque 2017 5 5 10 5 5 5 5 5 2 47 78% 11T

Los Angeles 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2 47 78% 14T U

Los Angeles 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 0 45 75% 14T

Page F-1

ARCHDIOCESE YEAR Ques. 1 Ques. 2 Qs. 3&4* Ques. 5 Ques. 6 Ques. 7 Ques. 8 Ques. 9 Ques. 10 TOTAL Pct. Total RANK Opinion

Denver 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 10 46 77% 16

Denver 2017 5 4 2 5 5 5 4 5 6 41 68% 18

Anchorage 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 0 45 75% 17 U

Anchorage 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 0 45 75% 14T

Washington, DC 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 18 U

Washington, DC 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 16

Newark 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 2 42 70% 19T U

Newark 2017 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 25 42% 27

Seattle 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 6 42 70% 19T

Seattle 2017 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 6 42 70% 17

Galveston-Houston 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 21T U

Galveston-Houston 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 19T

Philadelphia 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 21T U

Philadelphia 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 19T

San Antonio 2018 5 0 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 35 58% 23 U

San Antonio 2017 5 0 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 35 58% 23T

Oklahoma City 2018 5 4 10 5 5 5 0 0 0 34 57% 24 U

Oklahoma City 2017 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 39 65% 21

Miami 2018 5 5 2 5 0 5 4 0 6 32 53% 25

Miami 2017 5 5 2 5 0 5 4 5 6 37 62% 22

New York 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0 31 52% 26

New York 2017 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0 27 45% 25

St. Paul-Mpls. 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0 27 45% 27

St. Paul-Mpls. 2017 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 0 35 58% 23T

Hartford 2018 5 4 0 5 5 3 0 0 0 22 37% 28T

Hartford 2017 5 4 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 17 28% 30

Mobile 2018 5 0 2 5 5 5 0 0 0 22 37% 28T

Mobile 2017 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 10 17% 32

Page F-2

ARCHDIOCESE YEAR Ques. 1 Ques. 2 Qs. 3&4* Ques. 5 Ques. 6 Ques. 7 Ques. 8 Ques. 9 Ques. 10 TOTAL Pct. Total RANK Opinion

New Orleans 2018 0 5 0 0 5 3 0 5 2 20 33% 30

New Orleans 2017 0 5 0 0 5 3 0 5 2 20 33% 28

Santa Fe 2018 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0 19 32% 31

Santa Fe 2017 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0 19 32% 29

Portland, OR 2018 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 15 25% 32

Portland, OR 2017 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 15 25% 31

TOTAL POINTS 2018 145 145 332 155 145 154 72 95 112 1355 71%

TOTAL POINTS 2017 135 137 308 155 130 154 55 95 92 1261 66%

DIFFERENCE 10 8 24 0 15 0 17 0 20 94

PERCENT CHANGE 7% 6% 8% 0% 12% 0% 31% 0% 22% 7%

QUESTION VALUE 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 10 60

AVERAGE SCORE 2018 4.5 4.5 10.4 4.8 4.5 4.8 2.3 3.0 3.5 42.3

AVERAGE SCORE 2017 4.2 4.3 9.6 4.8 4.1 4.8 1.7 3.0 2.9 39.4

PERCENT SCORE 2018 91% 91% 69% 97% 91% 96% 45% 59% 35% 71%

PERCENT SCORE 2017 84% 86% 64% 97% 81% 96% 34% 59% 29% 66%

* Questions 3 and 4 are interrelated and must therefore be considered as one insofar as scoring is concerned.

LEGEND

Question #1: Can any financial data be found within a few to several minutes?

Question #2: Is there a workable internal “search” function? Deduct 3 points if not on homepage, and 1 point if not on the other pages.

Questions 3&4: Are audited financial statements posted? If the answer to #3 is “No,” is financial info reported in another format?

Question #5: Is the appeal's purpose explained somewhere on the website, and/or is it reported on the financial statements?

