share consultation presentation, autumn 2015

WelcomeShare Consultation

2015

Membership of the Review Group

Consists of representatives from throughout the DioceseSimon Baldwin - former chair of Ripon & Leeds DBF and Board member of the Diocese of West Yorkshire & the DalesRobert Cave - former chair of Wakefield DBF Ashley Ellis - Joint Diocesan Secretary of the Diocese of West Yorkshire & the Dales Venerable Anne Dawtry - Archdeacon of Halifax Revd Ian Robinson - Rector of Bedale Paul Winstanley - Stewardship Adviser based in Leeds

Aim of the group

To formulate a new share system that will: Be fair and equitableBe clear and transparent Engage all the parishes to contribute fully to the life and work of the Diocese.To achieve this through extensive consultation and discussion with churches. Then, taking into account the various views and opinions expressed, to devise a workable new system.

Consultation process

Outline of the programme of work for the new share system

Timings 2015/16

Questionnaire to all parishes Jan 2015Meetings with parishes Jan/FebMethodology formulated after review of consultations with parishes

May/Sept

Consultations across the whole diocese Oct/ NovFormulation of draft methodology DecBishop’s Council / DBF approval Jan 2016Diocesan Synod approval

Mar

Summary of the various systems

There is a wide variety of approaches to parish share allocation – they fall into four common groupings:

Allocation of costs in proportion to clergy allocationPotential ability to give, combining membership and some form of wealth/income factorFormulas using different elements i.e. PCC income, church membership, ministry resourceOffer system to inform benefices/parishes of the ministry costs and invite offers towards them

Summary of the various systems

Of the 42 dioceses in the Church of England, 16 have changed their method of share allocation in the last three years

12 have adopted cost-based systems 3 have adopted potential type systems1 revision of formula system

Question 1 - There was significant agreement with the idea of the stronger financial parishes supporting those less well off

Questionnaire feedback

Strongly agree

Agree Not sure

Disagree Strongly disagree

145 170 36 7 4

Question 2 - Understanding what parish share is for; there was more understanding within the PCCs than congregation members


Yes No Total

196 171 367

Question 2 (cont.) - Better understanding of the share. Most common comments were: Easy to understand leaflets Details on the website Deanery roadshows to explain the methodology DVD


Question 3 - Summary of the merits which showed a distinctive percentage in favour


Question Percentage in favour

Affirm mutual support within the diocese

73%

Recognise issues of deprivation in the diocese

64%

Encourage growth 78%Be transparent and easily understood

96%

Question 4 - Summary of the criteria which showed a distinctive percentage in favour


Question Percentage in favour

The cost of clergy 72%

Attendance data to use weekly ASA

65%

Social factor on IMD on parish

54%

Unrestricted income 61%

Question 5 - Deanery allocation 79% of the responses left this blank.Of those who did respond, many saw the advantages of local knowledge and mutual support.Conversely, this system is too dependent on the Area Deans and Lay Chairs to make it work.


Question 6 - Discounts

Of those who responded, the majority did not think discounts are appropriate as this favours the wealthier parishes with reserves

Yes – 39%No – 61%


Question 7 - Other comments

A vast array of different comments which in general related to the parishes’ specific circumstances and location. The more allowance given for particular circumstances, the greater complexity in the methodology to cater for them.


Principles of the system to be related to actual costs of provision of clergy then adjusted to take into account relative deprivation and other possible factors.

Suggested cost-based system

The initial allocation of costs is calculated by taking actual costs of providing stipendiary clergy, house for duty priests and stipendiary curates not in training. An element for indirect costs is then added.


All other sources of diocesan income (investment, church commissioners, fees etc.)

are used to offset the indirect costs (being the costs of curates in training, clergy and lay training, sector-based posts, archdeaconry posts and central administrative costs)

which reduces this element to £3k per parochial stipendiary clergy post.


Breakdown of the cost of a stipendiary priest (approximate)

st of clergyAmount


Costs Approx. amount £ Stipend 25,600ER NI 2,100Pension 9,100Housing 8,200Indirect costs 3,000Total 48,000

The raw IMD produces values from 2 (least deprived) to 56 (most deprived) in our diocese.

By taking the average IMD value and relating all parishes to this average, the IMD range of the whole diocese goes from -2.5 (most deprived) to +1 (least deprived), with zero indicating the average level of deprivation of the diocese.

Adjustment based on Index of Multiple Deprivation

A parish with a negative relative IMD will then receive a discount on their clergy costs.A parish with a relative IMD of zero receives no discount or additional cost.A parish with a positive relative IMD will receive an upward adjustment to their costs.

Adjustment based on Index of Multiple Deprivation

Clergy numbers

Clergy cost£

RelativeIMD

IMD adjustment Total £

1 48,000 1 +96,000 (+2) 144,0002 96,000 1 +96,000 (+2) 192,000

0.5 24,000 1 +48,000 (+2 pro rata) 72,000

HfD 11,000 1 +22,000 (+2 pro rata) 33,000

Example for illustration only Least deprived parish

Example for illustration only Average parish

Clergy numbers

Clergy cost£

Relative IMD

IMD adjustment

Total £

1 48,000 0 0 48,0002 96,000 0 0 96,0000.5 24,000 0 0 24,000HfD 11,000 0 0 11,000

Example for illustration only Most deprived parish

Clergy numbers

Clergy cost£

Relative IMD

IMD adjustment

Total £

1 48,000 -2.5 -33,000 (-69%) 15,0002 96,000 -2.5 -66,000 30,000

0.5 24,000 -2.5 -16,560 7,440

HfD 11,000 -2.5 -7,590 3,410

For instance: How should size of church (numbers) be reflected but not become a disincentive or be perceived as a tax on growth?

NB: There may already be some measure of size in relation to the number of clergy allocated

Other adjustment factors?

The principles: Cost Deprivation

What other factors need to be considered?

Discussion time

Comments and feedback on principles and adjustment factors to:

[email protected]

After this meeting

share consultation presentation, autumn 2015

Government & Nonprofit