11

ReMAP IIReMAP II – –

ReRetaining taining MMissionaries – issionaries – AAgency gency PPracticesractices

Newer sending countries from Africa, Newer sending countries from Africa, Asia and Latin AmericaAsia and Latin America

22

ReMAP II was a follow-up study on:

ReMAP – Reducing Missionary Attrition Project World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) Mission Commission 1994-96

Why do missionaries quit service? Why do they come home prematurely? In particular, what are personal factors for attrition?

33

ReMAP II

• What makes missionaries prosper?

• What helps them grow into a fruitful ministry?

• What makes them effective?

• How do they become resilient

• Which organisational factors make them thrive?

44

ReMAP IIReMAP II

Global StudyGlobal Study

601 Sending structures with 40,000 long-term 601 Sending structures with 40,000 long-term cross-cultural missionaries cross-cultural missionaries

These were denominational and interdenominational These were denominational and interdenominational mission agencies as well as local churches or mission agencies as well as local churches or networks sending their own teams independentlynetworks sending their own teams independently

from Older Sending Countries (from Older Sending Countries (OSCOSC) ) CA, US, DE, GB, NL, SE, ZA, AU, NZ CA, US, DE, GB, NL, SE, ZA, AU, NZ

Newer Sending Countries of the Global South (Newer Sending Countries of the Global South (NSCNSC)) Latin America (AR, BR, CR, ES, GU), Latin America (AR, BR, CR, ES, GU), Africa (GH, NG), Asia (IN, HK, KR, MY, PH, SG) Africa (GH, NG), Asia (IN, HK, KR, MY, PH, SG)

ReMAP II:

55

ReMAP IIReMAP II

Responses of Mission executivesResponses of Mission executives

Self Assessment of practices, ethos, performanceSelf Assessment of practices, ethos, performance

Scale 6 (excellent) – 1 (very poorly done) Scale 6 (excellent) – 1 (very poorly done)

Retention of MissionariesRetention of Missionaries

Retention Rates Total (RRT)Retention Rates Total (RRT) Retention Rate Preventable Reasons (RRP) Retention Rate Preventable Reasons (RRP) Retention Rate Unpreventable Reasons (RRU) Retention Rate Unpreventable Reasons (RRU)

Correlations Retention ~ Agency PracticesCorrelations Retention ~ Agency Practices

Methodology:

66

ReMAP IIReMAP II

275 agencies from the Global South 275 agencies from the Global South

With more than 13,000 long-term cross-cultural With more than 13,000 long-term cross-cultural missionariesmissionaries

Newer Sending Countries:

77

Agency Size ReMAP ReMAP IIII

Annual Attrition Rate 2001/02

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1-2 3-5 6-10 11-16 17-25 26-50 51-100 101-250 250+Missionaries / Agency

NSC

OSC

Small agencies lose many more missionaries than larger agencies in OSC and NSC. Effective agency size is at 50+ field missionaries.

88

Agency Size ReMAP ReMAP IIII

Annual Attrition Rate 2001/02

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1-2 3-5 6-10 11-16 17-25 26-50 51-100 101-250 250+Missionaries / Agency

NSC

OSC

retirement

The huge difference in attrition rates between OSC and NSC is mainly retirement.

99

Agency Size ReMAP ReMAP IIII

Home Office Staff per active Missionary

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

1-2 3-5 6-10 11-16 17-25 26-50 51-100 101-250 250+Missionaries / Agency

NSC

OSC

2.8

Small agencies in OSC and NSC have a much higher percentage of staff in their home office (per active missionaries). They are neither effective nor efficient.

1010

ReMAP IIReMAP II

High retaining agencies from the Global South have a slightly longer history (experience) in sending out and caring for their missionaries.

Yet they set aside a three times higher percentage of their personal allowance for their retirement than low retaining agencies.

Agency

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Y.send %Retire/Allow

NSC H

NSC L

RRT

1111

ReMAP IIReMAP II

High retaining agencies have marginally more missionary families with children (and thus educational needs), yet they have fewer staff in the home office. Apparently they operate with an effective and lean team to provide all the services that are confirmed in this survey.

Staff

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Miss.w.Child HO.Staff/Miss

NSC H

NSC L

RRT

1212

ReMAP IIReMAP II

High retaining agencies have somewhat different ministry priorities than low retaining. In general they are more engaged in Evangelism among Reached peoples less Evangelism among the Unreached and Social & Development work.

These differences may have some bearing on their structures, leadership systems and training needs.

Ministry Priorities

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Ev.Unreached

Evang. Reached

Support churches

Social & DevelopServices

NSC H

NSC L

%RRT

1313

Candidate Selection ReMAP II ReMAP II

High retaining agencies put much more emphasis on their candidate selection, especially on calling to ministry, character, health exam, psychological testing, spiritual disciplines and family blessing and contentment with present social status.

Candidate Selection

2,02,22,42,62,83,03,23,43,63,84,04,24,44,64,85,05,25,45,65,86,0

Calling

Doctrin. S

tatem.

