ReMAP II Retaining Missionaries Agency Practices

1
ReMAP II Retaining Missionaries
Agency Practices

• Older sending countries in Europe and North
  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
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.
7
Agency Size
ReMAP II

retirement
The huge difference in attrition rates between
OSC and NSC is mainly retirement.
8
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.
9
ReMAP II
High retaining agencies have a similar length of
experience and a similar percentage of mission
families with children (educational needs). These
agencies invest the same percentage of allowance
into a pension scheme, but have less staff (per
100 field workers) serving in the home office.
10
ReMAP II
High retaining agencies are slightly more
involved in evangelism and church planting among
unreached peoples and reached peoples and
slightly less in supporting existing churches and
social developmental work. These differences in
their ministry priorities may affect their
candidate selection, pre-field training
requirements, and leadership structures.
11
Candidate Selection
ReMAP II
High retaining agencies put much more emphasis on
their candidate selection, especially calling to
ministry, character, church experience, spiritual
disciplines and prayer support
12
ReMAP II
High retaining agencies have missionaries with
higher academic training.
13
ReMAP II
High retaining agencies have much higher minimal
training requirements, especially in Bible and in
particular, in missiology. Modern informal
training methods (e.g. Practical missionary
training and Cross-cultural internships) are too
little in use as compulsory pre-field requirement
to validate or invalidated their effectiveness.
14
ReMAP II
High retaining agencies put much more emphasis on
communication with leadership as well as the
home-field. They have specific plans and job
descriptions and documented policies. In
particular they have a culture of prayer
throughout the agency

15
ReMAP II
High retaining agencies put more emphasis on
leadership, in particular leading by example,
field supervision and an effective system of
handling complaints.
16
ReMAP II
Language and culture learning is generally
considered as a lifelong task. High retaining
agencies put even more emphasis on ongoing
language and culture studies as well as
development of new gifts.
17
ReMAP II
All missionaries are highly committed to their
ministry. High retaining agencies give their
workers more room to shape their ministry,
continually improve the ministry,
include the spouse and to maintain a sound
work-rest balance.
18
ReMAP II
Good relationships to the people group and the
national church found very high rating in all
agencies. High retaining agencies invest more in
local leadership and missionaries find personal
fulfilment in their ministry. They are probably
more relationship- than task-oriented.
Unexpectedly they put less emphasis on the goal
people become followers of Christ.
19
ReMAP II
All agencies put very high emphasis on annual
vacation. The quantity of Member Care is not
much different. High retaining agencies put more
emphasis on the personal spiritual life, health
care, risk assessment and involve the home church
in the personal care.
20
ReMAP II
Little investment in member care (MC) is
associated with high attrition. Yet very high
investment in member care is also correlated with
increased attrition. But it doesnt appear that
MC in itself is detrimental, but that these
agencies often do mediocre candidate selection
and pre-field training which would prevent
problems down the road. In OSC, the optimum is
5-10 of total staff time at home and on the
field invested in member care.
21
ReMAP II
Preventative member care means the build-up of
resilience by the strengthening of character and
personal spiritual life. Preventative member
care as well as crisis intervention is needed.
Agencies that focus only on one at the expense of
the other are associated with increased
attrition.
22
ReMAP II
The need for preventative and curative member
care is obvious in total attrition, attrition for
potentially preventable causes as well as
unpreventable attrition which includes end of the
project and not going for a new assignment,
evacuation, medical reasons, new assignment after
retirement age etc.
23
ReMAP II
Newer Sending Countries of the global South show
a similar u-curve, yet the optimum for member
care is at a higher time investment (10-20 of
total staff time at home and on the field) as
they are relational cultures.
24
ReMAP II
Preventative and curative member care is needed
in NSC agencies too. Regarding attrition for
potentially preventable reasons, the optimum is
found at 30-50 preventative MC while the optimum
for total attrition was at slightly less
preventative MC.
25
ReMAP II
High retaining agencies provide regular financial
support to their missionaries their project
finances are spent wisely and effectively and
their agencys finances are transparent to donors
and missionaries
26
ReMAP II
The agencies home office rate their own
activities highly. In particular the prayer
support by the home office, pre-field screening,
debriefing and re-entry program for those coming
on home assignment were rated higher by high
retaining agencies.
27
ReMAP II
High retaining agencies gave a higher rating in
almost all areas (groups of questions),
especially pre-field training. Exception is the
amount of member care. It is not so much the
quantity but the quality of MC that counts.
28
ReMAP II
Low retaining agencies lose 10 of their work
force per year, 4 for potentially preventable
reasons and 6 for unpreventable reasons High
retaining agencies lose only 2.9 per year 1.3
for potentially preventable reasons and 1.6 for
unpreventable reasons. This assessment is made
not on the basis of hypothetical definitions but
the actual performance of large groups of
agencies (30 of all agencies of the study in
each case.)
29
ReMAP II
Within 10 year these differences in retention
rates accumulate to a vast amount 75 staff
turnover vs. 25.
30
ReMAP II
The diagram shows the retention rates (for
potentially preventable causes of attrition only)
of missionaries that first left for the field in
the stated 5 year period. The diagram shows the
general trend towards earlier return, shorter
assignments, higher staff turnover. Mission
agencies in general are affected by this global
trend, and low retaining agencies in
particular. Yet high retaining agencies have
maintained their very high retention rates. They
were able to offset this global trend by improved
leadership systems, communication, member care,
candidate selection, pre-field training and
continuous training.
31
ReMAP II
In the years 2001-02 the large group of high
retaining agencies showed only half of the number
of total returnees as the group of low retaining
agencies and their average length of service was
15.5 years vs. 7.9 years. Considering the fact
that it takes a person 2 years to learn the
language and culture and become effective in
ministry, the difference is almost a factor of
2.5
32
Major Findings ReMAP II

• Clear purpose and vision of agency
• Specific plans
• Flexible, dynamic structure
• Lean administration
• Consultative interactive leadership style
• Personal trust throughout the agency
• Empowerment of staff
• Effective communication
• Prayer throughout agency
• Careful candidate selection
• Quality prefield training
• Missiological training
• Effective on-field orientation
• Intensive language training cultural studies

33
Major Findings 2 ReMAP II

• Supportive team
• 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