Final Report on Recommended Strategic Plan for Campus Ministry

Diocese of Rochester Final Report on Recommended Strategic Plan for Campus Ministry Presented To Bishop Matthew Clark January 9, 2002 Campus Minis...
16 downloads 2 Views 632KB Size
Diocese of Rochester

Final Report on Recommended Strategic Plan for Campus Ministry

Presented

To Bishop Matthew Clark January 9, 2002

Campus Ministry Strategic Planning Committee Mary-Beth Cooper, Ph.D. Chair

Table of Contents Mission for Campus Ministry in the Diocese of Rochester........................................................3 1. Worship.......................................................................................................................... 3 2. Faith formation............................................................................................................... 3 3. Social justice teaching and ministry .............................................................................. 3 4. Conscience Formation................................................................................................... 4 5. Personal Development .................................................................................................. 4 6. Leadership Development............................................................................................... 4 Current Situation ............................................................................................................................4 General description...................................................................................................................... 4 1. Diverse campuses and programs.................................................................................. 4 2. Diverse campus ministry programs ............................................................................... 4 • Needs ..................................................................................................................... 4 • Funding................................................................................................................... 5 • Staffing ................................................................................................................... 5 • Size......................................................................................................................... 5 • Relationship with the institution.............................................................................. 5 • Different academic schedules ................................................................................ 5 • Permanent community ........................................................................................... 5 3. Annually renewing community....................................................................................... 6 4. Student Development Issues ........................................................................................ 6 5. Changing nature of the campus .................................................................................... 6 6. Development of future leaders of the Church, lay professional ministers, and ordained ministers ................................................................................................................. 6 7. Campuses and religious competition ............................................................................ 6 8. Lack of current national and local data on campus ministry practices.......................... 7 Strengths...................................................................................................................................... 7 1. Students ........................................................................................................................ 7 2. Number of services provided......................................................................................... 7 3. Liturgical life and sacramental presence ....................................................................... 7 4. Competent and dedicated staff ..................................................................................... 7 5. Spiritual fulfillment “place of reference for spiritual life.”................................................ 7 Gaps or weaknesses ................................................................................................................... 7 1. Insufficient resources to accomplish mission. ............................................................... 7 2. Not all campuses are included ...................................................................................... 8 3. Fragmented in terms of mission .................................................................................... 8 4. Fewer priests may compromise sacramental presence, and possibly vocation recruitment ............................................................................................................. 8 5. Involvement with local parishes and planning groups................................................... 8 6. Lack of capability to raise money .................................................................................. 8 7. Insufficent collaboration................................................................................................. 8 Recommended System Changes..................................................................................................9 Funding issue............................................................................................................................... 9 Leadership and coordination........................................................................................................ 9 Sacramental ministry ................................................................................................................... 9 Insure ministry coverage/presence on each campus .................................................................. 9 Personnel in campus ministry .................................................................................................... 10 Bishop’s Pastoral Letter ............................................................................................................. 10 Appendices ...................................................................................................................................11 Membership ............................................................................................................................... 11 Survey of Campus Ministry Programs ....................................................................................... 12 Community Views and Expectations Survey Results ................................................................ 16 Staffing Report ........................................................................................................................... 23 Budget Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 24 Expense ..................................................................................................................................... 24

