A joint project of five Catholic national
ministry organizations funded by Lilly
Endowment Inc. Research conducted by
the Center for Applied Research in the
Apostolate
Perspectives
from Parish
Leaders: U.S.
Parish Life
and Ministry Mark M. Gray
This project is the work of five Catholic national ministerial organizations collaborating on sustaining the
pastoral excellence of the emerging models of pastoral leadership in the Catholic Church. These
organizations believe that, at this time, the life of the Catholic Church depends on ongoing and sustained
collaboration at all levels. Their vision is for a more fully collaborative, competent, and mission-focused
pastoral leadership, strengthened in their service to parish communities at all levels. These organizations
have researched marks of excellence for vibrant parishes and are committed to providing research and
dialogue with pastoral leadership in pursuing this excellence. In order to create a climate in which much
needed research, theological reflection, and practical transforming action can take place, this Project has
set three goals: 1) To provide solid research on the emerging models of parish pastoral leadership; 2) To
stimulate a national conversation about the use of pastoral imagination to create vibrant parishes; and 3)
To explore ways in which national associations can collaborate to serve the Church.
Funded by Lilly Endowment Inc. The Emerging Models Project is made possible by the generosity of Lilly Endowment
Inc., which established its “Sustaining Pastoral Excellence Grant Program” in 2002.
This program was designed to provide funding to organizations that would establish
projects to enhance pastoral leadership in parishes and congregations across the
country. As a result of being selected to participate, the Emerging Models Project has
been able to provide national support by sharing ideas for enhancing parish life with
our constituencies and with parishes and dioceses across the country.
Research conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA)
CARA is a national, non-profit, Georgetown University affiliated research center that
conducts social scientific studies about the Catholic Church. Founded in 1964, CARA
has three major dimensions to its mission: to increase the Church's self-understanding,
to serve the applied research needs of Church decision-makers, to advance scholarly
research on religion, particularly Catholicism. CARA’s longstanding policy is to let
research findings stand on their own and never take an advocacy position or go into
areas outside its social science competence. ©2012 National Association for Lay Ministry (NALM), Emerging Models of Pastoral Leadership Project. No portion may be duplicated or copied without expressed written consent. For information contact: National Association for Lay Ministry, 6896 Laurel Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20012 (202) 291-4100
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1
Major Findings ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 10
Background: Leadership in the American Church ............................................................................... 11
Parish Sub-group Definitions ................................................................................................................... 13
Characteristics of Responding Parish Leaders ...................................................................................... 15
Age and Generation .................................................................................................................................... 15
Ecclesial Status ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Marital Status .............................................................................................................................................. 17
Immigrant Status ......................................................................................................................................... 18
Languages Used in Ministry ....................................................................................................................... 19
Race and Ethnicity ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Catholic Schooling ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Highest Level of Education ........................................................................................................................ 24
Ministry Formation ..................................................................................................................................... 25
Degrees and Certificates in Ministry, Religion, and/or Theology .............................................................. 27
Financial Assistance for Education and Formation .................................................................................... 28
Ministry Salary and Wages ......................................................................................................................... 29
Satisfaction with Ministry Salary, Wages, and Benefits ............................................................................. 30
Employment Outside the Parish .................................................................................................................. 31
Household Income ...................................................................................................................................... 32
Time Spent on Ministry and Service........................................................................................................... 33
Ministry and Service to More than One Parish ........................................................................................... 34
Feeling Overworked .................................................................................................................................... 35
Written Job Description .............................................................................................................................. 39
Ministry Focus ............................................................................................................................................ 40
Entry into Ministry ................................................................................................................................... 41
The Call to Ministry .................................................................................................................................... 41
Time between Call and Beginning Ministry or Service .............................................................................. 44
Time between Call and Beginning Ministry or Service at Current Parish .................................................. 45
Within Parish Recruitment .......................................................................................................................... 46
Initial Recruitment as a Volunteer .............................................................................................................. 47
Reasons for Entering Ministry .................................................................................................................... 49
Encouragement to Enter Ministry ............................................................................................................... 50
Inspiration from Church Movements .......................................................................................................... 51
Ministry as a Vocation ................................................................................................................................ 52
Evaluation of Parish and Ministry .......................................................................................................... 53
Overall Satisfaction with Their Parish ........................................................................................................ 53
Recent Changes in Parish ............................................................................................................................ 56
Sense of Community ................................................................................................................................... 57
Hospitality and Sense of Welcoming to All ................................................................................................ 59
Masses and Liturgies ................................................................................................................................... 60
Celebrations of the Sacraments ................................................................................................................... 61
Vision Provided by Parish leaders .............................................................................................................. 62
Encouragement of Parishioners .................................................................................................................. 63
Efforts to Educate Parishioners in the Faith ................................................................................................ 64
Spreading the Gospel and Evangelizing ..................................................................................................... 65
Promoting Important Church Teachings and Causes .................................................................................. 66
What Parishes Do Best ................................................................................................................................ 67
Parish Priorities ........................................................................................................................................... 68
Recruitment of Staff .................................................................................................................................... 69
Communicating with Parishioners .............................................................................................................. 70
Welcoming New Parishioners ..................................................................................................................... 71
Listening to Parishioner Concerns and Input .............................................................................................. 73
Celebrating Cultural Diversity .................................................................................................................... 74
Providing Cultural, Ethnic, or National Celebrations ................................................................................. 76
Collaborating with Other Parishes .............................................................................................................. 77
Managing Parish Finances .......................................................................................................................... 78
Promoting Ministry Opportunities .............................................................................................................. 79
Effectively Using Committees and Councils .............................................................................................. 80
Educating Parishioners in the Faith ............................................................................................................ 81
Providing Social Activities and Programs .................................................................................................. 82
Providing Mass in Preferred Languages ..................................................................................................... 84
Ministering to Young Adults ...................................................................................................................... 85
Ministering to Families ............................................................................................................................... 86
Ministering to the Elderly ........................................................................................................................... 88
Providing Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities ................................................................................. 90
Ministering to Those Who are Grieving ..................................................................................................... 91
Ministering to Recent Immigrants .............................................................................................................. 92
Ministering to Those in Financial Need ...................................................................................................... 93
Outreach to Inactive Catholics .................................................................................................................... 96
What Parishes Are Most Successful At ...................................................................................................... 97
Specific Ministry Evaluations .................................................................................................................. 98
Preparation for Ministry .............................................................................................................................. 98
Original Preparation for Ministry ............................................................................................................... 99
Preparation for Ministry or Service for Aspects of Parish Life ................................................................ 100
Job Security ............................................................................................................................................... 101
Parish Provides Resources Needed ........................................................................................................... 102
A Larger Staff is Needed .......................................................................................................................... 103
Parishioners Readily Volunteer ................................................................................................................ 104
Parishioners are Invited and Encouraged to Participate ............................................................................ 105
Parishioners are Encouraged to Have a Role in Decision Making ........................................................... 106
Parishioners are Provided with Adequate Information about Parish Finances ......................................... 107
This Parish is Multicultural ....................................................................................................................... 108
Knowledge and Experience of Culture is Essential to My Ministry ......................................................... 109
Knowledge and Experience of Culture is Part of Reasons I am in Leadership ........................................ 110
Parishioners of Different Cultures Participate in Parish Life Together .................................................... 111
Racial and Ethnic Makeup of the Parish is Represented in Parish Leadership ......................................... 112
Older and Younger Parish Leaders Work Well Together ......................................................................... 113
Technology ............................................................................................................................................... 114
Use of New Technology and Media ......................................................................................................... 114
Parish Website and Email ......................................................................................................................... 116
Parish Reorganization ............................................................................................................................ 119
Experience of Reorganization ................................................................................................................... 119
Changes in Ministry and Parish Life......................................................................................................... 120
Training for Reorganization ...................................................................................................................... 121
Difficulties Following Reorganization ...................................................................................................... 122
Attitudes about Reorganization ................................................................................................................. 123
Innovations and Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 124
Appendix: Questionnaires ...................................................................................................................... 126
1
Perspectives from Parish Leaders: U.S. Parish Life and Ministry
Executive Summary
In 2009, the Emerging Models of Pastoral Leadership project, a Lilly Endowment Inc.
funded collaboration of five Catholic national ministerial organizations, commissioned the
Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University to conduct a
series of surveys in parishes nationwide. The first of these was a single informant survey sent to
parishes to develop a portrait of parish life in the United States today. This survey was in the
field from March 2010 to December 2010 and included a total of 846 parishes (margin of
sampling error for the survey is ±3.3 percentage points). The second survey, the focus of this
report, includes responses from 532 parish leaders (i.e., parish staff, finance and pastoral council
members, other parish leaders; paid and volunteer; those in pastoral ministry and those with
other duties) in 246 of the parishes from the first survey (margin of sampling error of ±4.2
percentage points). This survey was in the field from May 2011 to April 2012.
Major Findings
Characteristics of Parish Leaders
The average age of parish leaders is 59. A majority, 54 percent, are members of the
Vatican II Generation (those born 1943 to 1960). One in five is of the Pre-Vatican II Generation
(those born before 1943). Nearly one in four is of the Post-Vatican II Generation (those born
1961 to 1981) and only 3 percent are Millennials (born 1982 or later).
The average age when parish leaders say they first felt the call to ministry in any setting
(e.g., parish, school, hospital) is 29.
2
Current parish leaders of the Millennial Generation have answered a call to ministry a bit
before the norm of previous generations. Those in ministry now are “early adopters.” If the past
repeats itself we can expect many Millennials to be called to ministry in this decade.
Nearly nine in ten parish leaders self-identify their race and ethnicity as Non-Hispanic
white. Six percent self-identify as Hispanic/Latino(a), 2 percent as Asian or Pacific Islander, 2
percent as Black, African American, African, or Afro-Caribbean, and 1 percent as Native
American. This distribution is strongly related to the age of parish leaders and the racial and
ethnic composition of the Catholic population within these generations. In parishes identified by
the project as multicultural (i.e., those with more racial and ethnic diversity among parishioners)
there are greater numbers of non-Anglo parish leaders.
About one in 20 parish leaders were born outside of the United States. One in ten reports
their mother was born in another country and a similar number report their father was. Thirty-
eight percent have at least once grandparent who immigrated to the United States.
Nearly all parish leaders—98 percent—say they use English in their ministry. One in ten
also uses Spanish. One percent indicates use of Latin. Two percent report some other language
such as French, Creole, Italian, Tagalog, Polish, Czech, German, or Portuguese.
Eighty-five percent of responding parish leaders are lay persons (excluding men and
women religious in ministry). Fifty-seven percent overall are female (including lay women and
women religious).
Leaders are very highly educated. Nine in ten have attended college or university at some
point in their life and more than a third have graduate degrees (35 percent) and two-thirds have
an undergraduate degree (67 percent). This high level of education may be part of why 97
percent of leaders agree “somewhat” or “very much” in the survey that they feel adequately
prepared now for ministry and three in four said, similarly, that that they were adequately
prepared for their ministry at the time they began it.
Leaders are most likely to say they feel “very much” prepared for the following aspects
of parish life: communicating (56 percent), facilitating events and meetings (51 percent),
administration and planning (50 percent), collaborating (48 percent), and providing ministry to
others (45 percent). Leaders are least likely to indicate they are “very much” prepared for
managing conflict (24 percent), working in a multicultural environment (19 percent), and
counseling (18 percent).
Fifty-one percent say they earn a salary or wage for their ministry or service to their
parish. Of those that do, the median annualized earnings for this are $31,000. Respondents with
higher education degrees in ministry, religion, or theology earn more, on average, than those
without these. Eighty-four percent of those who are paid say there are “somewhat” or “very
much” satisfied with what they earn.
3
Of those who are paid for their ministry or service, nearly one in five have other
employment outside of their parish as well. Among those volunteering for their parish, half have
paid employment elsewhere. Parish leaders provide, on average, 23.2 hours of ministry or
service to their parish weekly. Lay ecclesial ministers provide an average of 40.6 hours. Sixteen
percent of parish leaders provide ministry and service to at least one other parish as well.
Most feel secure in their parish role. Nine in ten agree “somewhat” or “very much” that
they have sufficient job security in their ministry. Most also indicate they have access to what
they need. Ninety-three percent agree at least “somewhat” that their parish provides them with
the resources needed for their ministry. However, Hispanic/Latino(a) parish leaders are among
the least likely to agree with this statement (76 percent). Anecdotally, this may be related to
needs for bilingual and Spanish-language resources.
Answering the Call to Ministry
Most leaders, 76 percent, indicate they began their ministry or service to the Church in
the same year they felt the call to do so. Others indicate more of a lag time—most often for
acquiring formation or accreditation, as well as placement. Overall, the average time between
when one feels the call to ministry and begins ministering is 1.2 years.
Seven in ten parish leaders were members of the parish they began ministry in. Lay
ecclesial ministers are less likely to report this (52 percent). Two-thirds of leaders were recruited
initially as volunteers. However, those who are currently paid for their ministry or service are
less likely to report this (49 percent). Younger parish leaders are less likely to indicate being
recruited as volunteers. This may reflect their coming of age during a period in which paid
ministry is more of a norm whereas previous generations may have begun ministry in a time
where volunteering was more prevalent.
Respondents were most likely to say the following first led them to enter ministry:
To be of service to the Church (75 percent)
As a response to God’s call (56 percent)
A desire to be more active in parish life (55 percent)
To enhance their spiritual life (51 percent)
Lay ecclesial ministers were especially likely to say they did so in response to God’s call
(73 percent). Those not involved in any pastoral ministry were especially likely to emphasize
they entered ministry at the invitation of their pastor or the parish life coordinator (50 percent).1
A majority of leaders indicate they entered ministry after being encouraged by a priest
(53 percent). Others noted encouragement from fellow parishioners (34 percent), friends (29
percent), and spouses (27 percent). Millennials are less likely than others to note encouragement
from a priest (39 percent) and were more likely to note receiving this from friends (54 percent)
or a teacher or professor (46 percent).
1 A parish life coordinator or PLC is someone entrusted with the pastoral care of their parish under Canon 517.2.
4
One in four parish leaders say they were inspired to enter ministry by a specific
movement or program within the Church. This was most often reported by men (31 percent) and
Millennials (33 percent). Among the movements and programs most often cited by respondents
are RCIA, Cursillo, Knights of Columbus, RENEW, and Teens Encounter Christ.
Three in four leaders (75 percent) agree “very much” that their ministry or service to their
parish is a calling or vocation rather than just a job. Lay ecclesial ministers were especially likely
to respond as such (89 percent).
Evaluations of Parish and Ministry
Half of all parish leaders (50 percent) evaluate their overall satisfaction with their parish
as “excellent.” Another 41 percent say this is “good.” Non-Anglo parish leaders were more likely
to evaluate their parish overall as “good” rather than “excellent’ (48 percent compared to 36
percent) and more in this group provided “fair” (13 percent) and “poor” evaluations (4 percent).
Just three in ten leaders (31 percent) in the smallest parishes, those with 200 or fewer registered
households, evaluate their parish overall as “excellent.”
Leaders are most likely to evaluate their parishes as “good” or “excellent” for the
following aspects: celebration of the sacraments, Masses and liturgies, efforts to educate
parishioners in the faith, and promoting important Church teachings and causes.