Question #6: Is the cathedraticum explained somewhere on the website, and/or is it reported on the financial statements?

Question #7: Is contact info for the business office posted? Deduct 2 points if only one name is posted and their contact info is shown.

Question #8: Is the finance council identified? Deduct 3 points if less than 3 lay members and 1 point if no credentials are posted.

Question #9: Are parish financial guidelines posted?

Question #10: Are detailed collection & counting procedures posted? Deduct 4 points ea. if numbered containers or 3 counters aren't required.

Page F-3

Appendix F: Raw Data VOTF 2018 FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY SCORES FOR DIOCESES - 2018 SCORING ORDER

DIOCESE YEAR Ques. 1 Ques. 2 Qs. 3&4* Ques. 5 Ques. 6 Ques. 7 Ques. 8 Ques. 9 Ques. 10 TOTAL PERCENT RANK Opinion

Burlington, VT 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 10 60 100% 1T Q-2

Burlington, VT 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 39T

Orlando, FL 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 10 60 100% 1T U

Orlando, FL 2017 5 5 2 5 0 5 4 0 0 26 43% 111T

Sacramento, CA 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 10 59 98% 3 U

Sacramento, CA 2017 5 4 15 5 5 5 5 5 10 59 98% 1

Bismarck, ND 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6 56 93% 4T U

Bismarck, ND 2017 5 5 10 5 5 5 5 5 2 47 78% 26T

Bridgeport, CT 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6 56 93% 4T U

Bridgeport, CT 2017 5 4 15 5 5 5 5 5 6 55 92% 4T

Buffalo, NY 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6 56 93% 4T U

Buffalo, NY 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 4T

Des Moines, IA 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6 56 93% 4T U

Des Moines, IA 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6 56 93% 2T

Ft. Wayne-So. Bend 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6 56 93% 4T U

Ft. Wayne-So. Bend 2017 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 4 34 57% 85T

San Diego, CA 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6 56 93% 4T U

San Diego, CA 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 6 31 52% 89T

Austin, TX 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10 55 92% 10T U

Austin, TX 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6 51 85% 16T

Belleville, IL 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 10T U

Belleville, IL 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 4T

Cleveland, OH 2018 5 4 15 5 5 5 5 5 6 55 92% 10T U

Cleveland, OH 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 6 56 93% 2T

Erie, PA 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 10T U

Erie, PA 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 4 49 82% 23T

Paterson-Clifton 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 10T U

Paterson-Clifton 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 4T

Page F-4


San Jose, CA 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 10T U

San Jose, CA 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 4T

Savannah, GA 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10 55 92% 10T U

Savannah, GA 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10 55 92% 4T

Stockton, CA 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 10 55 92% 10T U

Stockton, CA 2017 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 10 45 75% 37T

Syracuse, NY 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 10T U

Syracuse, NY 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 4T

Venice, FL 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 10T Q-?

Venice, FL 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 4T

Yakima, WA 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 10T U

Yakima, WA 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 55 92% 4T

Charleston, SC 2018 5 0 15 5 5 5 4 5 10 54 90% 21 U

Charleston, SC 2017 5 0 15 5 5 5 4 5 2 46 77% 35T

Corpus Christi, TX 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2 52 87% 22T U

Corpus Christi, TX 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 0 2 47 78% 26T

Davenport, IA 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2 52 87% 22T U

Davenport, IA 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2 47 78% 26T

Joliet, IL 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2 52 87% 22T U

Joliet, IL 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2 52 87% 13T

Charlotte, NC 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6 51 85% 25T U

Charlotte, NC 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6 51 85% 16T

Dallas, TX 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2 51 85% 25T U

Dallas, TX 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2 51 85% 16T

Gaylord, MI 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6 51 85% 25T U

Gaylord, MI 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6 51 85% 16T

La Crosse, WI 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6 51 85% 25T Q

La Crosse, WI 2017 0 5 10 5 5 3 0 0 0 28 47% 101

Lafayette, LA 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2 51 85% 25T U