2

Mission for Campus Ministry in the Diocese of Rochester “Campus ministry [is] the public presence and service through which properly prepared baptized persons, empowered by the Spirit, use their talents and gifts on behalf of the Church in order to be sign and instrument of the kingdom in the academic worlds.” (21 in Empowered by the Spirit) It is both a program and a process. As a program, campus ministry includes activities, staff, budget, and facilities focused on the religious of life students, faculty, and staff on the higher education campuses throughout the Diocese. As a process, campus ministry creates and sustains a presence of campuses that expresses the Roman Catholic tradition in its fullness within the particular cultures of 21st Century American college campuses. The first flows from the second, and the second is in a constant creative and spiritual ferment. The use of “worlds” in the opening statement is significant. Each type of institution and each campus within each type is its own world, with its own tradition, history, and culture. An effective campus ministry must reflect and respond to the local institutional world while bringing the same message of Jesus and the Church. This situation has produced great diversity in organization, style, and approach as campus ministers strive to form a searching, believing, loving, worshiping Catholic presence on each campus. The eye of faith discerns campus ministry where commitment to Christ and care for the academic world meet in purposeful activity to serve, realize, and build the kingdom of God. The role of campus ministry on Catholic, other sectarian, non-sectarian, and public campuses is increasingly significant to the future of the Church. During the 20th Century, American Catholics entered the mainstream of American life. One of the most telling indicators is that development was the increasing college attendance rate, which now stands higher than the American average. Future lay leaders of the Catholic Church in the United States are being formed on college campuses. The presence and activity of the Church during these critical years of student development have major impact on the future of the Church in terms of lay leadership, ecclesial lay ministers, and ordained ministers. One of the most important ways that the Church exercises her mission in higher education is though presence---the presence of clergy who preside at sacramental celebrations; the presence of other campus ministers who exercise leadership and pastoral care within the Catholic community on campus; the presence of Catholic students, faculty, and staff who witness to a vital Catholic faith by engaging Catholic ideals with their studies and work and offer themselves through Christian service and example. Presence is the first point of contact with the unchurched and an effective and quiet way of making the Gospel visible on campus. All aspects of campus ministry have a component of presence. Specifically, the goals of Catholic campus ministry include: 1. Worship is to pray for the world and strengthen the faith of the worshipping community, indeed to form the faith community, so that individuals leave Eucharist with a mission to spread the faith, serve others, praise God and recognize God’s presence in all people and all creation. In this way the Catholic message permeates our world. 2. Faith formation is to provide students with confidence in their faith so they can articulate it clearly in the classroom as well as in informal settings. In this way the Catholic message is heard. 3. Social justice teaching and ministry

3

is to provide students with a vision of a humane and compassionate world so they can question unjust social structures and effect social transformation both on and beyond campus, as well as reach out to those in need. In this way the Catholic message is seen and heard. 4. Conscience Formation is to equip individuals with the tools to face very complex ethical issues throughout their lives and make good moral judgments according to gospel values. 5. Personal Development is to aid in the search for integration that leads to a Christian Humanism that fuses the positive values and meanings of the culture with the light of faith. 6. Leadership Development is to model the disciples’ mission and responsibility to offer personal witness in order to make a difference in the world and to use our influence to bring others to a greater appreciation of the goodness of God.

Current Situation The Strategic Planning Committee gathered information about campus ministry on all campuses in the diocese. The detailed results are available in the appendices. General description 1. Diverse campuses and programs There are 20 regionally accredited post secondary institutions located within the 12 counties of the Diocese. These institutions enroll a total of almost 80,000 students. The institutions reflect the rich diversity of American higher education. There are research universities, comprehensive colleges and universities, liberal arts colleges, and community colleges. Some are highly residential while others are totally commuter campuses. Others combine both kinds of students. They offer undergraduate, technical, graduate, and professional degrees. Some are world centers of research while others focus exclusively on instruction of students. Some are private; others public. There are private colleges founded by religious organizations including the Roman Catholic Church and one that was nondenominational from its beginning. No one single academic calendar typifies these institutions. Some student bodies include a sizeable number of international students. 2. Diverse campus ministry programs This diversity in institutions has resulted in a similar diversity among campus ministry programs. •

Needs

The pastoral needs of each academic community may vary with the student body and staff members of each campus. A community college composed completely of commuter students will differ in significant ways from a college where all students live on campus. A university with world class graduate and professional programs will have a significantly different student body than a comprehensive college or university. A highly selective liberal arts college will differ from an “open door”

4

community college. No one student body is better than any other, but the clear differences result in different pastoral and ministerial needs. Campus ministry programs develop differentially as they respond to these different needs. •

Funding

History rather than a coherent policy best explains the financing of individual campus ministry programs. . Some campuses fund their campus ministry programs directly; most rely on internally generated funds, fund development ministry, and diocesan support. As lay campus ministers replaced priests, the cost of programs increased without concomitant changes in the funding base.Some programs have been successful in providing ongoing support. Others, however, receive annual subsidies from the Diocese totaling $128,750. There appears little rationale for amounts to each campus other than idiosyncratic circumstances over the history of each campus •