What Parishes Do Best Percentage of parish leaders responding that
their parish does each either “good” or “excellent”:
Celebration of the Sacraments 95%
Masses and liturgies 91
Efforts to educate parishioners in the faith 88
Promoting important Church teachings and causes (e.g., protecting life, helping the needy)
88
Encouragement of parishioners to share their time, talent, and treasure
86
Sense of community 85
Hospitality and sense of welcoming to all 84
Vision provided by parish leaders 81
Spreading the Gospel and evangelizing 69
The area where respondents were least likely to provide a “good” or “excellent” or
evaluation is in their parish’s effort to spread the Gospel and evangelize.
Leaders in multi-parish ministry parishes (i.e., those formally sharing ministers and/or
ministries) were especially likely to provide an “excellent” evaluation for their parish’s sense of
community (55 percent). Hispanic/Latino(a) parish leaders were among the most likely to give
their parish only “fair” or “poor” marks for this aspect of parish life (22 percent). At the same
time, leaders in Midwestern (51 percent) and Southern (48 percent) parishes were more likely
than those in the Northeast (37 percent) and West (28 percent) to evaluate the sense of
community in their parish as “excellent.”
5
Others differ on their parish’s sense of hospitality. Only 38 percent of Millennial leaders
and 41 percent of Hispanic leaders provide an “excellent” evaluation for their parish’s hospitality
and sense of welcome. A majority of Millennials (54 percent) say this is “poor” or “fair” (46
percent “fair” and 8 percent “poor”).
Younger leaders—those of the Millennial Generation—are much more positive about a
central aspect of parish life. They are among the most likely to provide an “excellent” evaluation
for their parish’s Masses and liturgies (69 percent).
Others are more pessimistic about sacraments in their parish. Non-Anglo and PLC parish
(i.e., Canon 517.2) leaders are among the least likely to evaluate their parish as “excellent” for
the celebration of sacraments (58 percent and 55 percent, respectively). In PLC parishes, this
may be due to these parishes having a lack of priests in residence.
Turning to more specific aspects of parish life, leaders are most likely to say their parish
is “somewhat” or “very much” successful at managing parish finances, recruiting and retaining
ministers and staff, communicating with parishioners, and educating parishioners in the faith.
What Parishes Are Most Successful At Percentage of parish leaders responding that their parish
has “somewhat” or “very much” success with each aspect:
Managing parish finances 90%
Recruitment and retaining ministers/staff 89
Communicating with parishioners 89
Educating parishioners in the faith 86
Welcoming new parishioners 85
Promoting ministry opportunities 85
Listening to parishioner concerns and input 83
Effectively using committees and councils 79
Providing social activities and programs 77
Providing accessibility for persons with disabilities 77
Ministering to the elderly 76
Ministering to families 75
Ministering to those who are grieving 75
Ministering to those in financial need 66
Collaborating with other parishes 61
Providing cultural, ethnic, or national celebrations 59
Celebrating cultural diversity 56
Providing Mass in preferred languages 56
Ministering to young adults 56
Outreach to inactive Catholics 43
Ministering to recent immigrants 35
6
Leaders are least likely to indicate their parish is at least “somewhat” successful at
celebrating cultural diversity, providing Mass in preferred languages, ministering to young
adults, outreach to inactive Catholics, and ministering to recent immigrants.
Millennial leaders are among the more negative in evaluating some of these aspects. They
are among the least likely to say their parish is at least “somewhat” successful at: communicating
with parishioners (69 percent), welcoming new parishioners (54 percent), listening to parishioner
concerns and input (54 percent), ministering to young adults (40 percent), celebrating cultural
diversity (39 percent), collaborating with other parishes (39 percent), and outreach to inactive
Catholics (25 percent).
Non-Anglo leaders are among the most likely to say their parish is “very much”
successful at celebrating cultural diversity (50 percent), providing cultural, ethnic, or national
celebrations important to parishioners (53 percent), providing Masses in preferred languages (52
percent), and ministering to recent immigrants (21 percent).
There are several sub-group differences in parish evaluations of these aspects related to
parish structure:2
Leaders in parishes that have been consolidated are the least likely to say their parish is
“somewhat” or “very much” successful in recruiting and retaining ministers and staff (50
percent). On the other hand, these leaders are among the most likely to say their parish is
at least “somewhat” successful at ministering to those in financial need (76 percent) and
outreach to inactive Catholics (64 percent).
Those in multi-parish ministry parishes are the most likely to say their parish is
“somewhat” or “very much” successful at welcoming new parishioners (95 percent).
Leaders in PLC parishes are among the least likely to indicate their parish is at least
“somewhat” successful at listening to parishioner concerns and input (77 percent),
effectively using committees or councils (68 percent), ministering to the elderly (63
percent), providing social activities and programs (61 percent), and collaborating with
other parishes (53 percent).
Those in multicultural parishes are among the most likely to say their parish is
“somewhat” or “very much” successful at celebrating cultural diversity (71 percent),
providing cultural, ethnic, or national celebrations (75 percent), and providing Mass in
preferred languages (67 percent).
About half of all leaders agree “very much” that their parish has undergone significant
changes in the last five years. However, most do not see this as a change for the worse with just
13 percent of leaders agreeing “very much” that things were better in their parish five years ago.
2 It is important to note that these are the attitudes of parish leaders in parishes of different structures. These may
or may not reflect the attitudes of parishioners in these different types of parishes. The third phase of this project, which will be summarized in the next report of results, is specific to parishioner attitudes. Preliminary analyses of these data indicate that the perspective from the pews often differs from leadership.
7
Leaders in PLC parishes are most likely to agree “very much” that significant changes
have occurred in their parish (67 percent). Yet only 4 percent of these leaders agree “very much”
that things were better in their parish five years ago.
Half of all respondents agree at least “somewhat” that their parish is multicultural. As one
might expect, this is more common in parishes identified as being multicultural by the study (73
percent). Non-Anglo (74 percent) and Hispanic/Latino(a) (75 percent) leaders are also very
likely to agree at least “somewhat” that their parish is multicultural. More than half of leaders
(55 percent) agree at least “somewhat” that parishioners of different cultures participate in parish
life together. Leaders in multicultural parishes (65 percent) and PLC parishes (67 percent) are
more likely to respond as such.
Parish Restructuring
Leaders in parishes that have experienced reorganization in the last five years (i.e.,
transition to multi-parish ministry or consolidation) were provided with a separate set of
questions specific to these events. Of these leaders, 63 percent had experienced the
reorganization themselves and responded to these questions.
Only 22 percent indicated that their role in ministry changed before or after the transition.
Remarkably, these respondents also reported relative stability in a variety of different aspects of
parish life. As shown in the table below, however, some reported less support from their diocese.
Some also note a decrease in the willingness of parishioners to volunteer and to generally be
involved.
How did the following change after the reorganization?
Decreased Stayed the
same
Increased Not
Applicable Arch/diocesan support for this parish 10% 51% 8% 31%
Willingness of parishioners to volunteer 9 65 17 9
Parishioner involvement 9 60 19 11
Arch/diocesan support for your ministry 8 47 8 37
Your total hours of ministry per week 7 57 21 14
Sense of community among parishioners 6 48 40 6
Your time spent on administrative responsibilities
4
36
36
35
Collaboration of parish leaders and staff 4 50 37 10
Your time spent on your primary ministry 2 58 27 13
Your time spent on planning and coordination 2 47 27 24
Your effectiveness 2 61 28 9
Expectation of parishioners toward your ministry
0
69
19
13
General effectiveness of the parish staff 0 69 19 13
8
Yet, many reported increases in the sense of community among parishioners and
collaboration among parish leaders and staff. More personally, nearly three in ten reported an
increase in their personal effectiveness. However, this may have led to working longer hours for
some who noted increases in time spent on administrative responsibilities, their primary ministry,
and on planning and coordination.
Few indicate they received any specialized training before these reorganizations.
However, those that did tend to consider this to have been useful. In an open-ended question
about best practices they could recommend the second most common recommendation were
related to preparation, of which a common sub-topic was training (the most common topic noted
in responses was about the need for communication).
In considering what was difficult about the reorganization, leaders were most likely to
agree at least “somewhat” that the following have been an issue since reorganization:
unhappiness of parishioners (50 percent), finding enough volunteers (43 percent), and interaction
of parishioners from other parishes (38 percent). A majority, 54 percent agree only “a little” or
“not at all” with the statement that there was little opposition to the changes brought by the
reorganization (just 7 percent agree “very much”).
Use of Technology
More than three in four parish leaders agree “somewhat” or “very much” that their parish
uses new technology and media effectively (36 percent agree “very much” only).
9
Leaders in larger parishes are more likely to indicate this—likely because they may have
more resources to use new technologies and media.
Ninety-four percent indicate their parish has a website and among leaders in parishes that
do, half report that they provide content for the website. This is more common among younger
(77 percent of Millennials) and female (61 percent) parish leaders.
Two-thirds (66 percent) indicate their parish provides them with an email address. This is
less common among non-Anglo parish leaders (52 percent) and those in PLC parishes (37
percent).
Use of new media and social networks for ministry is most common among the youngest
parish leaders. Nearly four in ten Millennials use Facebook (39 percent) and YouTube (39
percent) for ministry in their parish. Three in ten Millennials use blogs (31 percent) and Twitter
(31 percent).
10
Introduction
In 2009, the Emerging Models of Pastoral Leadership project, a Lilly Endowment Inc.
funded collaboration of five Catholic national ministerial organizations, commissioned the
Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University to conduct a
series of three surveys in parishes nationwide. The first of these was a single informant survey
sent to parishes to develop a portrait of parish life in the United States today. This survey was in
the field from March 2010 to December 2010 and included a total of 846 parishes (margin of
sampling error for the survey is ±3.3 percentage points).
The second survey, the focus of this report, includes responses from 532 parish leaders
(e.g., parish staff, finance and pastoral council members, other parish leaders) in 246 of the
parishes from the first survey (margin of sampling error of ±4.2 percentage points). This survey
was in the field from May 2011 to April 2012 (surveys or reminders were not sent to respondents
during Lent or Advent).
Parish leaders include all staff—ministry and non-ministry, paid or volunteer—in the
parish as well as all parish finance council members, pastoral council members, and up to ten
other individuals identified by the pastor or parish life coordinator (a deacon or lay person
entrusted with the pastoral care of a parish under Canon 517.2) “who exhibit leadership in the
parish community.”
These parish leaders were drawn from a subset of parishes completing the first phase
survey as well as in-pew surveys of parishioners for the overall project. Additionally, a random
sample of 930 parish leaders, identified by their pastors and parish life coordinators from the first
phase survey, were also invited to respond. Another 100 pastors and parish life coordinators from
the first survey were asked to distribute surveys to all of their parish finance council members. It
is not possible to calculate a response rate as we cannot be certain of how many finance council
members were given the survey. As an estimate, it is likely that no more than 2,500 parish
leaders in total were invited to take the survey.
All parish leader respondents were given a four-page, 198-question survey. Depending on
their role and the structure of the parish, they could also have been asked to answer questions on
an additional supplement that was inserted into applicable questionnaires. For those in parishes
that have recently gone through reorganization and now operate with shared ministries involving
at least one other parish an additional two-page, 42-question supplement was provided. For those
serving on a parish finance council an additional two-page, 45-question supplement was
provided. Parish business managers were asked to complete an additional two-page, 61-question
insert. This report includes only analyses of the responses to the core four-page, 198-question
survey and the two-page, 42-question supplement given to those who experienced parish
reorganization in the last five years. Another forthcoming report from the Emerging Models
partners will include analyses of the responses provided for the business and finance council
questionnaire supplements.
11
Background: Leadership in the American Church
Although the numbers of diocesan priests and Catholic parishes in the United States has
declined in the last two decades, the number of other parish leaders has continued to grow along
with the overall Catholic population. The number of U.S. diocesan priests declined by 19 percent
from 1992 to 2010 and the number of parishes dropped by 9 percent (a net difference of -1,751
parishes). As parishes have consolidated and now contain larger communities, on average, parish
staffs have been growing in the United States as well. The number of professionally trained lay
ecclesial ministers (LEM) increased by 76 percent between 1992 and 2010 and the number of
permanent deacons serving the Church expanded by 62 percent.3
In a previous Emerging Models project report, The Changing Face of U.S. Catholic
Parishes (July 2011), CARA researchers described the growth in parish communities and staffs.
How leaders of parish communities evaluate parish life and how they came to be parish leaders is
described in this report.
In the survey results presented here, we have cast a broad net, moving beyond clergy and
lay ecclesial ministers, to all of those actively involved in ministry, service, and leadership in the
parish community.
3 Some of these individuals may not be currently or primarily serving in parish ministry. Lay ecclesial ministers
include religious brothers and sisters as well as other lay persons with professional training working or volunteering at least 20 hours a week in a parish primarily in pastoral ministry.
12
Although there are nearly 97 million people in the United States who have been baptized
Catholic and nearly 75 million who currently self-identify their religious affiliation as Catholic,
far fewer are very active in the life and community of a parish or serve in a parish leadership
role.4 Based on CARA’s regular national surveys of adult Catholics fewer than 18 million
Catholics attend Mass on a weekly basis (i.e., at least once a week, every week). Significantly
fewer, about 3 million report that they are “very” involved in their parish beyond attending Mass.
A little more than 50,000 are involved in pastoral ministry in their parish.
The survey results presented in this report include responses from Catholics who are not
in ministry, but who are very active in their parish, as selected by their pastor or parish life
coordinator (i.e., PLC; a person entrusted with the pastoral care of the parish who is a deacon or
lay person under Canon 517.2). Responses also come from lay persons and vowed religious who
are professionally trained pastoral ministers (i.e., lay ecclesial ministers). The survey also
includes clergy, both priests and deacons. All types of parish staff members were surveyed—
from the person responsible for parish new media, to council members, to the person helping to
maintain the parish physical plant. We have included the voices of all of those people who keep
the parish a vibrant community. These are the American Catholic Church’s parish leaders. 4 Data, sources, and discussion are available in “A Micro-scoping View of U.S. Catholic Populations”
http://nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com/2012/05/microscoping-view-of-us-catholic.html
13
Parish Sub-group Definitions
In addition to the results for all respondents in all parishes, this report features results for
four other sub-groups by parish structure and parishioner demographics. These sub-groups
include multicultural parishes, parishes that are involved in multi-parish ministry, parishes that
have recently undergone consolidation, and PLC parishes.
Multicultural Parishes
Multicultural parishes are defined here as meeting at least one of three criteria: 1)
regularly celebrating Mass in a language other than English (or Latin); 2) the percentage of
parishioners who are non-Hispanic white is less than 40 percent; and/or 3) the diversity index is
33 percent or higher.5 In many cases, the parishes identified as multicultural met more than one
of these criteria. Forty-seven percent of parish leaders surveyed are in multicultural parishes.
Thirty-eight percent of parishes nationally are multicultural. These parishes tend to be larger than
other parishes and have more staff members. Thus, parish leaders from multicultural parishes are
not over-represented in this survey. Note that this multicultural designation refers to the parish
community and is not a reflection of the racial and ethnic diversity of staff members.
PLC Parishes
Parishes were asked to indicate how their parish is administered and one of the options
was that the pastoral care of the parish is entrusted to a parish life coordinator (parish life
director, pastoral coordinator, etc.) appointed by the bishop or his delegate according to Canon
517.2. Respondents who indicated this are defined as PLC parishes. Six percent of parish leaders
surveyed are in PLC parishes. Three percent of parishes nationally are PLC parishes.6 These
parishes tend to be among the smallest and have the fewest staff members. The project has
intentionally over-sampled this group to provide the most representative portrait possible.
Consolidated Parishes
Parishes recently experiencing consolidation indicated that one or more of the following
had happened since January 1, 2005: 1) the parish was created (erected) as the result of a merger
with at least one other parish; or 2) parish membership or territory was affected by the closing or
suppression of a parish. Five percent of parish leaders surveyed are in consolidated parishes.