Lafayette, LA 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2 31 52% 89T

Page F-5


Owensboro, KY 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2 51 85% 25T U

Owensboro, KY 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2 47 78% 26T

Reno, NV 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2 51 85% 25T U

Reno, NV 2017 5 5 0 5 0 5 4 5 2 31 52% 89T

Richmond, VA 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6 51 85% 25T U

Richmond, VA 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2 47 78% 26T

Worcester, MA 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2 51 85% 25T U

Worcester, MA 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 2 51 85% 16T

Youngstown, OH 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 6 51 85% 25T U

Youngstown, OH 2017 5 5 15 5 5 3 0 5 6 49 82% 23T

Santa Rosa, CA 2018 5 0 15 5 5 5 4 5 6 50 83% 35T U

Santa Rosa, CA 2017 5 0 10 5 5 5 4 0 2 36 60% 75

Amarillo 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 0 49 82% 35T Q-2

Amarillo 2017 5 5 15 5 5 3 4 5 0 47 78% 26T

Kalamazoo, MI 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 0 49 82% 35T U

Kalamazoo, MI 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 5 0 49 82% 23T

Palm Beach, FL 2018 5 0 15 5 5 5 4 0 10 49 82% 35T U

Palm Beach, FL 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 10 50 83% 21T

Great Falls-Billings 2018 5 4 15 5 5 5 4 5 0 48 80% 39 U

Great Falls-Billings 2017 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 5 0 44 73% 39T

Green Bay, WI 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2 47 78% 40T U

Green Bay, WI 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2 47 78% 26T

Las Cruces, NM 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2 47 78% 40T Q

Las Cruces, NM 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2 47 78% 26T

Lexington, KY 2018 5 0 15 5 5 5 5 5 2 47 78% 40T U

Lexington, KY 2017 0 0 0 5 5 5 4 0 0 19 32% 127T

Madison, WI 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2 47 78% 40T U

Madison, WI 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 2 27 45% 102T

Memphis, TN 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2 47 78% 40T Q

Memphis, TN 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2 47 78% 26T

Page F-6


Salt Lake City, UT 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2 47 78% 40T U

Salt Lake City, UT 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2 52 87% 13T

St. Petersburg, FL 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 5 2 47 78% 40T U

St. Petersburg, FL 2017 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 5 2 42 70% 56

Beaumont, TX 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 10 46 77% 47

Beaumont, TX 2017 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 10 46 77% 35T

San Bernardino, CA 2018 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 6 45 75% 48T U

San Bernardino, CA 2017 5 0 10 5 5 5 4 5 6 45 75% 37T

Tucson, AZ 2018 5 4 10 5 5 5 0 5 6 45 75% 48T U

Tucson, AZ 2017 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 5 6 50 83% 21T

Arlington, VA 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 50T U

Arlington, VA 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 39T

Columbus, OH 2018 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 10 44 73% 50T

Columbus, OH 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 10 39 65% 69T

Evansville, IN 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 50T Q

Evansville, IN 2017 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 0 35 58% 76T

Fort Worth, TX 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 50T U

Fort Worth, TX 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 39T

Grand Rapids, MI 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 50T U

Grand Rapids, MI 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 39T

Houma-Thibodaux 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 50T U

Houma-Thibodaux 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 39T

KS City-St. Jos., MO 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 50T U

KS City-St. Jos., MO 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 39T

Lafayette, IN 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 50T U

Lafayette, IN 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 39T

Lansing, MI 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 50T U

Lansing, MI 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 39T

Little Rock, AR 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 50T U

Little Rock, AR 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 39T

Page F-7


Manchester, NH 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 50T U

Manchester, NH 2017 5 5 15 0 5 5 5 0 0 40 67% 59T

Marquette, MI 2018 5 5 15 5 0 5 2 5 2 44 73% 50T U

Marquette, MI 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 2 52 87% 13T

Pensacola-Tal, FL 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 50T U

Pensacola-Tal, FL 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 39T

Providence, RI 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 50T U

Providence, RI 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 39T

San Angelo, TX 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 50T U

San Angelo, TX 2017 5 5 15 0 5 5 4 0 0 39 65% 69T

St. Augustine, FL 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 50T U

St. Augustine, FL 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 39T

Wheeling-C'ton, WV 2018 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 10 44 73% 50T