Staffing

Consistent with the different levels of funding, staffing varies greatly among the campuses. Some have rather complete staff while others have no one with designated responsibility for ministry. Total staffing ranges from 8.0 FTE to none at some community colleges. •

Size

Reflecting the different sizes of the host institutions, campus ministry programs range from very large to small. According to some, 30 percent or more of college and university students come from Catholic backgrounds. This means that there are an estimated 24,000 Catholic students in colleges and universities in the Diocese. In some cases, permanent non-student members provide significant financial and volunteer support to individual campus ministries. The permanent community is often a stabilizing force in the light of the constantly changing student population. •

Relationship with the institution

Collaboration on campus varies with the situation. In some cases, campus ministry is an integral part of student development program. In others, campus ministry faces internal barriers and lack of institutional support. It appears that the church/state issue is interpreted differently on different public campuses. On some private college campuses, there appear to be institutional barriers to the cultivation and solicitation of alumni active in campus ministry as students. •

Different academic schedules

One of the mitigating factors with regard to collaboration among campuses is the difficulty of shared programs given the different academic schedules and calendars at each campus. This is especially true at the beginning and end of semesters/quarters. •

Permanent community

Every campus ministry program with a regular liturgical and sacramental life includes non-students as part of its community. This “permanent” community is composed of faculty, staff, and alumni of the college or university as well as others from the larger community. These permanent communities are often very important to the ability of a campus ministry program to provide the appropriate scope and quality of ministry to students. The integration of these permanent communities into the campus ministry program varies from campus to campus.

5

3. Annually renewing community While a typical parish experiences turnover in members, none experiences the turnover of campus ministry members. In a typical undergraduate setting, at least 25% of the students were not present in that academic the year before. This includes both first time students and transfers. Campus ministries are continuously renewing communities. It is often difficult to build on the experience of prior years because so few of the members were present. This means that a larger proportion of a campus minister’s time is spent making connections and being accessible to members or potential members. Leadership development and planning is often a major challenge. For example, a key student member of the strategic planning committee transferred to a college outside the diocese. Her experience with the committee and her learning during the first year were lost on short notice and could not be duplicated. This is not an untypical situation for campus ministries. 4. Student Development Issues Students deal with a number of developmental issues during their college years: autonomy, interdependence, self esteem and general identity issues among others. For Catholic students, spiritual and religious issues are an essential part of this process. The failure of the Church to provide an adequate presence appropriate to this educational and development environment could be a reason for the high percentage of young adults who leave the Church. This is also the time when students are making their initial vocational choices. In this kind of environment, the presence of priests and/or professional campus ministers is critically important. 5. Changing nature of the campus Higher education is in constant change and those changes have an impact on ministry on campus. Higher education is more global, more technical, and on some of our campuses, more vocational. Within the diocese, there has been growth in distance learning on primarily residential campuses while commuter campuses are adding residential facilities. Many students no longer experience a common core of general learning that forms the basis of a coherent intellectual community. Political issues rather than intellectual issues often shape the campus discourse. Campus ministry is challenged to bring a sense of unity and wholeness to this community and, at the same time, value and participate in technical nature of the campus. 6. Development of future leaders of the Church, lay professional ministers, and ordained ministers While neither national or local data is available, it is the experience of most campus ministers that students who participate in campus ministry are better prepared and more motivated for lay leadership in the Church and for service as lay or ordained ministers. Campus ministers serve as important role models for this leadership. 7. Campuses and religious competition The committee struggled with how to phrase this observation. Fundamentalist Christian groups are very active on almost all campuses, and very effective in their use of students as proselytizers.. These groups often operate by attracting students raised in main-line denominations with arguments about the history of their church and their beliefs. This often is particularly true of Catholic students. When such activity raises questions about the Church, campus ministers are there to provide accurate and balanced answers. If there were no campus ministers, the appeal of such groups would increase substantially.