Seven percent of parishes nationally are consolidated. The project has attempted to intentionally
over-sample this group. However, this type of parish has been the most reluctant to participate.
Multi-parish Ministry
Parishes experiencing multi-parish ministry (MPM) indicated that the parish is clustered,
linked, yoked, twinned, paired, or are sister parishes with at least one other parish. Twenty-one
percent of parish leaders surveyed are in multi-parish ministry parishes. Twenty-seven percent of
5 The diversity index measures the probability that two randomly selected parishioners would be of a different race
or ethnicity. 6 As of 2012, there were 459 PLC parishes nationwide (Source: CARA’s Official Catholic Directory Databases). Most
often these are entrusted to permanent deacons (142). However, many are also entrusted to religious sisters (127) and other lay persons (131). A total of 28 are entrusted to religious brothers and 31 are entrusted to a team of individuals.
14
parishes nationally utilize multi-parish ministry. Similar to PLC parishes, multi-parish ministry
parishes have among the smallest numbers of parishioners and staff sizes.
Within parishes that have been reorganized—those using multi-parish ministry or those
that have been consolidated—more than half report a reorganization that occurred prior to 2000.7
Most of these reorganizations (90 percent) involve just two parishes.
Although some leaders are involved in ministry in multiple parishes, the survey asked the
respondents to evaluate the specific parish that was originally sampled in the first phase of the
Emerging Models project only.
7 While this may not seem to fit many reports of more recent reorganizations in the news, recall that 2000 to 2012
encompasses 13 years, whereas any year prior to 2000 obviously represents a much larger number of years and thus, a majority of changes accumulated over a longer history.
15
Characteristics of Responding Parish Leaders
This section of the report provides the demographics and background characteristics of
responding parish leaders.
Age and Generation
The ages of respondents range from 22 to 92 in 2012. The average and median ages are
59.8 Parish leaders tend to be older than Catholic adults overall. The median age of Catholic
adults in CARA’s most recent national poll in 2011 was 47.
For purposes of analysis, CARA categorizes Catholic survey respondents into four
generations, as shown in the figure above, based on life experiences especially relevant to
Catholics:
The “Pre-Vatican II Generation,” ages 70 and over in 2012. The Pre-Vatican II
Generation was born in 1942 or earlier. Its members came of age before the Second
Vatican Council. Members of the Pre-Vatican II Generation make up 20 percent of
respondents to the survey.
The “Vatican II Generation,” ages 52-69 in 2012. These are the “baby boomers” who
were born between 1943 and 1960, a time of great demographic and economic growth.
They came of age during the time of the Second Vatican Council and their formative
8 For the median, this means that half of respondents are 59 or under, and half are 59 or over
16
years likely spanned that time of profound changes in the Church. Vatican II Generation
parishioners make up 54 percent of respondents.
The “Post-Vatican II Generation,” ages 31-51 in 2012. Born between 1961 and 1981,
this generation, sometimes called “Generation X” or “baby busters” by demographers,
has no lived experience of the pre-Vatican II Church. Twenty-three percent of
respondents are members of the Post-Vatican II Generation.
The “Millennial Generation,” ages 18-30 in 2012. This generation, born in 1982 or later
(up to 1994 among adults), have come of age primarily under the papacies of John Paul II
and Benedict XVI. Because some still live with their parents, their religious practice is
often closely related to that of their families of origin. Three percent of respondents
belong to the Millennial Generation.
Ecclesial Status
Eighty-five percent of respondents are lay men or women, with lay females making up a
majority of all respondents (54 percent).9 Eight percent of respondents are deacons, 4 percent are
priests (i.e., diocesan and religious combined), 3 percent religious sisters, and less than 1 percent
are religious brothers.10
9 For purposes of discussion in this report, lay men and lay women do not include men and women religious.
10 Note: in 2011 there was approximately one active diocesan priest per parish in the United States.
17
Marital Status
Among deacons and lay persons, about eight in ten (79 percent) are married. One in ten
has never married. Five percent are widowed. Six percent report their marital status as separated
or divorced. Compared to CARA’s most recent national survey, deacon and lay parish leaders
are much more likely than the adult Catholics in general to be married (79 percent compared to
56 percent).
Ninety-two percent of those respondents who are married report that their spouse is
Catholic. Sixty-three percent of married parish leaders indicate that their spouse is employed.
18
Immigrant Status
Only six percent of parish leaders indicate that they were born outside of the United
States. About one in ten indicate that their father immigrated to the United States. A similar
number indicated this for their mother. Nearly four in ten (38 percent) have at least one
grandparent born outside of the United States.
19
Languages Used in Ministry
Nearly all parish leaders (98 percent) report that they use English in their ministry. About
one in ten (9 percent) use Spanish. One percent indicates use of Latin. Two percent report some
other language such as French, Creole, Italian, Tagalog, Polish, Czech, German, or Portuguese.11
11
Note: this question is specific to the language used in ministry. Respondents were not asked about languages used at home or fluency in any particular language.
20
Race and Ethnicity
Most parish leaders self-identify their race and/or ethnicity as non-Hispanic White.12
The
figure below also shows that the estimates provided by pastors and parish life coordinators for
their staffs in the first survey for this study were fairly accurate. The parish leader responses are
all within the margin of error, indicating that the sample of parish leaders is representative.
At the same time, the race and ethnicity of parish leaders is dissimilar from the Catholic
population in general, where only 60 percent self-identify as non-Hispanic white. Part of this
disparity is generational and reflects the racial and ethnic composition of Vatican II and Pre-
Vatican II generations of Catholics who represent three in four parish leaders.
As the figure on the next page shows, the racial and ethnic diversity of parish leaders
increases within more racially and ethnically diverse parishes (as measured by parishioner race
and ethnicity). Leaders at parishes identified as multicultural in the study are 81 percent non-
Hispanic white, 12 percent Hispanic or Latino(a), 4 percent Asian or Pacific Islander, 3 percent
Black, African American, African, or Afro-Caribbean, and 1 percent Native American, American
Indian, or Native Alaskan.
12
There are too few respondents self-identifying as Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, African American, African, or Afro-Caribbean; or Native American, American Indian, or Native Alaskan to breakout results for each of these groups. This report only shows sub-group differences by Anglo (non-Hispanic White) and non-Anglo (all other respondents) as well as for Hispanics/Latino(a)s specifically.
21
All respondents were also asked, “Is there a national origin, ethnicity, ancestry, tribe, or
other group with which you identify yourself?” Twelve percent of respondents provided a
response to this question. Three in four (76 percent) who did so indicated a group that relates to
European ancestry or origin (the most common of these were Irish and German). One in ten
noted a group associated with Latin American ancestry or origin and 8 percent indicated a group
associated with Asian ancestry or origin. Three percent identified a Native American tribe.
22
Catholic Schooling
More than six in ten parish leaders (62 percent) attended Catholic primary school at some
point. More than four in ten (46 percent) attended a Catholic high school. Forty percent attended
a Catholic college, university, or seminary.
Parish leaders are significantly more likely to have attended Catholic educational
institutions than the adult Catholics in general. Forty-seven percent of adult Catholics in CARA’s
most recent national poll indicated they attended a Catholic elementary school. One in five
attended a Catholic high school (21 percent) and 7 percent attended a Catholic college or
university.13
As the figure on the next page shows, young parish leaders, those of the Post-Vatican II
and Millennial generations, are much less likely than older parish leaders to say they attended a
Catholic primary or secondary school. However, there are similar levels of attendance in
Catholic colleges, universities, and seminaries. This may reflect the professional training and
development these institutions provide for the preparation of ministry.
13
Note: this question did not include “seminary” in its phrasing.
23
Eighty-six percent of parish leaders indicated that they were raised Catholic. Thirteen
percent joined the Catholic faith as an adult. Among the U.S. adult Catholic population overall in
CARA’s most recent national survey, 91 percent indicate that they entered the faith as an infant
or child.
24
Highest Level of Education
More than a third of parish leaders (35 percent) have earned a graduate or professional
degree.14
Overall, nine in ten (90 percent) have attended college at some point in their life.
Anglo parish leaders, those of European descent, are more likely than non-Anglo
respondents to indicate they have earned a graduate or professional degree (36 percent compared
to 27 percent). Male parish leaders are also more likely than female respondents to indicate this
(41 percent compared to 30 percent).
14
Response categories for this question have been edited in the figure for readability. The full language is available in the appendix including longer descriptions for each option.
25
Ministry Formation
A majority of respondents, 55 percent, indicate that they are primarily involved in
pastoral ministry and 45 percent serve parish(es) in some other capacity (e.g., non-ministry staff,
council members, parishioner volunteers).15
Among pastoral ministers, six in ten (60 percent)
have participated in a diocesan ministry formation program and a third (33 percent) indicate
being in a ministry formation certification program that is not affiliated with a diocese, college,
seminary, or extension program. Those not involved in pastoral ministry are less likely to have
participated in any ministry formation program. However, a third of these respondents (33
percent) do report participation in a diocesan program at some point.
As the figure on the next page shows, younger parish leaders—especially those of the
Millennial Generation—are more likely than older leaders to indicate participation in a diocesan
program, or one that is affiliated with a college or university or seminar or school of theology.
This may be related to the periods in which these programs were available, used, and/or required
to begin or advance in ministry. The high enrollment in college or university programs among
Millennnials may also reflect their relatively strong likelihood of attending a Catholic college or
university.16
15
Pastoral ministry broadly includes those who spend a majority of time on ministry to groups of parishioners, religious education, Masses and liturgy, music, etc. It excludes those involved exclusively in administration, maintenance, finances, councils, etc. 16
It is possible that some of the Millennial respondents may view their degree program at a Catholic college as a “ministry formation program” (i.e., something that prepared them for ministry)—even when this was not really a ministry formation program.
26
Two-thirds of lay ecclesial minsters (66 percent) have participated in a ministry
formation program sponsored by a diocese and 47 percent have participated in a program
sponsored by a college or university. More than a quarter have participated in programs
sponsored by an extension program (29 percent) or a seminary or school of theology (27
percent).
27
Degrees and Certificates in Ministry, Religion, and/or Theology
Among parish leaders involved in pastoral ministry, three in ten (30 percent) either have
completed or are in the progress of completing a ministry formation program that will lead to a
certificate. This is the case for 37 percent of lay ecclesial ministers more specifically. More than
a quarter of leaders (26 percent) has or is in the progress of earning a master’s degree in ministry,
religion and/or theology (34 percent of lay ecclesial ministers have or are in the process of
completing this). One in ten leaders has or is obtaining a bachelor’s degree in these fields and 2
percent is doing so at the doctorate level. Three percent has or is obtaining an associate’s degree
in ministry, religion and/or theology.
Additionally, 10 percent of those not involved in pastoral ministry (not shown in the
figure above) has or is in the process of completing a ministry formation program that will lead
to a certificate. Five percent in this group has or is in the progress of earning a master’s degree in
ministry, religion and/or theology.
Among all parish leader respondents—regardless of pastoral ministry status—non-Anglo
respondents are more likely than Anglos to say they have or are in the process of completing a
ministry formation program that will lead to a certificate (30 percent compared to 20 percent).
Anglo respondents are more likely than non-Anglo respondents to say they have or are in the
process of completing some sort of a degree in ministry, religion and/or theology.
28
Financial Assistance for Education and Formation
More than a quarter of all parish leaders (26 percent) indicated that their parish has
provided them with some financial assistance needed to pay for a formation program or
education to prepare them for ministry or service. One in ten indicates arch/diocesan funding for
this and 5 percent note assistance from a college or university.
One in 20 respondents (5 percent) indicated some “other” type of assistance being
provided that was not listed. These included institutions like the Knights of Columbus or the
Connelly Foundation. Other sources included family and private donations.
Lay ecclesial ministers are more likely than others to report assistance from a parish (46
percent compared to 20 percent) or a college or university (16 percent compared to 2 percent).
Non-Anglo respondents are more likely than Anglo parish leaders to report financial
assistance from a parish (37 percent compared to 25 percent).
Male respondents are more likely than female respondents to indicate receiving
assistance from an arch/diocese (15 percent compared to 7 percent).
29
Ministry Salary and Wages
The table below summarizes the ministry salary and wages for respondents who indicated
receiving these.17
This includes 51 percent of all parish leader respondents.18
The median annual
ministry salary or wages for respondents is $31,000.19
This is consistent with median annual
personal income levels in the United States at the time of the survey. A quarter of parish leaders
reports earning $18,000 or less annually. Another quarter earns $44,000 or more. The top annual
ministry income for any respondent was $90,000.
Your current total annual salary or wages received for ministry or service in your parish.
Minimum $500
25th Percentile $18,000
Median $31,000
Mean $31,725
75th Percentile $43,800
Maximum $90,000
Paid parish leaders in multicultural parishes ($33,250) and consolidated parish ($31,896)
report median ministry incomes above the median for leaders in all parishes. By comparison,
respondents from multi-parish ministry parishes ($20,000) and those parishes entrusted to a PLC
($18,364) report median annual ministry incomes below the overall median for leaders in all
parishes.20
There are no differences in annual ministry income related to having or not having a
ministry formation program certificate. However, respondents with a college degree in ministry,
religion, or theology do report higher incomes than the overall median. The median annual
ministry income for those with an associate’s or bachelor’s degree in these areas is $35,000. For
those with a master’s degree, this rises to $39,000 and is $40,000 for those with a doctorate in
ministry, religion, or theology.
17
Table excludes any respondent who indicated receiving less than $100 annually. Volunteers were instructed to respond $0 to this question (also excluded from the table). A comprehensive report on differences in salary by ministry position and region for this project is available in the National Association of Church Personnel Administrators (NACPA) report, Pay & Benefits Survey of Catholic Parishes, 2011 Edition. 18
Recall that a significant number of respondents are volunteers, council members, or simply very active parishioners in a leadership role in the parish community. 19
Median personal income in the United States at the time was $32,184 for men and $20,957 for women. See: Median Income of People With Income in Constant (2009) Dollars by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0701.pdf 20
Differences in income are, in part, related to regional differences in pay levels generally correlated with the areas of country where PLC and MPM parishes are most common. It is also the case that there are significant differences in budget and staff sizes between parishes of different structures. See: The Emerging Models of Pastoral Leadership’s report. The Changing Face of U.S. Catholic Parishes, July 2011 http://emergingmodels.org/files/2012/04/Changing-Face-of-US-Catholic-Parishes.pdf
30
Unlike wages and income in the United States more generally, there is only a minor
gender difference among paid parish leaders (i.e. not statistically significant) with men reporting
a median of $32,000 in annual ministry wages and salary and women reporting $31,000.
Anglo respondents are more likely than non-Anglo respondents to report that they receive
a wage for their ministry or service to their parish (52 percent compared to 43 percent). Paid non-
Anglo parish leaders also have a lower annual median ministry income than their Anglo paid
counterparts ($21,000 compared to $32,000).
Parish leaders of the Pre-Vatican II Generation are the least likely to receive a wage for
their ministry or service to their parish (30 percent).
Satisfaction with Ministry Salary, Wages, and Benefits
Most parish leaders express at least some satisfaction with the wages, salary, or benefits
provided to them. However, these benefits are typically received by less than half of parish
leaders.21
Nearly four in ten (38 percent) are provided health insurance through their parish and
85 percent of those who do receive these benefits are “somewhat” or “very” satisfied with them.
Paid sick days and vacation days also garner high levels of satisfaction among those who receive
them.