Wheeling-C'ton, WV 2017 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 10 44 73% 39T

Fall River, MA 2018 5 5 15 5 5 3 5 0 0 43 72% 67 U

Fall River, MA 2017 0 5 0 5 5 3 4 0 0 22 37% 119T

Pittsburgh, PA 2018 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 5 2 42 70% 68T U

Pittsburgh, PA 2017 5 5 10 5 0 5 4 5 2 41 68% 57T

Rochester, NY 2018 5 5 15 5 5 3 4 0 0 42 70% 68T U

Rochester, NY 2017 5 5 15 5 5 0 0 0 0 35 58% 76T

Albany, NY 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 70T U

Albany, NY 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 20 33% 122T

Boise ID 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 70T U

Boise ID 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 59T

Covington, KY 2018 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6 40 67% 70T

Covington, KY 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6 35 58% 76T

Fargo, ND 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 70T Q

Fargo, ND 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 59T

Jefferson City, MO 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 70T U

Jefferson City, MO 2017 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 0 35 58% 76T

Page F-8


Laredo, TX 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 70T U

Laredo, TX 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 59T

Nashville, TN 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 70T U

Nashville, TN 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 59T

Ogdensburg, NY 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 70T U

Ogdensburg, NY 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 59T

Raleigh, NC 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 70T U

Raleigh, NC 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 59T

Saginaw, MI 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 70T Q-5

Saginaw, MI 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 59T

Toledo, OH 2018 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 70T U

Toledo, OH 2017 5 5 15 5 5 3 0 0 0 38 63% 72

Trenton, NJ 2018 5 5 10 5 5 5 5 0 0 40 67% 70T U

Trenton, NJ 2017 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 15 25% 135T

Oakland, CA 2018 5 5 10 5 5 5 4 0 0 39 65% 82T U

Oakland, CA 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 44 73% 39T

Spokane, WA 2018 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 10 39 65% 82T

Spokane, WA 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 2 27 45% 102T

Springfield-C.G., MO 2018 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 39 65% 82T U

Springfield-C.G., MO 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 59T

Tyler, TX 2018 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 39 65% 82T U

Tyler, TX 2017 5 4 15 5 5 5 4 0 0 43 72% 54T

Wilmington, DE 2018 5 4 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 39 65% 82T U

Wilmington, DE 2017 5 5 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 40 67% 59T

Juneau, AK 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 2 38 63% 87T

Juneau, AK 2017 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 6 41 68% 57T

Wichita, KS 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 2 38 63% 87T

Wichita, KS 2017 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0 19 32% 127T

Dodge City, KS 2018 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 2 37 62% 89T U

Dodge City, KS 2017 5 5 15 5 0 5 0 0 2 37 62% 73T

Page F-9


Honolulu, HI 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 6 37 62% 89T

Honolulu, HI 2017 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 6 37 62% 73T

Monterey, CA 2018 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 6 36 60% 91

Monterey, CA 2017 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 2 32 53% 87T

Brooklyn, NY 2018 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 0 35 58% 92T U

Brooklyn, NY 2017 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 0 35 58% 76T

Las Vegas, NV 2018 5 0 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 35 58% 92T U

Las Vegas, NV 2017 5 0 15 5 5 5 0 0 0 35 58% 76T

Rockford, IL 2018 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6 35 58% 92T

Rockford, IL 2017 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 5 6 30 50% 96T

Sioux City, IA 2018 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6 35 58% 92T

Sioux City, IA 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6 35 58% 76T

Springfield, IL 2018 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 6 35 58% 92T

Springfield, IL 2017 0 4 0 5 5 5 4 5 2 30 50% 96T

Peoria, IL 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 5 2 34 57% 97

Peoria, IL 2017 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 5 2 34 57% 85T