6

In addition, religious relativism and indifferentism pose important challenges for campus ministers. 8. Lack of current national and local data on campus ministry practices One distressing observation is the lack of information on Catholic campus ministry on American campuses. While the American bishops have issued very helpful policy documents, there is no source for current information on the practice of campus ministry. While the strategic planning committee learned valuable lessons from the Dioceses of Toledo and Cleveland, it was not able to get a clear national picture of what is effective. In addition, the Diocese of Rochester does not routinely collect information on the scope of campus ministry programs and the number of students, faculty, and staff involved. This and other information are essential to the on-going assessment of our work. Strengths 1. Students The students on today’s campuses are bright, energetic, and curious. While they are focused on their personal benefits from college attendance, they are also interested in ways to improve the quality of life of their communities. Their somewhat average rate of church attendance belies their interest in spirituality and service. 2. Number of services provided Our survey of campus ministry programs indicated a wide range of services. On campuses where there is an organized campus ministry, the number and variety of programs are impressive, especially in light of the number of staff involved. Clearly these ministries are examples of the impact of volunteer activity and volunteer leadership. 3. Liturgical life and sacramental presence Our survey of members of campus ministry indicates that Eucharist and other sacramental celebrations are the most valued campus ministry activities. One of the important works of campus ministry is to maintain sacramental presence on campuses, especially those with residential students. As with a parish, campus faith communities are Eucharistic communities; the Eucharist is at the center of their identity and action. 4. Competent and dedicated staff While it could be said of Church ministries generally, the committee was deeply impressed with the caliber of those working in campus ministry and their dedication and hard work. 5. Spiritual fulfillment “place of reference for spiritual life.” In summary, students identified campus ministry communities as places of spiritual fulfillment that anchor the spiritual life of individuals within the academic community. Gaps or weaknesses 1. Insufficient resources to accomplish mission.

7

With few exceptions , every campus program struggles with resources that are not sufficient for its mission. While much good work is being done, more and more effective ministry could be taking place if additional resources were available. 2. Not all campuses are included Unfortunately there are not designated ministers assigned for each campus in the Diocese. Several campuses have ministry provided by local parishes but often not in a formal way. While it may not be reasonable to have full or even part time staff assigned to each campus, there should be a professional pastoral minister with responsibility for the pastoral care of each campus. This could well be a staff member of a nearby parish. It is important that the Diocese be able to connect with a set of ministers who relate to every campus. 3. Fragmented in terms of mission While the committee found that each campus ministry could talk about its specific mission, it did not find a coherent and explicit mission for campus ministry in the Diocese. This lack of a central focus makes it difficult to plan for the future. This lack of a unified sense of mission also makes interaction between campuses more difficult. 4. Fewer priests may compromise sacramental presence, and possibly vocation recruitment On campuses with sacramental ministry, this aspect of campus ministry is the most valued by student members. As the number of priests declines, it will be more difficult to insure that sacramental ministry remains an essential part of the ministry on campuses. It appears that all the other valuable programs of campus ministry will lose much of their impact if a sacramental ministry is not a regular part of campus ministry life. Although precise studies do not exist, many feel that involvement in campus ministry and the relationship with a priest campus minister have a formative impact on vocations to the priesthood. 5. Involvement with local parishes and planning groups While every campus ministry is a member of a pastoral planning group, the actual degree of collaboration varies from very integral to marginal. 6. Lack of capability to raise money If the ideal is to have each campus be self-supporting financially, it can only be accomplished through effective fund development ministry from alumni members. As with other specialized ministries, a specific campus ministry will be unlikely to be able to support itself with financial support from current members. However, with a few notable exceptions, campuses have not been able to develop effective fund development ministry programs. Often there are institutional barriers to such fund development ministry. 7. Insufficent collaboration Given the diverse nature of campus ministry within the Diocese, there appears to be insufficient collaboration among campuses. This is true throughout the entire campus ministry system as well as in more localized settings. Too often it appears that each campus program is focused on survival rather than engaging in meaningful collaboration with other campus ministry programs.

8

Recommended System Changes The following are the key system changes recommended by the committee. By building on existing strengths, campus ministry can come closer to achieving its important mission. Funding issue The diocese should carefully examine its financial support of campus ministry to insure that the level of support is consistent with the importance of this ministry. •

The diocese should increase financial support with the use of grants to target the development of ministry activities on specific campuses. These grants should also be used to promote partnerships among campuses for the more effective use of resources.



In order to develop the capacity for fund development ministry in specific campus ministry programs, the diocese should invest for specific periods in building the infrastructure and processes for effective fund development ministry. New fund development ministry initiatives typically do not cover their costs in the first year but may over a three year period This diocesan support should not be used to provide ongoing subventions to programs but to invest in specific fund development ministry initiatives. Not all campuses have significant fund development ministry capacity, but many do.