For each type of compensation or benefit for your ministry listed below, how satisfied are you?
Of those provided with the benefit:
Benefit provided
"Somewhat" or "Very" satisfied
"Very" satisfied only
Wages and salary 51% 84% 44%
Retirement or pension 47 74 43
Life insurance 35 78 44
Health insurance 38 85 55
Dental insurance 36 76 50
Paid sick days 45 93 75
Paid vacation days 47 93 74
Education tuition assistance 31 62 42
Although paid parish leaders are generally satisfied with their wages or salary, only 44
percent indicate that they are “very” satisfied with their ministry pay.
21
Note: Even among those who have a benefit available to them, some may not be using these. For example, 31 percent of parish leaders report that education tuition assistance is available to them. Yet, only 26 percent of respondents indicated that they have used financial assistance for education or formation provided by a parish.
31
Employment Outside of the Parish
Fewer than one in five (18 percent) of those paid by their parish for their ministry or
service have another non-ministry job outside of the parish. Among those not paid by their
parish, a majority (51 percent) have a job outside of the parish.
Of those reporting employment outside the parish, nine in ten (89 percent) indicate that
this is a paid position. Of those being paid for parish ministry and working outside of the parish
as well, a quarter (25 percent) indicate this other job is full-time. Two thirds of those
volunteering (67 percent) for their parish indicate that their other job is full-time.
32
Household Income
More than a third of parish leaders in a paid position (36 percent) within their parish
reside in households with a combined annual income of less than $55,000.22
Only a quarter of
volunteer parish leaders (25 percent) are in households with this level of household income.
More volunteer parish leaders (36 percent) are in households earning more than $100,000 per
year.
Forty-five percent of Hispanic or Latino(a) parish leaders reside in households with a
combined annual income of less than $55,000.23
A majority of Pre-Vatican II Generation parish
leaders reside in households with less than $55,000 in annual income.
22
Median household income for the United States at the time of the survey was $49,777. See: Median Income of Households—Percent Distribution by Income Level, Race, and Hispanic Origin in Constant (2009) Dollars: 1990 to 2009. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0690.pdf 23
Median household income for Hispanics in the United States at the time of the survey was $38,039. Ibid.
33
Time Spent on Ministry and Service
Some parish leaders report infrequent or seasonal service to their parish (e.g., finance
council members, volunteers for Lent and Advent) whereas others indicate providing ministry
for well over 40 hours per week. On average, all parish leaders report 23.2 hours of ministry or
service to their parish per week. Among those reporting that they are paid by the parish, the
number of paid hours of ministry or service averages 19.7 per week. Lay ecclesial ministers
report an average of 40.6 hours of ministry and/or service to their parish per week (34.3 hours
that are paid).
34
Ministry and Service to More than One Parish
Sixteen percent of parish leaders indicate that they provide ministry or service to more
than one parish.
Seven in ten of those parish leaders serving multiple parishes indicate that they serve a
total of two parishes. Another one in five (22 percent) serve in three parishes. Eight percent serve
in four or more parishes.24
Among the most common types of individuals providing ministry or
service to multiple parishes are musicians.
Of those working in other parishes, the average number of hours they serve in these
settings is 10.9 hours per week (8.8 hours per week that are paid). The number of paid hours
provided to another parish is greatest, on average, among those in parishes officially involved in
multi-parish ministry (15.4 hours per week).
24
Note: Serving multiple parishes is not equivalent to being in a parish involved in the formal sharing arrangement of multi-parish ministry (e.g., clustering, twinning, or paring). Many are doing so informally—perhaps without the awareness of the multiple parishes involved.
35
Feeling Overworked
Fewer than one in five parish leaders (17 percent) agree “very much” that they often feel
overworked in their parish ministry or service. Lay ecclesial ministers are more likely to indicate
this (24 percent0 as are all leaders who are paid (26 percent; not shown in figure below).
As the figure on the next page shows, some of the biggest differences in the responses to
these questions are generational. The youngest generation of parish leaders, the Millennials, is
most likely to agree “very much” that they often feel overworked in their parish ministry or
service. This feeling diminishes among older parish leaders. By comparison, only 8 percent of
Pre-Vatican II Generation parish leaders report feeling overworked in their ministry or service to
their parish.
36
Respondents were asked to evaluate how much time they had for a variety of ministry
related and non-ministry related activities in their life. The results for this question are shown on
the next page.
More than half of parish leaders (54 percent) agree “very much” that they have sufficient
time for their ministry and service to the parish. Fewer agree they have sufficient time for family
responsibilities (47 percent), personal prayer and spiritual reflection (42 percent), or time with
friends or guests (29 percent). Respondents are least likely to agree “very much” that they have
sufficient time for continuing education and professional development (24 percent), and hobbies
or special interests (23 percent).
As shown in the figure on the next page, lay ecclesial ministers and leaders being paid for
their ministry or service are generally less likely to than others to agree they have sufficient time
for the aspects listed.
37
As the figure on the next page indicates, there are not many differences in responses for
these questions by parish structure. Leaders in PLC parishes are a bit less likely than others to
agree “very much” that they have sufficient time for friends, guests, hobbies, or special interests.
Leaders in multi-parish ministry settings are less likely than others to agree “very much” that
they have sufficient time for continuing education and professional development.
38
39
Written Job Description
Seven in ten parish leaders have a written job description for their position within their
parish.
Respondents in parishes that are utilizing multi-parish ministry are among the least likely
to indicate they have a written job description (54 percent). Those who are paid for their ministry
or service are most likely to report they have a written job description (86 percent).
Non-Anglo parish leaders are less likely than Anglos to report that they have a written
job description (63 percent compared to 72 percent).
Female parish leaders are more likely than male parish leaders to indicate they have a
written job description (76 percent compared to 64 percent).
40
Ministry Focus
Nearly a quarter of parish leaders (24 percent) indicate that they spend more than 60
percent of their time on general parish administration duties. One in five (20 percent) spend this
amount of time on budget and finances.25
Twelve percent spend this amount of time on liturgy or
music. One in ten or more spend a majority of their time on religious education for youth (11
percent), evangelization (11 percent), sacramental preparation or RCIA (10 percent), or
stewardship or development (10 percent).
On average, how much of your time in ministry or service to this parish per month is spent on the following?
Percentage responding more than 60 percent:
General parish administration 24%
Budget and finances 20
Liturgy and/or music ministry 12
Religious education for youth 11
Evangelization 11
Sacramental preparation/RCIA 10
Stewardship and development 10
Parish council duties/meetings 8
Adult faith formation 6
Youth ministry 5
Ministry to the sick, people with disabilities, or the homebound 5
Ministry to the bereaved 5
Ministry to the elderly/seniors 5
Services to those in financial need 4
Ethnic/cultural ministries (e.g., celebrations, community, outreach) 2
Public affairs/advocacy 2
Young adult ministry 1
Ministry to the separated or divorced 1
Other 10
Millennial Generation parish leaders are especially likely to be involved more than 60
percent of their time in sacramental preparation (23 percent), religious education for youth (18
percent), youth ministry (15 percent), and young adult ministry (8 percent).
Female parish leaders are among the most likely to spend more than 60 percent of their
time on liturgy and/or music ministry (16 percent).
Non-Anglo parish leaders are among the most likely to spend more than 60 percent of
their time on evangelization (20 percent), sacramental preparation (19 percent), religious
25
Most often including a combination of administrative staff, business managers, finance council members, and stewardship and development staff.
41
education for youth (19 percent), youth ministry (13 percent), adult faith formation (12 percent),
and young adult ministry (8 percent).
Entry into Ministry
This section of the report identifies the path to ministry and service for parish leaders.
This includes when they felt the call to ministry and how they first began serving the Church.
The Call to Ministry
The average age when parish leaders report they “first felt the call to ministry or parish
service in any setting (parish, school, hospital; paid or volunteer)” is 29. Respondents report
feeling the call to ministry as early as the age of 2 and as late as the age of 70. Half of all
respondents say they felt the call between the ages of 18 and 38. Lay ecclesial ministers report
hearing the call, on average, a few years before other leaders.
Average Age when Respondent “first felt the call to ministry or parish service in any setting (parish, school, hospital; paid or volunteer)”
Individual characteristics Parish characteristics
All
LEM
Anglos
Non-Anglos
MPM
Consolidated
PLC
Multi-cultural
Minimum 2 10 2 10 11 6 10 5
Median 28 22 28 32 31 26 34 28
Average 29 25 29 32 31 29 33 29
Maximum 70 70 70 52 66 70 70 66
One sub-group difference of note is related to age itself. The figure on the next page
shows the variation in ages when respondents felt the call by generation.
42
Among those of the Pre-Vatican II and Vatican II generations, the average age of feeling
the call to ministry is similar to the overall average for all parish leaders. As noted previously,
only 23 percent of parish leaders are of the Post-Vatican and Millennial generations. This is in
part because many in these generations have yet to reach the ages when they are most likely to
feel the call to ministry.
Current Millennial parish leaders have adopted ministry or service a bit before the norm
of previous generations. If the past repeats itself, we can expect many Millennials to feel the call
to ministry in this decade (i.e., the first Millennials turned 29 in 2011).
As shown in the figure on the next page, half of all respondents (50 percent) report that
they “somewhat” or “very much” had a desire to be involved in parish ministry as a youth or
young adult. Lay ecclesial ministers are among the most likely to report this (61 percent).
43
Among parish leaders of the Post-Vatican II and Millennial generations this youthful
desire to be involved in parish ministry is strongest (65 percent and 92 percent, respectively).
Women are also slightly more likely than men to report this (53 percent compared to 47
percent). Lay ecclesial ministers are the most likely to report a youthful desire for ministry (61
percent).
44
Time between Call and Beginning Ministry or Service
Most parish leaders, 76 percent, indicate that they began their ministry or service to the
Church in any setting in the same year they felt the call to do so. However, others indicate a
longer lag period—likely when they sought out training or formation or when they were seeking
a position. On average, the time between feeling the call and beginning ministry or service is 1.2
years. Lay ecclesial ministers are slightly more likely to indicate a period of time between feeling
the call and beginning their ministry.
Parish leaders who are currently paid (1.5 years; not shown in figure above) report
slightly longer lag times than average between the call and beginning their ministry or service.
Those currently in ministry in PLC parishes report, on average, the longest average lag times (1.7
years). With so many respondents reporting no lag times, there are no other statistically
significant differences of note.
45
Time between Call and Beginning
Ministry or Service at Current Parish
On average, 16 percent of parish leaders began their ministry or service at their current
parish in the same year they first felt the call to ministry. For all respondents, on average, it took
16 years since first feeling the call to ministry to begin ministry or service in their current parish
(the median number of years is 13).
Average Years between Feeling the Call to Ministry and Beginning Ministry or Service in Their Current Parish
Individual characteristics Parish characteristics
All
LEM
Anglos
Non-Anglos
MPM
Consolidated
PLC
Multi-cultural
Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Median 13 14 14 7 11 18 12 13
Average 16 17 17 11 15 21 18 16
Maximum 71 57 71 57 47 56 57 57
The median number of years between feeling the call to ministry and beginning to serve
in their current parish is higher among Anglo parish leaders than their non-Anglo counterparts
(14 years compared to 7 years).26
Those who are paid for their ministry or service (not shown in table above) to their parish
report, on average, longer periods of time between first feeling the call to ministry and beginning
to serve in their current parish than those who are not paid (18 years compared to 15 years). Male
parish leaders also report a longer gap than female parish leaders (19 years compared to 15
years).
26
This result is not an effect of age. The average age of Anglo parish leaders is 59 compared to 55 for non-Anglo parish leaders.
46
Within Parish Recruitment
Most parish leaders were parishioners at the parish they currently serve before beginning
ministry or service there. In other words, the primary source from which parish leaders are drawn
is the parish community. There is one important outlier group. Only 52 percent of lay ecclesial
ministers are drawn from within the parish community.
Female parish leaders (not shown in figure above) are more likely than males to report
having been a parishioner at their parish before beginning ministry there (74 percent compared to
66 percent). Parish leaders who are paid for their ministry or service are among the least likely to
have come from within the parish community (56 percent).
47
Initial Recruitment as a Volunteer
Most parish leaders, about two-thirds (67 percent), are recruited as volunteers initially.
Lay ecclesial ministers are less likely other leaders to report this (45 percent compared to 75
percent). Those who are currently paid for their ministry (not shown in figure below) are also
among the least likely to have started as a volunteer (49 percent).
As shown in the figure on the next page, parish leaders of the Post-Vatican II and
Millennial generations are significantly less likely to begin their ministry or service to their
current parish as a volunteer. This may reflect a growing necessity to provide wages or a salary
to be able to recruit young parish leaders. It may also be due to older parish leaders serving their
parish while being retired without a need for additional income.
The lack of volunteerism among younger parish leaders may also reflect the fact that
many in the two oldest Catholic generations may have already been serving as a volunteer in the
parish before the idea of paid lay staff caught on. This was a new concept, Post-Vatican II.
Before that, there may have been a lay woman as the receptionist/secretary/bookkeeper, but also
all pastoral ministry was done by priests and sisters.
48
49
Reasons for Entering Ministry
The most common reason cited by parish leaders (75 percent) for what first led them to enter into ministry in any setting was
“to be of service to the Church (e.g., parish, school).” Respondents were also likely to say they did so in “response to God’s call” (56
percent) and that they “wanted to be more active in parish life” (55 percent). A majority (51 percent) also cited a desire “to enhance
my spiritual life.” Lay ecclesial ministers were most likely to say they entered ministry in response to God’s call (73 percent).
Which of the following first led you to enter Church ministry and/or service in any setting (e.g., parish, school, hospital)? Check all that apply.
Individual characteristics Parish characteristics
All
LEM
Anglos
Non-Anglos
MPM
Consolidated
PLC
Multi-cultural
To be of service to the Church 75% 79% 76% 65% 77% 70% 64% 76%
Response to God’s call 56 73 55 67 49 56 58 58
Wanted to be more active in parish life
55
46
54
62
59
59
55
56
To enhance my spiritual life 51 53 51 57 57 56 52 54
Fit areas of competence, interests, and/or gifts
50
53
52
38
46
59
42
46
Invited by a pastor/PLC 46 41 47 45 47 52 61 43
Attracted to ministry/service in local community
27
37
27
30
22
37
30
26
“Other” 11 13 11 10 13 11 6 11
Wanted to minister to particular group
10
11
9
17
11
15
9
10
Only 39 percent of parish leaders not involved in pastoral ministry (not shown in figure above) report that a response to God’s
call first led them to enter ministry or service to the Church. However, half of these respondents (50 percent) report entering ministry
or service to their Church because they were invited to do so by their pastor or parish life coordinator.
50
Encouragement to Enter Ministry
A majority of parish leaders (53 percent) indicate they were encouraged to enter ministry
or service to the Church by a priest. No other type of individual is reported by a majority to have
provided this type of encouragement.
Did any of the individuals listed below encourage you to begin your service or ministry? Check all that apply.
Individual characteristics Parish characteristics
All
LEM
Anglos
Non-Anglos
MPM
Consolidated
PLC
Multi-cultural
Priest 53% 44% 53% 45% 49% 41% 39% 48%
Parishioner 34 31 35 22 40 30 21 36
Friend 29 37 29 25 22 22 15 28
Spouse 27 18 28 25 26 26 18 28
Other family member
18
26
17
22
13
26
18
17
Religious brother/sister
18
32
18
15
22
11
24
16
LEM 14 19 14 15 10 7 15 15
Teacher/Prof. 11 21 11 7 7 15 9 10
Deacon 6 3 7 5 1 7 0 5
Lay ecclesial ministers are the most likely to indicate they were encouraged by a friend
(37 percent), a religious brother or sister (32 percent), or a teacher or professor (21 percent).