Agency Principles

Mature Character

Character R

eferences

Pastor's

Endorsement

Blessing of Family

Church Exp

erience

Crosscult.

Experience

Cope Stress

Health examinatio

n

Psych. Assessment

Content Marit.

Status

Pot. Financ. S

upport

Prayer Support

Rat

ing

NSC H

NSC L

RRT

1414

ReMAP IIReMAP II

In NSC we find two groups of high retaining agencies: agencies from East Asia with highly trained missionaries and agencies from India and Nigeria with effective, barefoot missionaries“

Education

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

6-10 y School

High School

Trade School BA

Master degree

Doctorate

NSC H

NSC L

% RRT

1515

ReMAP IIReMAP II

High retaining agencies have much higher minimal training requirements in Bible and particularly in Missiology.

Modern informal training methods (e.g. Practical missionary training and Crosscultural internships) are too little in use as compulsory pre-field requirement, to validate or invalidate their effectiveness.

Minimal Pre-field Training Requirements

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2,0

2,2

2,4

Bible School

Form. Missiol

Prac.Miss.Tr

Crosscult.Intern

Agenc.Orient

Yea

rs

NSC H

NSC L

RRT

1616

ReMAP IIReMAP II

Prayer throughout the agency finds high rating in all agencies.

High retaining agencies put much more emphasis on their vision state-ment, specific plans & job descriptions, communication between field and home and have well documented policies. Yet they do not include their missionaries as much in the decision making on the field.

Vision and Communication

3,6

3,8

4,0

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5,0

5,2

5,4

5,6

Vision

Plans & Job Descript.

Communic. Leaders

Comm. Field - Home

Includ. field decisions

Policies document

Culture of Prayer

Rat

ing

NSC H

NSC L

RRT

1717

ReMAP IIReMAP II

Leadership finds high rating in all agencies and leaders usually lead by example.

High retaining agencies put a strong emphasis on field supervision. They solve problems in a timely and effective manner and have an effective system of handling complaints.

Leadership

3,4

3,6

3,8

4,0

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5,0

5,2

5,4

Leaders example

Problems solved

Field Supervision

Annual Review

Handling Complaints

Rat

ing

NSC H

NSC L

RRT

1818

ReMAP IIReMAP II

High retaining agencies put more emphasis on field orientation.

Language learning and ongoing cultural studies find less emphasis, possibly because more missionaries work in near cultures where language and cultural learning is not (considered) as important. Life-long learning and development of new gifts find high rating.

Orientation & Continuous Training

3,0

3,2

3,4

3,6

3,8

4,0

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5,0

Field Orientation

Language Learning

Ongo. Language Learn

New Gift Develop

Rat

ing

NSC H

NSC L

RRT

1919

ReMAP IIReMAP II

Commitment to ministry and commitment to the agency find very high rating, especially in high retaining agencies.

High retaining agencies give their workers more room to shape their ministry, provide more administrative support, care for their work-rest balance and consider spiritual warfare. However, spouses aren’t assigned their own ministry.

Ministry

3,4

3,6

3,8

4,0

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5,0

5,2

5,4

Assign to gifting

Shape own Ministry

Spiritual Warfare

Commited to ministry

Commited to agency

Not work overloaded

Spouse ministry

Admin support field

Improve ministry

Rat

ing

NSC H

NSC L

RRT

2020

ReMAP IIReMAP II

All ministry outcomes are correlated with high retention.

People becoming followers of Christ is the prime goal and good relationships with the national church in the host country comes second. Personal fulfilment of the missionary also finds increased rating in high retaining agencies.

Ministry Outcome

3,6

3,8

4,0

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5,0

5,2

5,4

5,6

Achieving goals

Good Relation People

Becoming Followers

Ntl. Church values

Develop local leaders

Personal Fulfilment

Rat

ing

NSC H

NSC L

RRT

2121

ReMAP IIReMAP II

interpersonal conflicts and risk assessment. The home church involvement may have found lower rating due to limited resources in some Southern sending countries.

Most factors of personal care find high rating with personal spiritual life of the missionary and annual vacation being on the top.

Most factors are clearly correlated with high retention, especially personal care, supportive team, timely resolution of

Personal Care

3,4

3,6

3,8

4,0

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5,0

5,2

5,4

5,6

Supportive Team

Pastoral Care

Interpers.Conflicts

Personal Spirit.Life

MK-Schooling

Health Care

Annual Vacation

Risk Assessment

Home Church Involv.

Rat

ing

NSC H

NSC L

RRT

2222

ReMAP IIReMAP II

Agencies with little member care suffer a high attrition rate. Attrition comes down with increasing of MC. 10-20% of total staff time (in home office and on the field) appear to be optimal. At even higher MC investment the attrition rate is again elevated. Yet it is probably not MC in itself that is detrimental but these agencies often compromise their selection, pre-field training and orientation.

2323

ReMAP IIReMAP IIFig. 7: Retention Rate Preventable and Prevent. MC

91%

92%

93%

94%

95%

96%

97%

98%

99%

100%

0 - 5%

5 -10%10-30%

30-50%50-70%

70-100%

Fraction of Preventative Member Care

Re

ten

tion

Ra

te fo

r P

reve

nt.