Leadership and coordination It is imperative that there be visionary leadership in campus ministry at the diocesan level. This requires a person who has background and experience in ministry and a demonstrated affinity to campus ministry. Diocesan leadership must not only deal with the administrative aspects of campus ministry but must be able to provide leadership to a conceptualization of campus ministry that will engage the commitment and imagination of campus ministry members and staff. This diocesan director of campus ministry would provide 1. Advocacy at the diocesan level 2. Leadership in the completion of a mission and vision statement for campus ministry 3. Facilitate collaboration among campus ministry programs 4. Facilitate collaboration among diocesan offices and campus ministries 5. Process for measurable and on-going evaluation programs, and 6. Processes that would increase the visibility of campus ministry in the Diocese Sacramental ministry In an ideal setting, the diocese would provide sacramental ministry to those campus ministry programs that request it. The reality of the declining number of priests will necessitate creativity in the design of future campus ministry in the diocese. This can only be accomplished through continuing dialogue among the Priest Personnel Board, campus ministry leadership, and pastoral planning groups. Insure ministry coverage/presence on each campus The diocese should appoint someone with pastoral qualifications to be responsible for the campus ministry on each campus. In some cases, this will be a full time director of campus ministry. In others, it may be a pastoral associate from a nearby parish. However, no campus should be without such coverage.

9

Personnel in campus ministry Nothing is more important that the quality of ministers serving in campus ministry programs. The Diocese continues to be blest with the abilities and commitment of the men and women who serve its campuses. It is essential that the Diocese give focused attention to this critical resource in the future. 1. Training and recruitment Campus ministry is a specialized ministry that should be entrusted to those who have been prepared for it. Opportunity recruitment should not be the norm for campus ministry. Job descriptions should include explicit educational and experience requirements and their equivalents. In general recruitment for campus ministers should be regional and national in addition to local. There should be financial support for ongoing professional development and education. 2. Certification As a matter of Diocesan policy, anyone serving as a campus minister should achieve the certification provided by the Catholic Campus Ministry Association under the auspices of the USCC Commission on Certification and Accreditation. The diocese should provide sufficient resources to achieve certification. 3. Mentoring The Diocese should implement a mentoring program for all those staff new to campus ministry and new to the Diocese of Rochester. This process would link experienced campus ministers with those just beginning to establish their ministry on a campus. 4. Adequate compensation at a professional level The Diocese should review its salary and benefits for campus ministers in light of local and national norms. It should adjust them as necessary and insist that these guidelines be followed. In addition to a professional salary and benefits, campus ministers should have the opportunity for full time status. Bishop’s Pastoral Letter In light of the importance of this ministry to the Church and the Diocese, we recommend that Bishop Clark issue a pastoral letter on the importance of campus ministry and the system changes recommended by the strategic planning committee. Further we recommend that this letter be issued at a first ever gathering of all Catholic college students in the Diocese with Bishop Clark. This gathering would be an opportunity for the spiritual enrichment of college students and an expression of the vitality and strength of their commitment to the Church and their mission in the world. While such a gathering would not necessarily become an annual event, it should occur at least every four years.

10

Appendices Membership Dr. Mary-Beth Cooper, Chair Rochester Institute of Technology Mr. John Bradac Ithaca College Ms. Nora Bradbury-Haehl Diocese of Rochester Mr. Glen Cerosaletti University of Rochester Ms. Carrie Christie SUNY Geneseo Mr. Daniel Dwyer Rev. Jody-Lynn Hagans Keuka College Mr. Daniel Healy Diocese of Rochester Mr. Robert Henry Cornell University Ms. Abby M. Joseph Ithaca College Rev. Scott Kubinski Ithaca College Deacon Richard Lombard Rochester Institute of Technology Ms. . Shannon Loughlin SUNY Geneseo Ms. Theresa Miller Cornell Catholic Community Rev. Kevin Murphy St. Joseph's Parish Ms. Dee Dee Rutigliano Mr. Richard Ryther Monroe Community College Mr. William Pickett, staff Diocese of Rochester