Anglo parish leaders are more likely than non-Anglos to report being encouraged by a priest (53
percent compared to 45 percent) or a fellow parishioner (35 percent compared to 22 percent).
Among other sub-group differences (not shown in the table above), those who are paid
for their parish ministry are more likely than volunteers to report encouragement from a priest
(58 percent compared to 47 percent) or by a religious brother or sister (23 percent compared to
12 percent). Volunteers are more likely than those paid to report encouragement from a fellow
parishioner (39 percent compared to 29 percent).
Millennial Generation parish leaders are among the least likely to say they were
encouraged to begin their service or ministry by a priest (39 percent). Only those working in a
Canon 517.2 parish are similarly unlikely to report this (39 percent). By comparison, Millennials
are among the most likely to say they were encouraged by a religious brother or sister (31
percent), friends (54 percent), or a teacher or professor (46 percent).
Female parish leaders are less likely than male parish leaders to report receiving
encouragement from a priest (45 percent compared to 64 percent).
51
Inspiration from Church Movements
About one in four parish leaders (27 percent) say they were inspired to be in ministry by
a movement or program within the Church. This is most likely among non-Anglo parish leaders
(32 percent) and those in ministry within multicultural parishes (32 percent). Specifically,
Hispanic parish leaders (not shown in figure below) are most likely to report this inspiration (36
percent).
Other sub-groups (not shown in figure above) that are most likely to be inspired by a
movement or program within the Church include men (31 percent) and Millennials (33 percent).
Respondents were asked what types of programs or groups inspired them. The most
common types reported include RCIA, Cursillo, Knights of Columbus, RENEW, and Teens
Encounter Christ.
52
Ministry as a Vocation
Three in four parish leaders (75 percent) say they agree “very much” that they consider
their ministry or service to their parish to be a calling or vocation, not just a job. This belief is
most strongly held by lay ecclesial ministers (89 percent).
Those who are paid for their ministry (not shown in figure above) are also among the
most likely to consider their ministry or service a calling or vocation (84 percent). This belief is
also common among Millennial Generation parish leaders (83 percent).
53
Evaluations of Parish and Ministry
This section of the report includes results related to parish leader’s evaluations of their
parish and ministry.
Overall Satisfaction with Their Parish
Among all parish leaders, half evaluate their overall satisfaction with their parish as
“excellent.” Another 41 percent evaluate this as “good.” Thus, more than nine in ten provide
either a “good” or “excellent” evaluation. Just 7 percent indicate only “fair” satisfaction and only
1 percent provide a “poor” evaluation.27
The evaluations of lay ecclesial ministers are similar to the overall ratings provided by all
respondents. However, there are differences among parish leaders by race and ethnicity with
non-Anglos being more likely to provide only a “good” evaluation (48 percent) and more
indicating only “fair” (13 percent) or “poor” (4 percent) satisfaction. Most responding non-Anglo
27
In CARA’s in-pew surveys with parishioners in 842 parishes conducted in the last decade (including 39,314 respondents), on average, 47 percent give an “excellent” evaluation to their parish overall (89 percent with “good” and “excellent” responses combined).
54
parish leaders self-identify as Hispanic or Latino(a) and the evaluations of this group specifically
are similar to all non-Anglos.
Among the different types of parish structure, there are similarities in evaluations among
parish leaders in all parishes, multicultural parishes, and multi-parish ministry parishes.
However, parish leaders in consolidated parishes are among the most positive with seven in ten
providing an “excellent” evaluation for their parish. More parish leaders in PLC parishes
provided a “fair” evaluation, 16 percent, than those in any other group.
As shown in the table below, among other sub-groups defined by gender, age, paid status,
and ecclesial status, nine in ten or more of each group give their parish a “good” or “excellent”
rating for overall satisfaction. However, there are some differences when looking at those who
gave “excellent” ratings only. Typically, about half in each group were this positive. The
exceptions are among Millennials where only 15 percent responded as such and among religious
priests in parish ministry where two-thirds provided the “excellent” response.28
Your overall satisfaction with the parish "Good" or "Excellent"
combined "Excellent"
only “Poor” or “Fair”
combined Gender
Male 91% 49% 9%
Female 92 51 8
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 90 46 10
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 91 50 9
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 91 57 9
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 100 15 0
Volunteer/Paid
Not paid 91 54 9
Paid 92 46 8
Ecclesial Status
Diocesan priest 94 47 6
Religious priest 100 67 0
Permanent deacon 95 52 5
Religious sister 100 53 0
Religious brother 100 50 0
Lay woman 91 51 9
Lay man 89 48 11
As the figure on the next page shows, leaders in the smallest parishes, those with 200 or
fewer registered households, have lower satisfaction with their parishes overall. Sixteen percent
28
Although relatively few Millennials provide an “excellent” evaluation, among all those who did not, all provided a “good” evaluation.
55
of leaders in these parishes say their overall satisfaction is only “fair” and 3 percent responded
“poor.”
After asking about overall satisfaction, the survey asked for other evaluations of specific
aspects of parish life and ministry. In the tables that follow, the results for all respondents and
sub-groups of respondents are shown. In each table the positive responses, the combined “good”
and “excellent” and the most positive responses for “excellent” only, and finally the least
positive responses in the combined “poor” and “fair” responses are shown.
56
Recent Changes in Parish
About half of all parish leaders (47 percent) agree “very much” that their parish has
undergone significant changes in the past five years. Only 13 percent agree “very much” that
things were better in their parish five years ago.
Leaders in parishes entrusted to PLCs and those involved in a consolidation are most
likely to agree “very much” that significant changes have occurred in their parishes in the last
five years (67 percent and 59 percent, respectively). Parish leaders in multi-parish ministry
settings are less likely to agree “very much” (39 percent) that significant changes have occurred.
57
Sense of Community
Eighty-five percent of parish leaders say the sense of community within their parish is
either “good” or “excellent” (43 percent responded “excellent” only). Only 15 percent of parish
leaders say the sense of community in their parish is either “fair” or “poor.”
Sense of Community "Good" or "Excellent"
combined "Excellent"
only “Poor” or “Fair”
combined All Respondents 85% 43% 15%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 85 38 15
Paid 86 43 15
Volunteer 84 45 16
Parish Structure
Multicultural 82 42 18
MPM 88 55 12
Consolidated 93 48 7
PLC 79 39 21
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 85 43 15
Non-Anglo 81 41 19
Hispanic/Latino(a) 78 41 22
Gender
Male 83 41 17
Female 87 44 13
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 83 36 17
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 84 45 16
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 77 46 23
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 85 44 15
The respondents most likely to evaluate the sense of community in their parish as
“excellent” are those in multi-parish ministry parishes (55 percent) whereas those least likely to
provide this evaluation are older parish leaders of the Pre-Vatican II Generation (36 percent).
Among those responding most negatively to this aspect of parish life by providing a
“poor” or “fair” evaluation are those of the Post-Vatican II Generation (23 percent), those self-
identifying as Hispanic or Latino(a) (22 percent) and those in PLC parishes (21 percent).
There are regional differences in response to this question as well. As the figure on the
next page shows, about half of leaders in the Midwest (51 percent) and South (48 percent)
evaluate the sense of community in their parish as “excellent.” Leaders in the West (28 percent)
and Northeast (37 percent) are less likely to do so.
58
It is the case that many Midwestern parishes are smaller than those in other regions.
However, responses for this question by parish size do not vary significantly.
59
Hospitality and Sense of Welcoming to All
Eighty-four percent of parish leaders evaluate the hospitality and sense of welcoming to
all in their parish is either “good” or “excellent” (46 percent “excellent” only). Sixteen percent
say this is either “poor’ or “fair” in their parish.
Hospitality and Sense of Welcoming to All "Good" or "Excellent"
combined "Excellent"
only “Poor” or “Fair”
combined All Respondents 84% 46% 16%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 83 40 17
Paid 82 43 18
Volunteer 87 49 13
Parish Structure
Multicultural 84 44 16
MPM 88 45 12
Consolidated 85 59 15
PLC 88 45 12
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 85 46 15
Non-Anglo 79 47 21
Hispanic/Latino(a) 75 41 25
Gender
Male 83 46 17
Female 76 47 14
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 81 52 19
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 86 46 14
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 87 42 13
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 46 38 54
Among the most positive about this aspect of their parish are those in consolidated
parishes (59 percent “excellent”) and those of the Pre-Vatican II Generation (52 percent).
At the other extreme, only 38 percent of the youngest Catholics (i.e., those of the
Millennial Generation) and just 41 percent of Hispanic parish leaders say this is “excellent” in
their parish. A majority of Millennials (54 percent) say the hospitality and sense of welcoming to
all is “poor” or “fair” in their parish (46 percent “fair” and 8 percent “poor”).
60
Masses and Liturgies
Nine in ten parish leaders (91 percent) say Masses and liturgies at their parish are either
“good” or “excellent” (55 percent “excellent” only). One in ten (9 percent) indicate these are
either “poor” or “fair.”
Masses and Liturgies "Good" or "Excellent"
combined "Excellent"
only “Poor” or “Fair”
combined All Respondents 91% 55% 9%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 92 47 8
Paid 92 51 8
Volunteer 90 59 10
Parish Structure
Multicultural 92 57 8
MPM 88 58 12
Consolidated 89 59 11
PLC 91 52 9
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 91 55 9
Non-Anglo 90 50 10
Hispanic/Latino(a) 88 50 13
Gender
Male 90 51 10
Female 92 58 8
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 93 56 7
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 90 55 10
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 93 55 7
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 100 69 0
Among sub-groups, Millennial Generation parish leaders are the most positive with 69
percent rating Masses and liturgies as “excellent.”
The respondents least likely to evaluate Masses and liturgies as “excellent” are non-
Anglo parish leaders and those specifically who self-identify as Hispanic or Latino(a) (50
percent). Yet these differences are not statistically significant.
61
Celebration of the Sacraments
Parish leaders are very positive in their evaluations of the celebration of sacraments in
their parishes. Ninety-five percent say these are “excellent” or “good” (67 percent “excellent”
only). Just one in 20 says these are either “fair” or “poor.”
Celebration of the Sacraments "Good" or "Excellent"
combined "Excellent"
only “Poor” or “Fair”
combined All Respondents 95% 67% 5%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 95 65 3
Paid 96 64 4
Volunteer 94 70 6
Parish Structure
Multicultural 95 70 5
MPM 95 64 5
Consolidated 96 63 4
PLC 88 55 12
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 96 67 4
Non-Anglo 91 58 9
Hispanic/Latino(a) 90 61 10
Gender
Male 93 64 7
Female 96 69 4
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 92 67 8
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 96 65 4
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 97 69 3
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 100 69 0
Young parish leaders—those of the Post-Vatican II and Millennial generations—are
among the most positive with nearly seven in ten saying the celebration of sacraments in their
parish is “excellent” (both 69 percent). Volunteers and those in multicultural parishes are
similarly positive (both 70 percent).
Less positive evaluations for sacraments are registered among parish leaders in PLC
parishes (only 55 percent saying these are “excellent). This may be due to these parishes having
no priests in residence. They may find it harder for their parishes to schedule and celebrate
sacraments.
Non-Anglo parish leaders are also more negative than others, with only 58 percent saying
the celebration of sacraments in their parish is “excellent.” However, most of these respondents
say these are still “good.”
62
Vision Provided by Parish Leaders
Eight in ten respondents say the vision provided by parish leaders is either “good” or
“excellent” (38 percent “excellent” only).29
One in five say this is either “poor” or “fair” in their
parish.
Vision Provided by Parish Leaders "Good" or "Excellent"
combined "Excellent"
only “Poor” or “Fair”
combined All Respondents 81% 38% 19%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 77 31 23
Paid 78 36 22
Volunteer 84 41 16
Parish Structure
Multicultural 78 35 22
MPM 88 42 12
Consolidated 81 56 19
PLC 70 30 30
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 82 39 18
Non-Anglo 74 29 26
Hispanic/Latino(a) 81 38 19
Gender
Male 79 39 21
Female 83 38 17
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 82 37 18
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 82 39 18
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 80 38 20
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 69 23 31
Parish leaders in multi-parish ministry parishes are most likely to provide a positive
evaluation of the vision of parish leaders (88 percent “good” or “excellent”). Those in
consolidated parishes are most likely to say this is “excellent” (56 percent). In both of these
situations, parish leaders have had to manage providing ministry to different communities either
worshipping separately or coming together as one parish. Respondents may be evaluating the
ability of their parish leaders to handle this successfully in response to this question.
Among the more negative responses, respondents in PLC parishes (70 percent), those
self-identifying as something other than Non-Hispanic white (74 percent), and those of the
29
Although technically this question asks respondents to evaluate themselves as parish leaders it is more likely that respondents are assuming “parish leaders” include the pastors, PLCs, and the most senior ministry staff.
63
Millennial Generation (69 percent) are least likely to see “good” or “excellent” vision provided
by parish leaders.
Encouragement of Parishioners
Eighty-six percent of parish leaders say their parish does a “good” or “excellent” job at
encouraging parishioners to share their time, talent, and treasure (54 percent “excellent” only).
Fourteen percent say their parish does a “poor” or “fair” job of this.
Encouragement of parishioners to share their time, talent, and treasure "Good" or "Excellent"
combined "Excellent"
only “Poor” or “Fair”
combined All Respondents 86% 54% 14%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 87 51 13
Paid 86 48 14
Volunteer 86 60 14
Parish Structure
Multicultural 82 55 18
MPM 94 65 6
Consolidated 93 56 7
PLC 82 52 18
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 87 55 13
Non-Anglo 78 43 22
Hispanic/Latino(a) 72 41 28
Gender
Male 83 49 17
Female 88 57 12
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 84 54 16
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 86 51 14
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 90 62 10
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 69 38 31
Among the most positive parish leaders are those in multi-parish ministry and
consolidated parishes (94 percent and 93 percent, respectively, responding “good” or
“excellent”). More than six in ten parish leaders of the Post-Vatican II Generation (62 percent)
evaluate their parish as “excellent” on this aspect. Among the more negative groups are those
self-identifying as Hispanic or Latino(a) and those of the Millennial Generation (72 percent and
69 percent, respectively, responding “good” or “excellent”).
64
Efforts to Educate Parishioners in the Faith
Nearly nine in ten parish leaders say their parish does a “good” or “excellent” job in their
efforts to educate parishioners in the faith (46 percent “excellent” only). Twelve percent say this
is either “poor” or “fair” in their parish.
Efforts to educate parishioners in the faith "Good" or "Excellent"
combined "Excellent"
only “Poor” or “Fair”
combined All Respondents 88% 46% 12%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 88 38 12
Paid 90 41 10
Volunteer 85 52 15
Parish Structure
Multicultural 86 53 14
MPM 82 50 18
Consolidated 100 59 0
PLC 85 42 15
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 89 47 11
Non-Anglo 74 38 26
Hispanic/Latino(a) 75 38 25
Gender
Male 85 43 15
Female 90 49 10
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 85 50 15
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 88 42 12
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 92 53 8
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 77 38 23
All parish leaders in consolidated parishes say their parish does a “good” or “excellent”
job in their efforts to educate parishioners in the faith. Majorities of those in multicultural
parishes (53 percent) and those of the Post-Vatican II Generation (53 percent) say their parish
does an “excellent” job of this.
