ReMAP II Retaining Missionaries Agency Practices

1
ReMAP II Retaining Missionaries
Agency Practices

• Newer sending countries from Africa, Asia and
  Latin America

2
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?
3
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?
  

4


ReMAP II
ReMAP II

• Global Study
• 601 Sending structures with 40,000 long-term
  cross-cultural
  missionaries
• These were denominational and interdenominational
  mission agencies as well as local churches or
  networks sending their own teams independently
• from Older Sending Countries (OSC) CA,
  US, DE, GB, NL, SE, ZA, AU, NZ
• Newer Sending Countries of the Global South
  (NSC) Latin America (AR, BR, CR, ES, GU),
  Africa (GH, NG), Asia (IN, HK, KR, MY,
  PH, SG)

5


ReMAP II
Methodology

• Responses of Mission executives
• Self Assessment of practices, ethos, performance
• Scale 6 (excellent) 1 (very poorly done)
• Retention of Missionaries
• Retention Rates Total (RRT) Retention Rate
  Preventable Reasons (RRP) Retention Rate
  Unpreventable Reasons (RRU)
• Correlations Retention Agency Practices

6


ReMAP II
Newer Sending Countries

• 275 agencies from the Global South
• With more than 13,000 long-term cross-cultural
  missionaries

7
Agency Size
ReMAP II

Small agencies lose many more missionaries than
larger agencies in OSC and NSC. Effective agency
size is at 50 field missionaries.
8
Agency Size
ReMAP II

retirement
The huge difference in attrition rates between
OSC and NSC is mainly retirement.
9
Agency Size
ReMAP II

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.
10
ReMAP 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.
11
ReMAP 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.
12
ReMAP 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.
13
Candidate Selection
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.
14
ReMAP 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
15
ReMAP 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.
16
ReMAP 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.

17
ReMAP 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.
18
ReMAP 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.
19
ReMAP 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 arent
assigned their own ministry.
20
ReMAP 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.
21
ReMAP II
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
interpersonal conflicts and risk assessment. The
home church involvement may have found lower
rating due to limited resources in some Southern
sending countries.
22
ReMAP 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.
23
ReMAP II
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.
24
ReMAP II
Project finances are used effectively and the
agencys 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.
25
ReMAP 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.
26
ReMAP 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.
27
ReMAP 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.
28
ReMAP II
Within 10 year these differences in retention
rates accumulate to a vast gulf of 52 staff
turnover vs. 8.5 .
29
ReMAP 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.
30
ReMAP 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.
31
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

32
Major Findings 2 ReMAP 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