11

Survey of Campus Ministry Programs

1. Surveys were received from eleven (11) institutions. They are: SUNY Geneseo, St. John Fisher, SUNY Brockport, Rochester Institute of Technology, New York Chiropractic College, Corning Community College, Monroe Community College, Ithaca College, Cornell University, the University of Rochester, and Nazareth College. 2. Five (5) are private, four-year institutions. Two (2) are public, four-year institutions. Two (2) are public, two-year institutions. One (1) is both a private and a public institution. One (1) is a private, graduate only institution. 3. Ten (10) institutions enroll undergraduates. Eight (8) institutions enroll graduates. Seven (7) institutions enroll both undergraduates and graduates. One (1) institution enrolls graduates only. 4. Listed below are the ecumenical ministries that are listed and whether these ministries are on or off campus. a. Integrated Campus Ministry with Catholic and Protestant Ministries on campus b. Hillel, Protestant Communities and Muslims – on campus. c. Twenty - two (22) denominations – mostly on campus. d. Hillel and Protestant – on campus. e. Student Organizations (i.e. B.A.S.I.C.) – on campus. f. Interfaith Campus Ministry Office – on campus. g. Hillel, Baptist, Lutheran, Assembly of God, - on campus h. Unity Octave – on campus. i. Hillel, Wesleyan Fellowship – on campus. j. Calvary Evangelist – off campus. In summary, nine (9) institutions report ecumenical ministries on campus. Of these nine institutions, two report some off campus ministries. Two (2) institutions report zero (0) ecumenical ministries, either on or off campus. 5 a.) Services were provided by college/universities to ministries are as follows: • Office - eight (8) ministries • Spiritual Ritual Center (workshop space) – five (5) ministries • Phone – seven (7) ministries • Data Connection – seven (7) ministries • Computer – seven ministries Other services: • Administrative Assistant • Student workers • Financial Assistance • Secretarial Support • Printing Services • Meeting Space • Publicity No services provided – three (3) ministries 5 b.) Services diocese funds are as follows:

12

• • • • •

Office – none Spiritual Center – none Phone – none Data Connection – none Computer – two (2) ministries

Other services : • Salary • $1000.00 grant • Annual stipend • No services - five (5) ministries. 6. Staffing size of ministry: • Seven (7) full time staff – one (1) ministry • Two (2) full time and one (1) part-time – one (1) ministry • Two (2) full time – two (2) ministries • One (1) full time and three (3) part-time – one (1) ministry • One (1) full time and one (1) part-time – three (3) ministries • One (1) part-time – three (3) ministries 7. Estimated number of Catholic Students enrolled and how the number was arrived at: • 800/50% of 1600 undergraduates • 1500/census • 2800 registered/actual estimate is 6500 • 1800/college data • 5250/ admissions office • 800/estimate • 200/guess • 5000/guess • 1100/guess • 2300/based on parental information • Unknown 8. Students involved with the ministry. • 250 • 300 • 700 - 800 mass attendance/200 active in ministry • 300 semi-regularly/150 regularly involved • 100 • 750 • 100 • 500 - 600 • 75 -100 • 150 • 100 -130 9.

To what college office does the ministry report, if any? • • • • • •

Vice–President for Student Affairs – three (3) ministries Dean of Students – two (2) ministries The President – one (1) ministry Student Activities/Campus Life – one (1) ministry Counseling – one (1) ministry Cornell United Religious Works – one (1) ministry

13

• •

Campus Ministry Office – one (1) ministry None – one (1) ministry

10. Is funding through student activity fees available for religious based clubs? Yes – seven (7) institutions No – four (4) institutions 11. Consider the interactions of your ministry and college/university and the rate of the following: 1 = high 2 = medium 3 = low N/A = Not applicable •







Degree of co-operation from the institution for the campus programming o Five (5) #1 ratings o

Five (5) #2 ratings

o

One (1) #3 ratings

Degree of co-operation and support from senior administration at the institution o

Three (3) #1 ratings

o

Five (5) #2 ratings

o

Three (3) #3 ratings

Involvement of the ministry in college ceremonies such as convocation and commencement o

Five (5) #1 ratings

o

Three (3) #2 ratings

o

Two (2) #3 ratings

o

One (1) N/A

Degree of cooperation between ministries from various faiths in the form of joint programs, ceremonies, services, etc… o

Two (2) #1 ratings

o

Five (5) #2 ratings

o

Two (2) # 3 ratings

o

Twp (2) #4 ratings

12. Describe the relationship with and support from local parish. •

Sacramental minister is from local parishes; students volunteer in local parish youth ministry; college advertises mass schedule for three parishes

14



Relationship is fine with two parties; advertise programs; music support



Limited relationship; limited community service by students



Fine relationship



Local parish personnel serve on advisory board; very supportive



Local parish considers is radicals so support is low; education and sac preparation co-operation is good



Relationship is developing



Non-existent – four ministries.