About one in four non-Anglo (26 percent), Hispanic/Latino(a) (25 percent), and
Millennial Generation (23 percent) parish leaders say their parish does a “poor” or “fair” job of
educating parishioners in the faith.
65
Spreading the Gospel and Evangelizing
One area of parish life where respondents were more likely to evaluate something as
“poor” or “fair” is in the ability of their parish to spread the Gospel and evangelize. Still, seven
in ten say this is either “good” or “excellent” in their parish (28 percent “excellent” only).
Spreading the Gospel and Evangelizing "Good" or "Excellent"
combined "Excellent"
only “Poor” or “Fair”
combined All Respondents 69% 28% 31%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 66 21 34
Paid 66 24 34
Volunteer 72 31 28
Parish Structure
Multicultural 71 29 29
MPM 68 24 32
Consolidated 81 37 19
PLC 67 21 33
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 69 27 31
Non-Anglo 68 35 32
Hispanic/Latino(a) 71 35 29
Gender
Male 64 22 36
Female 73 31 27
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 71 35 29
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 67 25 33
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 73 29 27
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 62 23 38
Among the more positive of parish leaders in evaluating spreading the Gospel and
evangelizing are those in consolidated parishes (81 percent “good” or “excellent”).
Among the most negative are Millennials of which nearly four in ten (38 percent) say
their parish does only a “fair” job of this (none evaluate this as “poor”).
Female respondents are more likely than male respondents to say their parish does an
“excellent” job of spreading the Gospel and evangelizing (31 percent compared to 22 percent).
66
Promoting Important Church Teachings and Causes
Nearly nine in ten parish leaders (88 percent) say their parish does a “good” or
“excellent” job of promoting Church teachings and causes, such as protecting life or helping the
needy (49 percent “excellent” only).
Promoting important Church teachings/causes (e.g., protecting life, helping the needy) "Good" or "Excellent"
combined "Excellent"
only “Poor” or “Fair”
combined All Respondents 88% 49% 12%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 85 37 15
Paid 86 45 14
Volunteer 91 54 9
Parish Structure
Multicultural 88 52 12
MPM 89 58 11
Consolidated 93 59 7
PLC 88 48 12
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 89 50 11
Non-Anglo 91 50 19
Hispanic/Latino(a) 81 56 19
Gender
Male 89 48 11
Female 88 50 12
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 91 54 9
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 90 49 10
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 85 47 15
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 85 38 15
There are almost no significant variations between sub-groups of respondents in their
evaluations of their parishes on this aspect. However, 38 percent of Millennial parish leaders say
their parish does an “excellent” job of promoting important Church teachings and causes. This is
consistent with a pattern of responses across evaluations with the youngest respondents often
being the least likely to see their parish doing excellent in a variety of aspects of parish life (with
the exception of Masses and celebrations of sacraments).
67
What Parishes Do Best
As shown below, in summary, nine in ten or more parish leaders say their parish does a
“good” or “excellent” job at celebrating sacraments and providing Masses and liturgies. Eight in
ten or more say their parish does this well educating parishioners in the faith, promoting
important Church teachings and causes, encouraging parishioners to give, providing a sense of
community, providing hospitality and a sense of welcoming to all, and having visionary
leadership. About seven in ten say their parish does a “good” or “excellent” job spreading the
Gospel and evangelizing.
What Parishes Do Best Percentage of parish leaders responding that
their parish does each either “good” or “excellent”:
Celebration of the Sacraments 95%
Masses and liturgies 91
Efforts to educate parishioners in the faith 88
Promoting important Church teachings and causes (e.g., protecting life, helping the needy)
88
Encouragement of parishioners to share their time, talent, and treasure
86
Sense of community 85
Hospitality and sense of welcoming to all 84
Vision provided by parish leaders 81
Spreading the Gospel and evangelizing 69
68
Parish Priorities
Parish leaders were asked about what priority should be given to each of the parish aspects they just evaluated. Their
responses, for the most part, indicate that they want their parish to focus on what it already does best. More than eight in ten believe
“very much” priority should be given to the celebration of the sacraments (85 percent) and on Masses and liturgies (84 percent). About
three-quarters or more think the parish should give “very much” priority to efforts to educate parishioners in the faith (79 percent), to
the sense of community in the parish (75 percent), to encouraging parishioners to give (74 percent), and finally to the hospitality and
sense of welcoming to all in the parish (74 percent). Fewer than seven in ten say they believe “very much” priority should be given to
promoting important Church teachings and causes (69 percent), spreading the Gospel and evangelizing (61 percent), and vision
provided by parish leaders (54 percent).
In your opinion, how much priority should this parish give to: Percentage responding “very much” priority
Individual characteristics Parish characteristics
All
LEM
Anglos
Non-Anglos
MPM
Consolidated
PLC
Multi-cultural
Celebration of the Sacraments 85% 89% 85% 83% 81% 88% 88% 84%
Masses and liturgies 84 88 85 78 80 93 82 84
Efforts to educate parishioners in the faith 79 84 80 74 76 78 82 79
Sense of community 75 84 75 76 74 93 76 76
Encouragement of parishioners to share their time, talent, and treasure
74
78
75
64
74
85
76
73
Hospitality and sense of welcoming to all 74 78 75 65 73 74 78 72
Promoting important Church teachings and causes
69
72
69
67
73
67
73
70
Spreading the Gospel and evangelizing 61 69 61 62 60 63 61 60
Vision provided by parish leaders 54 59 54 57 59 56 55 54
Among sub-groups, generally the same ranking of priorities is provided. One exception is that among non-Anglos there is a
greater desire, relative to other priorities in terms of rank, for priority to be given to promoting important Church teachings and causes
(ranked as the 5th
priority among this group). In consolidated parishes, parish leaders indicate a strong preference—90 percent or more
responding “very much”—that the top priorities should be Masses and liturgies (93 percent) and the sense of community within the
parish (93 percent).
69
Recruitment of Staff
Respondents were asked how much they agree that their parish is successful in several
different areas of parish life.
The first of these is in recruiting and retaining parish ministers and staff. Almost nine in
ten parish leaders (89 percent) report that their parish is “somewhat” or “very much” successful
at recruiting and retaining ministers and/or staff. This response is most prevalent among those in
paid ministry (91 percent), females (91 percent), as well as both the Vatican II Generation and
Post-Vatican II Generation respondents (both 90 percent).
Evaluate parish success: Recruiting and retaining ministers/staff
"Somewhat" or "Very much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 89% 48% 11%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 87 46 13
Paid 91 48 9
Volunteer 86 48 14
Parish Structure
Multicultural 89 48 11
MPM 87 45 13
Consolidated 50 46 50
PLC 81 39 19
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 89 49 11
Non-Anglo 86 39 14
Hispanic/Latino(a) 88 40 12
Gender
Male 86 44 14
Female 91 51 9
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 87 53 13
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 90 52 10
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 90 44 10
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 85 23 15
Those least likely to report their parish is “somewhat” or “very much” successful at
recruiting and retaining ministers and/or staff are parish leaders of consolidated parishes (50
percent). This could be in response to changes in staff made during the consolidation process.
Less than one in four Millennial Generation parish leaders (23 percent) report their parish has
“very much” success at recruiting and retaining ministers and/or staff.
70
Communicating with Parishioners
About nine in ten (89 percent) parish leaders say their parish is “somewhat” or “very
much” successful at communicating with parishioners. Multi-parish ministry parish leaders are
most likely to respond as such (93 percent). This could be a response to an increased need for
communication with parishioners within the multi-parish ministry parish model.
Evaluate parish success: Communicating with parishioners
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 89% 45% 11%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 84 35 16
Paid 88 39 12
Volunteer 89 51 11
Parish Structure
Multicultural 87 44 13
MPM 93 48 7
Consolidated 89 46 11
PLC 81 52 19
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 89 45 11
Non-Anglo 85 44 15
Hispanic/Latino(a) 84 44 16
Gender
Male 86 43 14
Female 91 46 9
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 88 55 12
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 90 43 10
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 92 44 8
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 69 23 31
About one in three (31 percent) of Millennial Generation parish leaders report their parish
to be “a little” or “not at all” successful at communicating with parishioners. On the other hand,
those of the Pre-Vatican II Generation are among the most likely to respond “very much” (55
percent).
71
Welcoming New Parishioners
A large majority of parish leaders (85 percent) say their parish is “somewhat” or “very
much” successful at welcoming new parishioners. Those most likely to say their parish is
“somewhat” or “very much” successful at this are multi-parish ministry leaders (95 percent).
This positivity could be a reflection of the atmosphere fostered by the structure of the multi-
parish ministry environment.
Evaluate parish success: Welcoming new parishioners
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 85% 43% 15%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 84 38 16
Paid 82 41 18
Volunteer 87 45 13
Parish Structure
Multicultural 83 44 17
MPM 95 51 5
Consolidated 88 54 12
PLC 87 52 13
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 85 43 15
Non-Anglo 84 46 16
Hispanic/Latino(a) 84 50 16
Gender
Male 84 42 16
Female 85 44 15
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 89 51 11
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 85 44 15
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 87 34 13
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 54 31 46
Just more than half (54 percent) of Millennial leaders say their parish is at least
“somewhat” successful at welcoming new parishioners (31 percent “very much” success only).
Leaders in consolidated parishes are particularly likely to say their parish has “very
much” success at welcoming new parishioners (54 percent). This could be related to their
experience of reorganization to become a consolidated parish.
As the figure on the next page shows, leaders in the smallest parishes are most likely to
say their parish has “very much” success at welcoming new parishioners.
72
73
Listening to Parishioner Concerns and Input
More than eight in ten respondents (83 percent) say their parish is “somewhat” or “very
much” successful at listening to parishioner concerns and/or input. Leaders of consolidated
parishes feel most strongly with 89 percent reporting “somewhat” or “very much” success for
this in their parish.
Evaluate parish success: Listening to parishioner concerns/input
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 83% 37% 17%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 84 34 16
Paid 84 32 16
Volunteer 83 42 17
Parish Structure
Multicultural 80 36 20
MPM 85 44 15
Consolidated 89 42 11
PLC 77 42 23
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 85 37 15
Non-Anglo 73 39 27
Hispanic/Latino(a) 69 38 31
Gender
Male 82 32 18
Female 85 41 15
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 83 48 17
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 85 36 15
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 84 33 16
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 54 23 46
Millennial Catholic parish leaders hold the least positive view of the success of their
parish to listen to parishioners, although more than half (54 percent) report “somewhat” or “very
much” success with this and less than a quarter (23 percent) report “very much” success only.
Hispanic/Latino(a) respondents are also notably more negative with 31 percent reporting
their parish is “a little” or “not at all” successful at listening to parishioner concerns and/or input.
74
Celebrating Cultural Diversity
A majority of parish leaders (56 percent) report that their parish is “somewhat” or “very
much” successful at celebrating cultural diversity. However, only 23 percent say that their parish
does so with “very much” success. The most positive evaluations on this aspect come from Non-
Anglo and Hispanic/Latino(a) parish leaders with more than eight in ten (82 percent and 84
percent, respectively) responding “somewhat” or “very much.”
Evaluate parish success: Celebrating cultural diversity
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 56% 23% 44%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 39 15 16
Paid 49 20 51
Volunteer 63 27 37
Parish Structure
Multicultural 71 33 29
MPM 52 20 48
Consolidated 50 17 50
PLC 61 50 39
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 52 20 48
Non-Anglo 82 50 18
Hispanic/Latino(a) 84 55 16
Gender
Male 56 26 44
Female 55 21 45
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 61 29 39
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 57 25 43
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 53 17 47
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 39 8 61
Leaders in multicultural parishes are more positive than those in other types of parishes
with 71 percent responding that their parish is “somewhat” or “very much” successful at
celebrating cultural diversity.
Fewer than one in ten Millennial parish leaders (8 percent) say their parish has “very
much” success celebrating cultural diversity. Similarly, only 15 percent of lay ecclesial ministers
responded similarly.
As the figure on the next page shows, respondents in the Midwest are most likely to say
their parish is “a little” or “not at all” successful at celebrating cultural diversity. A majority (54
75
percent) respond as such. By comparison, two-thirds of leaders in the West (65 percent) say their
parish is “somewhat” or “very much” successful at this.
76
Providing Cultural, Ethnic, or National Celebrations
Overall, six in ten parish leaders (59 percent) say their parish is “somewhat” or “very
much” successful in providing cultural, ethnic, or national celebrations that are important to
parishioners. Consolidated parish leaders are among the least positive on this aspect with 58
percent reporting “somewhat” or “very much” success for this in their parish.
Evaluate parish success: Providing cultural, ethnic, or national celebrations important to parishioners
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 59% 28% 41%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 46 16 64
Paid 54 24 46
Volunteer 66 33 33
Parish Structure
Multicultural 75 15 25
MPM 59 27 41
Consolidated 58 21 42
PLC 69 41 31
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 56 25 44
Non-Anglo 85 53 15
Hispanic/Latino(a) 90 57 10
Gender
Male 57 26 43
Female 90 57 10
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 67 35 33
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 60 35 40
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 52 20 48
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 54 15 46
Hispanic/Latino(a) leaders are among the most positive with 90 percent saying their
parish is “somewhat” or “very much” successful at providing cultural, ethnic, or national
celebrations important to parishioners. Three in four leaders in multicultural parishes (75
percent) responded positively in evaluating this aspect.
Females leaders are significantly more likely than male leaders to say their parish is at
least “somewhat” successful at this (90 percent and 57 percent, respectively). Younger leaders—
those of the Post-Vatican II and Millennial generations—are less likely than older leaders to
think their parish is at least “somewhat” successful at providing these celebrations. Lay ecclesial
ministers are especially unlikely to say their parish is “very much” successful at this.
77
Collaborating with Other Parishes
About six in ten parish leaders (61 percent) say their parish is at least “somewhat”
successful at collaborating with other parishes. Those most likely to respond positively on this
aspect are leaders in multi-parish ministry settings with 74 percent responding “somewhat” or
“very much” and 38 percent responding “very much” only. This positivity could be a reflection
of the necessity to collaborate within the multi-parish ministry model.
Evaluate parish success: Collaborating with other parishes
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 61% 22% 39%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 52 12 48
Paid 55 18 45
Volunteer 68 27 32
Parish Structure
Multicultural 65 24 35
MPM 74 38 26
Consolidated 62 19 38
PLC 53 13 47
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 61 22 39
Non-Anglo 67 22 33
Hispanic/Latino(a) 70 20 30
Gender
Male 60 24 40
Female 62 20 38
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 72 31 28
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 60 21 40
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 62 20 38
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 39 8 61
Almost half of PLC parish leaders (47 percent) say that their parish is “a little” or “not at
all” successful collaborating with other parishes.
Anglo respondents are less likely than Hispanic/Latino(a) respondents to say their parish
is “somewhat” or “very much” successful at this aspect (61 percent compared to 70 percent).
Millennial leaders are the most negative in evaluating the success of their parish at
collaborating with six in ten (61 percent) saying their parish is “a little” or “not at all” at this.
78
Managing Parish Finances
Nine in ten parish leaders (90 percent) say their parish is “somewhat” or “very much”
successful at managing parish finances. Consolidated parishes are most likely to respond in the
affirmative with 96 percent reporting their parish is at least “somewhat” successful at this aspect.
Consistent with other evaluation responses, Millennial Generation leaders are the least
likely to respond positively with a comparatively low 69 percent saying their parish is
“somewhat” or “very much” successful at managing parish finances.