Attr

itio

n

RR

P NSCMCTime 10-20%Missionaries need preventative member care, i.e. maintaining personal spiritual walk with the Lord, development of character, growth in resilience, as well as crisis intervention and restoration.

The optimum is found at 30-50% preventative MC.

2424

ReMAP IIReMAP II

Project finances are used effectively and the agency’s finances are transparent to donors and missionaries found very high rating in all agencies.

High retaining agencies give much higher attention to a financial back-up system for irregular personal support. regular financial support to missionaries found only mediocre rating. Apparently this is not in prime focus as they live by faith.

Finances

2,4

2,6

2,8

3,0

3,2

3,4

3,6

3,8

4,0

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5,0

5,2

5,4

Reg.Finan.Support

Finan. Back-up

Project finances

Agency Finances

Rat

ing

NSC H

NSC L

RRT

2525

ReMAP IIReMAP II

Prayer of the agency home office for their missionaries found very high rating in all agencies.

High retaining agencies give much more attention to pre-field screening of candidates.

Debriefing of missionaries coming on home assignment and re-entry program found very low rating (and even a negative correlation), probably because of the young age of the mission movement. This is probably one of the neglected areas that need further improvement.

Home Office

2,4

2,6

2,8

3,0

3,2

3,4

3,6

3,8

4,0

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5,0

5,2

5,4

5,6

Prefield Screening

Prefield.orientation

Home office prays

Re-entry Program

Debriefing Home

Rat

ing

NSC H

NSC L

RRT

2626

ReMAP IIReMAP II

High retaining agencies gave higher rating in most of the areas (groups of questions), especially in pre-field training and member care, yet also leadership, selection and ministry outcomes.

Averages

2,2

2,4

2,6

2,8

3,0

3,2

3,4

3,6

3,8

4,0

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5,0

5,2

5,4

5,6

Average

Education

Selection

Prep.Time / y

Orientation

Spiritual.Life

Person.Care

MemCare/2

Organisation

Leadership

Staff.Develop

Ministry

Min.Outcome

Finances

Home.Office

Ra

tin

g

NSC H

NSC L

RRT

2727

ReMAP IIReMAP II

Low retaining agencies (1/3 of total group of agencies) lose 7.0 % of their work force per year, 2.9 %/y for potentially preventable reasons and 4.1 %/y for unpreventable reasons (such as end of project, regular retirement, loss of visa, sickness, death in service, appointment into leadership position in the home office).

The group of high retaining agencies (1/3 of all agencies) lose only 0,9 % per year which is 8 times less! 0.44 % for potentially preventable reasons and 0.44 % for unpreventable reasons.

Annual Retention Rates

91%

92%

93%

94%

95%

96%

97%

98%

99%

100%

RRT RRU RRP

NSC H

NSC L

RRT

2828

ReMAP IIReMAP II

Within 10 year these differences in retention rates accumulate to a vast gulf of: 52% staff turnover vs. 8.5 %.

Retention after 10 years

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

RetTot 10y

RetUnprev 10y

RetPrev 10y

NSC H

NSC L

RRT

2929

ReMAP IIReMAP II

The diagram depicts the retention rates (for potentially preventable causes of attrition only) of missionaries that first left for the field in the stated 5 year period.

It shows the general trend towards earlier return, shorter assignments, higher staff turnover has also affected NSC missions, and low retaining agencies in particular.

However, high retaining agencies have maintained very high retention rates. They were able to mostly offset the global trend by improved leadership systems, communication, member care, candidate selection and pre-field training.

Retention Rate for Pot. Prevent. Attrition

93%

94%

95%

96%

97%

98%

99%

100%

1981-85 1986-90 1991-95 1996-00

NSC H

NSC L

RRT

3030

ReMAP IIReMAP II

In the years 2001-02 the large group of high retaining agencies showed only ¼ of the number of total returnees as the group of low retaining agencies.

The returnees had an average length of service of 10 years vs. 6.3 years (low retaining). Considering the fact that it takes a person 2 years to learn the language and culture and become effective in ministry, this amounts to a factor of 2.

Ann. Attrition Rate

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%RRT

Length of Service of Attriting Missionaries

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Yea

rs

NSC H

NSC L

RRT

3131

Major Findings showed the significance of:

Clear purpose and vision of agency Specific plans Flexible, dynamic structures Lean administration Personal trust throughout the agency Empowerment of staff Effective communication Prayer throughout agency Careful candidate selection Quality pre-field training Missiological training Effective on-field orientation Intensive language training & cultural studies Supportive team

3232

Major Findings 2 ReMAP IIReMAP II

Maintenance of personal spiritual life Effective personal care Preventative member care & crisis intervention Assignment to gifting Work-rest balance Continuous training and development of new gifts Ongoing improvement of projects Regular performance reviews Flexibility & acceptance of new challenges Stable financial support Good relationship with home church Good relationship with National church in country Debriefing during home assignment