15

Community Views and Expectations Survey Results

Community Views and Expectations Survey Results A report submitted by the Community Views and Expectations Subcommittee to the Campus Ministry Strategic Planning Committee •

Respondents Community Members 6%

Other 11% Faculty 4%

Students 79%

Total number of respondents = 1162 DOR Campus Ministry Survey

16

Religious Background

1% 1% 3%

Ca tholic Non-Ca tholic Se e king

95%

Bla nk/Othe r

DOR Campus Ministry Survey

Type of Institution Pub lic 2-yr 1%

P ub lic 4-yr 13 %

Othe r/Blank 42 %

P riva te 4 -yr 44%

DOR Campus Ministry Survey

17

Sources of Information about Campus Ministry Activities "How do you learn about different activities that take place in campus ministry?" No R es ponse 1% O ther 7%

Weekly Bulle tin 31 %

Emails 29%

Advertis ements 12%

Wo rd of Mouth 2 0%

DOR Campus Ministry Survey

Grassroots Evangelization "Have you ever invited someone to Mass or a campus ministry activity?"

No 1 8%

Othe r/Blank 2%

Ye s 80%

DOR Campus Ministry Survey

18

Meeting the Ministers "Have you ever talked to your campus ministers?"

Othe r/Bla nk 1% Ye s 40%

No 59%

DOR Campus Ministry Survey

Attendance at Campus Ministry Events "Of the last 10 events your campus ministry has planned, how many did you attend?"

Multi/Bla nk 7 to 10 4 to 6 2 to 3 0 to 1 0

100

200

300

400

DOR Campus Ministry Survey

19

500

600

700

Reasons for Participation in Campus Ministry "What

is the most important reason you participate in campus ministry? (Select only one.)"

Alte rna te We e ke nd Multiple /Bla nk Activity 8% ("Some thing e lse to do") 1%

Fulfill Sunda y Obliga tion 18%

Se e Frie nds 4%

Spiritua l Fulfillme nt 69%

DOR Campus Ministry Survey

Describing Campus Ministry "If you had to describe your campus ministry, what would you say it is to you?"

A pla ce to go to talk to someone. A pla ce tha t is a re fe re nce for your spiritua l life . A pla ce tha t he lps cre a te a ctivitie s that cha lle nge you to uphold your faith. A pla ce to fulfill my Sunda y obliga tion. Multiple/Bla nk.

DOR Campus Ministry Survey

20

Rating Campus Ministry "How would you rate the following areas of Campus Ministry in your parish?"

7 00

Exce llen t Good Fair

6 00 5 00 4 00 3 00

Poor

2 00

Othe r

1 00 0

Mas s e s

Soc ia l Ac tivitie s

Re tr e ats

Se r vic e Proje c ts

Educ a tion

S oc ia l J us tic e

DOR Campus Ministry Survey

Programming Needs "If there was one thing that you wish your campus ministry could do more of, what would it be?"

Multiple /Bla nk 20%

Educ a tion 12% S ervice Proje c ts 9%

Fe llowship 11%

Socia l Activitie s 16%

Ma ss/Worship 10% Fa ith Sha ring Socia l Justice 12% 10%

DOR Campus Ministry Survey

21

Eva nge liz a tion

Fe llow ship

Focus of Campus Ministry “Rank from 1 - 8 (1 being the most important to 8 being the least important) what the focus of a campus ministry should be”

#1 Masses/ Worship Services #2 Social Activities #3 Faith Sharing/Retreats #4 Education #5 Service Projects #6 Community Fellowship #7 Social Justice #8 Evangelization/Outreach DOR Campus Ministry Survey