Evaluate parish success: Managing parish finances
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 90% 67% 10%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 87 57 13
Paid 90 66 10
Volunteer 90 67 10
Parish Structure
Multicultural 86 62 14
MPM 89 70 11
Consolidated 96 69 4
PLC 84 52 26
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 91 68 9
Non-Anglo 80 52 20
Hispanic/Latino(a) 72 68 18
Gender
Male 87 63 13
Female 92 69 8
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 87 63 13
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 92 69 8
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 93 69 7 Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 69 39 31
79
Promoting Ministry Opportunities
A majority of all leaders (85 percent) say that their parish is “somewhat” or “very much”
successful in promoting ministry opportunities. PLC parish leaders are the least positive on this
aspect as 77 percent evaluate their parish’s promoting ministry opportunities as at least
“somewhat” successful.
Evaluate parish success: Promoting ministry opportunities
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 85% 47% 15%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 85 43 15
Paid 83 42 17
Volunteer 86 52 14
Parish Structure
Multicultural 87 54 13
MPM 83 51 17
Consolidated 81 35 19
PLC 77 48 23
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 84 47 26
Non-Anglo 89 46 11
Hispanic/Latino(a) 87 49 13
Gender
Male 84 45 16
Female 85 48 15
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 80 57 20
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 85 44 15
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 87 44 13
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 83 33 17
Pre-Vatican II parish leaders are among the most likely to say their parish is “very much”
successful at promoting ministry opportunities (57 percent).
80
Effectively Using Committees and Councils
Almost eight in ten parish leaders (79 percent) say their parish is “somewhat” or “very
much” successful at effectively using committees and/or councils. Those responding least
positively on this aspect are in PLC parishes (68 percent “somewhat” or “very much” success) as
well as Millennial Catholics (67 percent “somewhat” or “very much” success).
Evaluate parish success: Effectively using committees/councils
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 79% 39% 21%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 73 32 27
Paid 75 34 25
Volunteer 84 45 16
Parish Structure
Multicultural 79 38 21
MPM 88 42 12
Consolidated 73 39 27
PLC 68 48 32
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 80 40 20
Non-Anglo 71 38 30
Hispanic/Latino(a) 72 41 28
Gender
Male 78 39 22
Female 80 40 20
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 83 49 17
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 80 38 20
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 78 40 22
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 67 25 33
Non-Anglo parish leaders are slightly less positive than Anglo leaders in their assessment
of their parishes success in using committees and councils. Eighty percent of Anglos say their
parish is at least “somewhat” successful in this aspect compared to 71 percent of non-Anglo
parish leaders.
81
Educating Parishioners in the Faith
More than eight in ten parish leaders (86 percent) say their parish is “somewhat” or “very
much” successful at educating parishioners in the faith. Seven in ten PLC parish leaders report
their parish is “somewhat” or “very much” successful at this. This may be related to the smaller
staff sizes and fewer ministry programs available in these parishes.
Evaluate parish success: Educating parishioners in the faith
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 86% 44% 14%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 83 43 17
Paid 86 39 14
Volunteer 86 50 14
Parish Structure
Multicultural 86 45 14
MPM 82 39 18
Consolidated 89 46 11
PLC 71 39 29
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 86 44 14
Non-Anglo 83 40 17
Hispanic/Latino(a) 85 39 15
Gender
Male 83 39 17
Female 89 48 11
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 83 50 17
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 87 45 13
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 89 40 11
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 77 31 23
The youngest parish leaders—who are often working in youth and young adult
ministry—are among the least positive about their parish’s success at educating parishioners in
the faith. Only 31 percent say their parish has “very much” success in achieving this.
82
Providing Social Activities and Programs
About three in four (77 percent) parish leaders say their parish is “somewhat or “very
much” successful in providing social activities and/or programs. About six in ten (61 percent) of
PLC parish leaders respond similarly. Again, this may be related to the smaller staff sizes and
fewer ministry programs available in these parishes.
Evaluate parish success: Providing social activities/programs
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 77% 39% 23%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 77 35 23
Paid 77 35 23
Volunteer 78 44 22
Parish Structure
Multicultural 78 37 22
MPM 78 50 22
Consolidated 81 46 19
PLC 61 29 39
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 78 41 22
Non-Anglo 77 25 23
Hispanic/Latino(a) 78 31 22
Gender
Male 77 37 23
Female 78 41 22
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 79 48 21
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 78 37 22
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 77 38 23
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 62 31 38
Older parish leaders, those of the Pre-Vatican II Generation, and those in multi-parish
ministry parishes are among the most likely to say their parish is “very much” successful at
providing social activities and programs (48 percent and 50 percent, respectively). Those least
likely to respond as such are Millennials, non-Anglos, and those in PLC parishes (31 percent, 25
percent, and 29 percent, respectively).
As the figure on the next page shows, leaders in larger parishes are more likely than those
in smaller parishes to say their parish is “very much” successful at providing social activities and
programs.
83
84
Providing Mass in Preferred Languages
A majority of leaders (56 percent) say their parish is “somewhat” or “very much”
successful at providing Mass in preferred languages at their parish. Nine in ten
Hispanic/Latino(a) leaders (90 percent) say their parish is “somewhat” or “very much”
successful at this. A majority of parish leaders from multicultural parishes (67 percent) also
responded that their parishes were “somewhat” or “very much” successful at providing Mass in
preferred languages.
Evaluate parish success: Providing Mass in preferred languages
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 56% 36% 44%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 53 31 47
Paid 58 37 42
Volunteer 53 35 47
Parish Structure
Multicultural 67 30 33
MPM 45 34 55
Consolidated 57 35 43
PLC 71 39 29
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 53 35 47
Non-Anglo 78 46 22
Hispanic/Latino(a) 90 52 10
Gender
Male 58 40 42
Female 54 33 46
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 54 33 46
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 55 37 45
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 56 35 44
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 58 42 42
Although many in multicultural parishes say their parish is at least “somewhat”
successful in providing Mass in preferred languages, just 30 percent of this group says their
parish is “very much” successful at this—perhaps representing some unmet needs in these
parishes.30
30
Providing Masses in languages other than English requires a priest who can speak these languages. The Church is currently dealing with a priest shortage in many areas of the country. Filling the specific needs for priests who can speak a particular language in the community can be challenging.
85
Ministering to Young Adults
A majority of all leaders (56 percent) say their parish is “somewhat” or “very much”
successful in ministering to young adults. Yet, the least positive responses, comparatively, come
from the youngest parish leaders, Millennials (only 40 percent responding “somewhat” or “very
much”). Also among the least positive on this aspect are those in paid ministry (49 percent
saying “somewhat” or “very much”). At the other extreme, the most positive responses came
from Hispanic/Latino(a) leaders with 71 percent saying their parish is “somewhat” or “very
much” successful in ministering to young adults.
Evaluate parish success: Ministering to young adults
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 56% 30% 44%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 46 23 54
Paid 49 24 51
Volunteer 64 36 36
Parish Structure
Multicultural 59 27 41
MPM 60 35 40
Consolidated 62 23 38
PLC 58 29 42
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 55 30 45
Non-Anglo 67 33 33
Hispanic/Latino(a) 71 36 29
Gender
Male 58 30 42
Female 55 29 45
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 65 44 35
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 53 25 47
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 58 31 42
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 40 15 60
The oldest parish leaders, those of the Pre-Vatican II Generation, are the most likely to
say their parish is “very much” successful in ministering to young adults (44 percent).
86
Ministering to Families
Three in four parish leaders (75 percent) say their parish is “somewhat” or “very much”
successful at ministering to families. All sub-groups responses fell within five percentage points
of this 75 percent for all respondents.
Evaluate parish success: Ministering to families
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 75% 35% 25%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 75 35 25
Paid 73 33 27
Volunteer 78 37 22
Parish Structure
Multicultural 76 39 24
MPM 75 41 25
Consolidated 77 31 23
PLC 74 29 26
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 76 36 24
Non-Anglo 70 27 30
Hispanic/Latino(a) 75 31 25
Gender
Male 76 30 24
Female 75 39 25
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 78 48 22
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 76 33 24
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 73 33 27
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 77 31 23
Almost half of Pre-Vatican II Generation respondents (48 percent) say their parish is
“very much” successful at ministering to families, while only about a third of those in other
generations respond as such.
Female parish leaders are more likely than male leaders to say their parish is “very much”
successful at this aspect (39 percent compared to 30 percent).
As the figure on the next page shows, leaders in larger parishes are more likely than those
in smaller parishes to say their parish is “very much” successful at ministering to families.
87
88
Ministering to the Elderly
A little over three in four leaders (76 percent) say their parish is “somewhat” or “very
much” successful at ministering to the elderly. A majority of Hispanic/Latino(a) respondents (57
percent) say their parish is to some degree successful. Over eight in ten (81 percent) of Post-
Vatican II Generation respondents say their parish was “somewhat” or “very much” successful in
doing so.
Evaluate parish success: Ministering to the elderly
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 76% 37% 24%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 78 38 22
Paid 76 35 24
Volunteer 77 39 23
Parish Structure
Multicultural 73 34 27
MPM 78 42 22
Consolidated 70 48 30
PLC 63 33 37
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 78 37 22
Non-Anglo 61 35 39
Hispanic/Latino(a) 57 30 43
Gender
Male 78 34 22
Female 75 39 25
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 76 50 24
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 75 34 25
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 81 37 19
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 75 36 25
Half of the oldest leaders, those of the Pre-Vatican II generation leaders, say their parish
is “very much” successful at ministering to the elderly. This is the most positive evaluation
provided by any of the sub-groups.
As the figure on the next page shows, leaders in the Northeast (45 percent) are more
likely than those in the West (32 percent) to indicate their parish has “very much” success in
ministering to the elderly.
89
90
Providing Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities
Three in four of parish leaders (77 percent) say their parish is “somewhat” or “very
much” successful at providing accessibility for persons with disabilities 945 percent “very much”
only).
Evaluate parish success: Providing accessibility for persons with disabilities
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 77% 45% 23%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 72 42 28
Paid 75 42 25
Volunteer 81 48 19
Parish Structure
Multicultural 77 46 23
MPM 71 36 29
Consolidated 85 58 15
PLC 70 60 30
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 78 45 22
Non-Anglo 76 51 24
Hispanic/Latino(a) 84 59 16
Gender
Male 82 47 18
Female 74 43 26
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 82 45 18
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 78 45 22
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 73 41 27
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 62 41 38
Older parish leaders are more likely than younger leaders to say their parish is at least
“somewhat” successful at providing accessibility for persons with disabilities. Eighty-two
percent of Pre-Vatican II Generation leaders respond as such, compared to only 62 percent of
Millennials.
Hispanic/Latino(a) leaders (84 percent) and those in consolidated parishes (85 percent)
are especially likely to respond that their parish is at least “somewhat” successful at providing
accessibility.
91
Ministering to Those Who are Grieving
Three in four parish leaders (75 percent) say their parish was “somewhat” or “very much”
successful in ministering to those who are grieving.
Evaluate parish success: Ministering to those who are grieving
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 75% 40% 25%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 76 44 24
Paid 72 37 28
Volunteer 79 44 21
Parish Structure
Multicultural 73 39 27
MPM 79 43 21
Consolidated 77 50 23
PLC 71 36 29
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 77 41 23
Non-Anglo 65 35 35
Hispanic/Latino(a) 68 32 32
Gender
Male 79 42 21
Female 73 39 27
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 74 51 26
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 77 41 23
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 76 32 24
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 62 23 38
There are few sub-group differences in responses to this question. Millennials and non-
Anglo parish leaders were least likely to indicate their parish is “somewhat” or “very much”
successful at ministering to those who are grieving (62 percent and 65 percent, respectively).
92
Ministering to Recent Immigrants
Only about a third of parish leaders (35 percent) say their parish is “somewhat” or “very
much” successful at ministering to recent immigrants. The only positive majority evaluations
came from Non-Anglo (52 percent “somewhat” or “very much”) and Hispanic/Latino(a) parish
leaders (60 percent “somewhat” or “very much”).
Evaluate parish success: Ministering to recent immigrants
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 35% 12% 65%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 22 7 78
Paid 26 9 74
Volunteer 46 15 54
Parish Structure
Multicultural 49 18 51
MPM 33 14 67
Consolidated 39 9 61
PLC 46 21 54
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 33 10 67
Non-Anglo 52 21 48
Hispanic/Latino(a) 60 27 40
Gender
Male 43 14 57
Female 29 10 71
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 44 19 56
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 31 8 69
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 33 16 67
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 27 0 73
Nearly half of multicultural parish leaders (49 percent) say their parish is “somewhat” or
“very much” successful at ministering to recent immigrants.
93
Ministering to Those in Financial Need
Two-thirds of parish leaders (66 percent) say that their parish is “somewhat” or “very
much” successful in ministering to those in financial need. A little over half (52 percent) of
Hispanic/Latino(a) parish leaders respond as such.
Evaluate parish success: Ministering to those in financial need
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 66% 27% 34%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 60 20 40
Paid 62 21 38
Volunteer 70 34 30
Parish Structure
Multicultural 66 26 34
MPM 67 31 33
Consolidated 76 52 24
PLC 60 33 40
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 67 27 33
Non-Anglo 56 29 44
Hispanic/Latino(a) 52 24 48
Gender
Male 65 28 35
Female 66 26 34
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 67 30 33
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 65 26 35
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 66 32 34
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 66 28 34
As the figure on the next page shows, 73 percent of parish leaders in the Northeast say
their parish is at least “somewhat” successful at ministering to those in financial need. By
comparison, just 53 percent of those in the West respond as such.
94
As the figure on the next page shows, those in the largest parishes are most likely to say
their parish is “very much” successful at ministering to those in need.
95
96
Outreach to Inactive Catholics
A minority of parish leaders (43 percent) say that their parish is “somewhat” or “very
much” successful at outreach to inactive Catholics.
Evaluate parish success: Outreach to inactive Catholics
"Somewhat" or "Very Much" combined
"Very Much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 43% 11% 57%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 40 11 60
Paid 36 28 64
Volunteer 50 14 50
Parish Structure
Multicultural 45 10 55
MPM 38 7 62
Consolidated 64 16 37
PLC 47 13 53
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 44 11 56
Non-Anglo 35 13 65
Hispanic/Latino(a) 32 16 68
Gender
Male 42 9 58
Female 43 12 57
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 46 14 54
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 42 11 58
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 43 11 57
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 25 0 75
Parish leaders being paid for their ministry or service are most likely to say their parish is
“very much” successful at outreach to inactive Catholics (28 percent). No Millennial respondents
said their parish is “very much” successful at this and three in four (75 percent) say their parish is
“a little” or “not at all” successful at this.
97
What Parishes Are Most Successful At
As shown below, in summary, leaders are most likely to say their parish is “somewhat”
or “very much” successful at managing parish finances (90 percent), recruiting and retaining
ministers and staff (89 percent), communicating with parishioners (89 percent), and educating
parishioners in the faith (86 percent).
What Parishes Are Most Successful At Percentage of parish leaders responding that their parish
has “somewhat” or “very much” success with each aspect:
Managing parish finances 90%
Recruitment and retaining ministers/staff 89
Communicating with parishioners 89
Educating parishioners in the faith 86
Welcoming new parishioners 85
Promoting ministry opportunities 85
Listening to parishioner concerns and input 83
Effectively using committees and councils 79
Providing social activities and programs 77
Providing accessibility for persons with disabilities 77
Ministering to the elderly 76
Ministering to families 75
Ministering to those who are grieving 75
Ministering to those in financial need 66
Collaborating with other parishes 61
Providing cultural, ethnic, or national celebrations 59
Celebrating cultural diversity 56
Providing Mass in preferred languages 56
Ministering to young adults 56
Outreach to inactive Catholics 43
Ministering to recent immigrants 35
Leaders are least likely to indicate their parish is at least “somewhat” successful at
celebrating cultural diversity (56 percent), providing Mass in preferred languages (56 percent),
ministering to young adults (56 percent), outreach to inactive Catholics (43 percent), and
ministering to recent immigrants (35 percent).