Metuchen, NJ 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 6 33 55% 98

Metuchen, NJ 2017 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0 27 45% 102T

El Paso, TX 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 5 0 32 53% 99

El Paso, TX 2017 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 5 0 32 53% 87T

Altoona-Johnstown 2018 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2 31 52% 100T

Altoona-Johnstown 2017 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 2 22 37% 119T

Duluth, MN 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0 31 52% 100T

Duluth, MN 2017 5 5 10 5 5 5 4 0 0 39 65% 69T

Greensburg, PA 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0 31 52% 100T

Greensburg, PA 2017 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0 31 52% 89T

Lincoln, NE 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0 31 52% 100T

Lincoln, NE 2017 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0 27 45% 102T

Superior, WI 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0 31 52% 100T

Superior, WI 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2 31 52% 89T

Page F-10


Winona-Roch., MN 2018 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2 31 52% 100T

Winona-Roch., MN 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2 31 52% 89T

Cheyenne, WY 2018 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 30 50% 106 U

Cheyenne, WY 2017 5 5 10 5 5 5 0 0 0 35 58% 76T

Alexandria, LA 2018 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 0 29 48% 107T

Alexandria, LA 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 0 29 48% 99T

Helena, MT 2018 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0 29 48% 107T

Helena, MT 2017 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0 29 48% 99T

Rapid City, SD 2018 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0 29 48% 107T

Rapid City, SD 2017 0 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 0 26 43% 111T

Victoria, TX 2018 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0 29 48% 107T

Victoria, TX 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0 24 40% 115T

Pueblo, CO 2018 0 5 0 5 5 5 1 5 2 28 47% 111

Pueblo, CO 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 5 2 31 52% 89T

Allentown, PA 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0 27 45% 112T

Allentown, PA 2017 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 15 25% 135T

Baker, OR 2018 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 2 27 45% 112T

Baker, OR 2017 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 2 27 45% 102T

Colorado Springs 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0 27 45% 112T

Colorado Springs 2017 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0 27 45% 102T

Fairbanks, AK 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0 27 45% 112T no Notes

Fairbanks, AK 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 20 33% 122T

Gary, IN 2018 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 2 27 45% 112T

Gary, IN 2017 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 2 27 45% 102T

Lake Charles, LA 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0 27 45% 112T

Lake Charles, LA 2017 0 5 0 5 5 3 0 0 0 18 30% 133T

Portland, ME 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0 27 45% 112T

Portland, ME 2017 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0 27 45% 102T

St. Cloud, MN 2018 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0 27 45% 112T

St. Cloud, MN 2017 5 5 2 5 5 5 0 0 0 27 45% 102T

Page F-11


Baton Rouge, LA 2018 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 6 25 42% 120T

Baton Rouge, LA 2017 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 4 23 38% 118

Camden, NJ 2018 5 5 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 25 42% 120T

Camden, NJ 2017 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 10 17% 143T

Gallup, NM 2018 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 25 42% 120T

Gallup, NM 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 25 42% 113T

Phoenix, AZ 2018 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 25 42% 120T

Phoenix, AZ 2017 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 25 42% 113T

Rockville Ctr, NY 2018 5 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 25 42% 120T U

Rockville Ctr, NY 2017 5 0 10 5 5 5 5 0 0 35 58% 76T

Birmingham, AL 2018 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0 24 40% 125T

Birmingham, AL 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0 24 40% 115T

Fresno, CA 2018 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0 24 40% 125T

Fresno, CA 2017 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 15 25% 135T

Norwich, CT 2018 5 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0 24 40% 125T

Norwich, CT 2017 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0 19 32% 127T

Steubenville, OH 2018 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0 24 40% 125T

Steubenville, OH 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 4 0 0 24 40% 115T