22

Staffing Report As of 9/19/2001

Cornell: 4 FT Chaplains, 1 FT Music Director, 2 FT Development Officers, 1 FT office personnel. Ithaca: 2 FT chaplains (12 month), 1 PT bookkeeper, 2 PT Music Directors, 1 PT Student Intern (6 hrs. per week). Total PT equals .46 FT position. MCC: ½ time. Nazareth: 1 FT Catholic Director, 1 PT volunteer Catholic chaplain, 3 “stipended” PT sacramental ministers, 1 FT Secretary shared w/other ministries. RIT: 2 FT Campus Ministers (12 month), 1 unpaid service deacon =.25, for a total of 2.25 –12 month positions, all in ministry. Saint John Fisher: 2 FT Campus Ministers, 1 secretary, 1 Community service director (no ministry), 1 PT volunteer priest (retired, ill health). SUNY Brockport: 1 FT campus minister, 1 FT “Office Manager,” .2 priest (Sacramental minister), 1 perm deacon-volunteers 10 hr/week. SUNY Geneseo: 1 FTE 12 month, 1FTE 10 month, .2 Sac. Min. UR: 1 FT Chaplain, 1PT Chaplain, 1 PT Program Director 17 hrs., 1 PT Office Manager 17 hrs., 3 PT Student Workers 10 hrs. each. Wells: 0 Comments No report from Eastman School of Music, Elmira College and NY Chiropractic. Most did not indicate whether positions were 12 month or 10 month. Lack of consistency in position descriptions, e.g. “chaplain” and “campus minister.” Many positions- both PT and other- did not indicate the amount of time spent. I recorded the job descriptions just as they were indicated on the original sheets. Some wise guy wrote, “very good looking” as the description of the staff at RIT.

23

Budget Analysis Campus Ministry 2001-02 Budget Analysis Cornell, Ithaca, RIT, UR, Geneseo, Brockport Selected Subtotals as a Percentage of Very Grand Total Income Item Ordinary offering-plate Auxiliary Receipts

Amount $215,620 160,325

Percent of Total 22.6% 16.8

257,790

27.0

21,400 225,243

2.2 23.6

32,950 29,600 8,120 $952,388 $825,388

3.4 3.1 .8 100.0 86.7

Amount $571,290 43,688 7,242 55,789 33,814 104,122 8,765 30,012 6,828 6,100 25,200 20,232 36,351 $952,388

Percent of Total 59.9% 4.5 .7 5.8 3.5 10.9 .9 3.1 .7 .6 2.6 2.1 3.8 100.0

Includes other interest of $129,675 or 13.6%

Special Fundraising Includes friend/alumni appeal of $183,140 or 19.2%

Donations, Sale of Assets Other Receipts Includes Diocesan Subsidy of $128, 750 or 13.5% for all except Cornell

Diocesan Collection Rectory Programs Very Grand Total Grand Income Raised Locally Expense Item Gross Salaries Priests’ Allowances Religious Allowances Other Campus Minister Fringe Benefits Other Employee Fringe Benefits Office Expenses Household Expenses Bldg. Oper. & Maint Other Expense Extraordinary Expense Diocesan Collections Rectory Programs Total Expenses Rev. 10/22/2001

24

ADDENDUM TO BUDGET ANALYSIS For the Campus Ministries listed above, with the exception of Cornell, the primary sources of funds are plate collection, diocesan subsidy and fund raising, in that order. Permanent community members are the primary givers to the plate collection for some, if not all, of the CM’s. There seems to be a general agreement that the future of CM’s is tied directly to fund raising, in particular traditional development efforts aimed at alumni and parents. This comes about for several reasons. (1) The diocesan policy that all ministries should be financially selfsustaining (2) The consensus that CM’s are understaffed. More staff would mean significantly more expense. We cannot expect collections to increase significantly. This leaves only fund raising to support staff increases. (3) The notable success of Cornell and, to a lesser degree, the U of R in developing alumni and parent appeal programs. Appeals are a significant source of funds for Cornell. (4) Given the above, it seems appropriate for the CM’s listed above to focus our attention on developing long-term fund raising strategies. Since most oaf our staffs are small, it seems to make sense for us and perhaps other CM’s to work together to pool resources, develop strategies and implement systems in order to achieve benefits of scale.

25