Scranton, PA 2018 0 5 0 5 5 3 5 0 0 23 38% 129

Scranton, PA 2017 5 5 15 5 5 3 5 0 0 43 72% 54T

New Ulm, MN 2018 5 5 2 5 0 5 0 0 0 22 37% 130T

New Ulm, MN 2017 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 15 25% 135T

Shreveport, LA 2018 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 2 22 37% 130T

Shreveport, LA 2017 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 2 22 37% 119T

Biloxi, MS 2018 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 20 33% 132T

Biloxi, MS 2017 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 10 17% 143T

Crookston, MN 2018 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 20 33% 132T

Crookston, MN 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 20 33% 122T

Jackson, MS 2018 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 20 33% 132T

Jackson, MS 2017 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 15 25% 135T

Page F-12


Sioux Falls, SD 2018 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 20 33% 132T

Sioux Falls, SD 2017 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 20 33% 122T

Springfield, MA 2018 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 20 33% 132T

Springfield, MA 2017 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 30 50% 96T

Harrisburg, PA 2018 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0 19 32% 137T

Harrisburg, PA 2017 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0 19 32% 127T

Orange, CA 2018 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0 19 32% 137T

Orange, CA 2017 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0 19 32% 127T

Salina, KS 2018 0 4 0 5 0 5 4 0 0 18 30% 139

Salina, KS 2017 0 4 0 5 0 5 4 0 0 18 30% 133T

Brownsville, TX 2018 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 15 25% 140T

Brownsville, TX 2017 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 10 17% 143T

Knoxville, TN 2018 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 15 25% 140T

Knoxville, TN 2017 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 15 25% 135T

Lubbock, TX 2018 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 15 25% 140T

Lubbock, TX 2017 5 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 20 33% 122T

Tulsa, OK 2018 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 25% 140T

Tulsa, OK 2017 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 25% 135T

Grand Island, NE 2018 0 5 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 13 22% 144

Grand Island, NE 2017 0 5 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 13 22% 142

St. Thomas, VI 2018 0 0 0 5 0 3 4 0 0 12 20% 145

St. Thomas, VI 2017 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 0 0 19 32% 127T

TOTAL POINTS 2018 610 658 1266 725 645 710 352 345 354 5665

TOTAL POINTS 2017 505 673 1134 705 600 694 309 310 278 5208

DIFFERENCE 105 -15 132 20 45 16 43 35 76 457

PERCENT CHANGE 21% -2% 12% 3% 8% 2% 14% 11% 27% 9%

QUESTION VALUE 5 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 10 60

AVERAGE SCORE 2018 4.2 4.5 8.7 5.0 4.4 4.9 2.4 2.4 2.4 39.1

AVERAGE SCORE 2017 3.5 4.6 7.8 4.9 4.1 4.8 2.1 2.1 1.9 35.9

PERCENT SCORE 2018 84% 91% 58% 100% 89% 98% 49% 48% 24% 65%

PERCENT SCORE 2017 70% 93% 52% 97% 83% 96% 43% 43% 19% 60%

Page F-13

* Questions 3 and 4 are interrelated and must therefore be considered as one insofar as scoring is concerned.

LEGEND

Question #1: Can any financial data be found within a few to several minutes?

Question #2: Is there a workable internal “search” function? Deduct 3 points if not on homepage, and 1 point if not on the other pages.

Questions 3&4: Are audited financial statements posted? If the answer to #3 is “No,” is financial info reported in another format?

Question #5: Is the appeal's purpose explained somewhere on the website, and/or is it reported on the financial statements?

Question #6: Is the cathedraticum explained somewhere on the website, and/or is it reported on the financial statements?

Question #7: Is contact info for the business office posted? Deduct 2 points if only one name is posted and their contact info is shown.

Question #8: Is the finance council identified? Deduct 3 points if less than 3 lay members and 1 point if no credentials are posted.

Question #9: Are parish financial guidelines posted?

Question #10: Are detailed collection & counting procedures posted? Deduct 4 points if numbered containers or 3 counters aren't required.

Page F-14

measuring and ranking diocesan online financial ... · measuring and ranking diocesan online...

Documents