98
Specific Ministry Evaluations
Respondents were asked a number of other agree or disagree questions, evaluating their
parish and parish ministries more specifically—including their role in their parish. This section
details their responses to these questions.
Preparation for Ministry
Nearly all parish leaders (97 percent) agree “somewhat” or “very much” that they feel
adequately prepared for ministry (79 percent agree “very much” only).
How much do you agree: I feel adequately prepared for ministry
"Somewhat" or "Very much" combined
"Very much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 97% 79% 3%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 100 88 0
Paid 99 83 1
Volunteer 95 75 5
Parish Structure
Multicultural 97 81 3
MPM 97 71 3
Consolidated 96 78 4
PLC 100 82 0
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 97 78 3
Non-Anglo 98 84 2
Hispanic/Latino(a) 100 84 0
Gender
Male 98 79 2
Female 98 79 2
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 95 80 5
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 97 79 3
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 99 77 1
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 100 77 0
Those in multi-parish ministry settings are the least likely to agree “very much” that they
feel adequately prepared for ministry (71 percent). Anecdotally, this may be related to those
aspects of their ministry that are related to serving multiple communities.
99
Original Preparation for Ministry
Three in four (76 percent) agree “somewhat” or “very much” that they felt adequately
prepared for ministry at the time they began this ministry (34 percent agree “very much” only).
How much do you agree: I felt adequately prepared for my ministry at the time I began it
"Somewhat" or "Very much" combined
"Very much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 76% 34% 24%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 72 28 28
Paid 72 32 28
Volunteer 80 37 20
Parish Structure
Multicultural 74 35 26
MPM 76 28 24
Consolidated 67 33 33
PLC 82 48 18
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 77 33 23
Non-Anglo 71 47 29
Hispanic/Latino(a) 70 39 30
Gender
Male 82 43 18
Female 72 28 28
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 78 48 22
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 76 35 24
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 75 24 25
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 62 8 38
Millennials are the least likely to agree “very much” that they felt adequately prepared for
ministry at the time they began (8 percent).
Those of the Pre-Vatican II Generation (48 percent), those in PLC parishes (48 percent),
and non-Anglo leaders (47 percent) are among the most likely to agree “very much” that they
were prepared for ministry when they began.
100
Preparation for Ministry or Service for Aspects of Parish Life
Half or more of all parish leaders say they are “very much” prepared for ministry or service in the following aspects of parish
life: communicating (56 percent), facilitating events or meetings (51 percent), and administration and planning (50 percent). Seven in
ten lay ecclesial ministers (70 percent) say they are “very much” prepared for providing ministry to others.
How prepared are you in the following areas of parish life? Percentage responding “very much” prepared
Individual characteristics Parish characteristics
All
LEM
Anglos
Non-Anglos
MPM
Consolidated
PLC
Multi-cultural
Communicating 56% 68% 57% 53% 54% 59% 53% 56%
Facilitating events/meetings 51 69 51 53 42 52 41 53
Administration and planning 50 63 52 35 38 52 43 47
Collaborating 48 63 48 48 34 44 55 49
Providing ministry to others 45 70 44 53 38 52 59 46
Teaching/providing instruction 41 65 40 48 35 26 42 43
Supervising others 40 45 38 55 30 48 55 44
Recruiting staff and volunteers 29 46 29 30 21 33 38 31
Managing conflict 24 28 23 31 15 15 20 23
Working in a multicultural environment 19 17 16 44 15 11 47 22
Counseling 18 21 17 25 19 11 16 21
Few parish leaders indicate that they feel “very much” prepared for managing conflict (24 percent), working in a multicultural
environment (19 percent), or counseling (18 percent).
Non-Anglo parish leaders are significantly more likely than Anglos to say they feel “very much” prepared for working in a
multicultural environment (44 percent compared to 16 percent).
Leaders in multi-parish ministry settings are less likely than others to indicate they are “very much” prepared for many of the
items listed. Lay ecclesial ministers are especially likely to say they feel “very much” prepared for most of the items listed.
101
Job Security
Nine in ten parish leaders agree “somewhat” or “very much” that they feel sufficient job
security within their parishes (65 percent “very much” only). Among those in paid positions, 92
percent respond as such, as do 91 percent of lay ecclesial ministers.
How much do you agree: I feel sufficient job security in the parish
"Somewhat" or "Very much" combined
"Very much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 90% 65% 10%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 91 56 9
Paid 92 65 8
Volunteer 87 66 13
Parish Structure
Multicultural 90 64 10
MPM 95 72 5
Consolidated 83 61 17
PLC 94 56 6
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 91 66 9
Non-Anglo 87 62 13
Hispanic/Latino(a) 91 65 9
Gender
Male 89 68 11
Female 92 63 8
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 87 68 13
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 91 68 9
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 92 58 8
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 92 67 8
Those in multi-parish ministry settings are especially likely to agree “very much” that
they feel sufficient job security (72 percent). By comparison, those in PLC parishes are among
the least likely to respond as such (56 percent). Those in consolidated parishes are most likely to
indicate that they agree only “a little” or “not at all” that they feel sufficient job security (17
percent). Those in consolidated parishes have experienced parish closure and those in PLC
parishes may be concerned that their parish may close in the near future. Leaders in multiple
parish ministry settings may be more confident that the parish(es) they are involved with will
remain open and therefore, more secure in their jobs.
102
Parish Provides Resources Needed
More than nine in ten parish leaders (93 percent) agree “somewhat” or “very much” that
their parish provides them with the resources they need for their ministry or service (67 percent
agree “very much” only).
How much do you agree: The parish provides me with the resources I need for my ministry/service
"Somewhat" or "Very much" combined
"Very much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 93% 67% 7%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 95 68 5
Paid 95 70 5
Volunteer 90 65 10
Parish Structure
Multicultural 90 63 10
MPM 92 68 8
Consolidated 96 78 4
PLC 87 58 13
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 94 68 6
Non-Anglo 83 59 17
Hispanic/Latino(a) 76 64 24
Gender
Male 92 63 8
Female 94 71 6
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 94 65 6
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 93 68 7
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 94 68 6
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 85 62 15
Leaders in consolidated parishes are especially likely to agree “very much” that their
parish provides them with the resources they need (78 percent). Leaders in PLC parishes and
non-Anglo parish leaders are among the least likely to respond as such (58 percent and 59
percent, respectively).
One in four Hispanic/Latino(a) parish leaders agree only “a little” or “not at all” that their
parish provides them with the resources they need. Anecdotally, it is possible that these
responses reflect a lack of Spanish-language or bi-lingual materials that would make their
ministry and outreach more effective.
103
A Larger Staff is Needed
About four in ten parish leaders (41 percent) agree “somewhat” or “very much” that a
larger staff would help their parish accomplish its mission (20 percent agree “very much” only).
Forty-nine percent of lay ecclesial ministers and 45 percent of all paid leaders respond similarly.
How much do you agree: A larger staff would help this parish accomplish its mission
"Somewhat" or "Very much" combined
"Very much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 41% 20% 59%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 49 22 51
Paid 45 21 55
Volunteer 37 18 63
Parish Structure
Multicultural 41 25 59
MPM 33 19 67
Consolidated 28 4 72
PLC 41 34 59
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 41 19 59
Non-Anglo 46 28 54
Hispanic/Latino(a) 57 37 43
Gender
Male 43 22 57
Female 41 19 59
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 34 15 66
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 42 19 58
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 45 24 55
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 54 54 46
Hispanic/Latino(a) and Millennial parish leaders are especially likely to agree at least
“somewhat” that a larger staff would be helpful (57 percent and 54 percent, respectively).
Leaders in consolidated parishes are the least likely to agree “very much” that a larger
staff would be helpful. This attitude may be reflective of the staff downsizing that may have
occurred when parishes were combined.
104
Parishioners Readily Volunteer
Nearly three in four parish leaders (72 percent) agree “somewhat” or “very much” that
parishioners readily volunteer (27 percent agree “very much” only).
How much do you agree: Parishioners readily volunteer
"Somewhat" or "Very much" combined
"Very much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 72% 27% 28%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 75 23 25
Paid 76 26 24
Volunteer 69 29 31
Parish Structure
Multicultural 72 27 28
MPM 73 31 27
Consolidated 81 33 19
PLC 72 38 28
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 73 27 27
Non-Anglo 69 26 31
Hispanic/Latino(a) 72 28 28
Gender
Male 71 25 29
Female 74 29 26
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 74 35 26
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 71 27 29
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 74 24 26
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 62 15 38
Leaders in consolidated parishes are especially likely to agree “somewhat” or “very
much” that parishioners readily volunteer (81 percent).
Those in PLC parishes are among the most likely to agree “very much” that parishioners
volunteer (38 percent). This may be out of some necessity, as PLC parishes tend to have the
smallest staff sizes and budgets.
Millennials are the least likely to agree at least “somewhat” that parishioners readily
volunteer (62 percent).
105
Parishioners are Invited and Encouraged to Participate
More than nine in ten parish leaders (93 percent) agree “somewhat” or “very much” that
parishioners in their parish are invited and encouraged to participate in parish ministry (70
percent agree “very much” only).
How much do you agree: Parishioners are invited and encouraged to participate in parish ministry
"Somewhat" or "Very much" combined
"Very much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 93% 70% 7%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 93 76 7
Paid 94 67 6
Volunteer 91 73 9
Parish Structure
Multicultural 91 73 9
MPM 95 73 5
Consolidated 96 67 4
PLC 91 59 9
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 93 71 7
Non-Anglo 90 64 10
Hispanic/Latino(a) 91 61 9
Gender
Male 92 67 8
Female 94 72 6
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 94 78 6
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 93 68 7
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 95 75 5
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 77 31 23
Only Millennials are relatively less positive in their agreement that parishioners are
invited and encouraged to participate in parish ministry (77 percent agreeing at least
“somewhat”).
106
Parishioners are Encouraged to
Have a Role in Decision Making
More than three in four parish leaders (78 percent) agree “somewhat” or “very much”
that parishioners are encouraged to have a role in decision making in their parish (43 percent
agree “very much” only).
How much do you agree: Parishioners are encouraged to have a role in decision making in this parish
"Somewhat" or "Very much" combined
"Very much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 78% 43% 22%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 76 42 24
Paid 77 42 23
Volunteer 79 43 21
Parish Structure
Multicultural 75 39 25
MPM 86 41 14
Consolidated 85 63 15
PLC 66 38 34
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 78 42 22
Non-Anglo 78 47 22
Hispanic/Latino(a) 76 52 24
Gender
Male 75 42 25
Female 80 43 20
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 73 42 27
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 78 42 22
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 82 49 18
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 69 31 31
Parish leaders in multi-parish ministry and consolidated parishes are a bit more likely
than others to agree at least “somewhat” that parishioners are encouraged to have a role in
decision making (86 percent and 85 percent, respectively). This may be related to the input
sought within the parish as it transitioned into these models. Those in PLC parishes are much
less likely to respond as such (66 percent).
107
Parishioners are Provided with Adequate
Information about Parish Finances
Nearly nine in ten parish leaders (87 percent) agree “somewhat” or “very much” that
parishioners are provided with adequate information about parish finances (60 percent “very
much” only).
How much do you agree: Parishioners are provided with adequate information about parish finances
"Somewhat" or "Very much" combined
"Very much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 87% 60% 13%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 85 54 15
Paid 89 60 11
Volunteer 86 61 14
Parish Structure
Multicultural 84 55 16
MPM 89 69 11
Consolidated 93 78 7
PLC 75 53 25
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 88 62 12
Non-Anglo 83 49 17
Hispanic/Latino(a) 82 48 18
Gender
Male 83 57 17
Female 91 64 9
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 87 59 13
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 86 61 14
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 93 67 7
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 77 23 23
Leaders in PLC parishes and those of the Millennial generation are among the least likely
to agree at least “somewhat” that parishioners are provided with adequate information about
parish finances (75 percent and 77 percent, respectively).
Non-Anglo and Hispanic/Latino(a) parish leaders are among the least likely to agree
“very much” that parishioners are provided with this (49 percent and 48 percent, respectively).
108
This Parish is Multicultural
Half of all parish leaders agree “somewhat” or “very much” that their parish is
multicultural (29 percent “very much” only). Seventy-three percent of those in multicultural
parishes agree “somewhat” or “very much” that their parish is multicultural. Also, non-Anglo
and specifically Hispanic parish leaders are very likely to agree “somewhat” or “very much” that
their parish is multicultural (74 percent and 75 percent, respectively).
How much do you agree: This parish is multicultural
"Somewhat" or "Very much" combined
"Very much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 50% 29% 50%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 36 21 64
Paid 43 25 57
Volunteer 58 34 42
Parish Structure
Multicultural 73 49 27
MPM 36 15 64
Consolidated 44 19 56
PLC 66 59 34
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 47 26 53
Non-Anglo 74 56 26
Hispanic/Latino(a) 75 66 25
Gender
Male 52 32 48
Female 49 27 51
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 62 36 38
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 49 31 51
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 44 22 56
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 33 17 67
Younger parish leaders are less likely than older parish leaders to agree at least
“somewhat” that their parish is multicultural. Sixty-two percent of Pre-Vatican II parish leaders
responded as such compared to only a third of Millennials (33 percent).
109
Knowledge and Experience of
Culture is Essential to My Ministry
Nearly seven in ten parish leaders agree “somewhat” or “very much” that their
knowledge and experience of their culture is essential to their ministry (43 percent “very much”
only).
How much do you agree: My knowledge/experience of my culture is essential to my ministry
"Somewhat" or "Very much" combined
"Very much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 68% 43% 32%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 73 49 27
Paid 69 44 31
Volunteer 67 41 33
Parish Structure
Multicultural 70 45 30
MPM 72 40 28
Consolidated 70 39 30
PLC 81 46 19
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 68 43 32
Non-Anglo 72 49 28
Hispanic/Latino(a) 71 45 29
Gender
Male 75 47 25
Female 63 40 37
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 84 52 16
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 64 43 36
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 68 40 32
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 75 33 25
A majority of Pre-Vatican II leaders agree “very much” that their knowledge and
experience of their culture is essential to their ministry (52 percent) compared to only a third of
Millennials (33 percent).
110
Knowledge and Experience of Culture
is Part of Reasons I am in Leadership
About half of parish leaders (49 percent) agree “somewhat” or “very much” that their
knowledge and experience of their culture was part of the reason they were selected for parish
leadership (26 percent “very much” only).
How much do you agree: I believe my knowledge/experience of my culture is part of the reason I was selected for leadership
"Somewhat" or "Very much" combined
"Very much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 49% 26% 51%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 47 21 53
Paid 46 26 54
Volunteer 52 27 48
Parish Structure
Multicultural 49 28 51
MPM 55 26 45
Consolidated 50 23 50
PLC 56 26 44
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 48 25 52
Non-Anglo 52 38 48
Hispanic/Latino(a) 50 41 50
Gender
Male 53 32 47
Female 45 22 55
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 62 41 38
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 43 25 57
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 49 20 51
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 50 17 50
Non-Anglo and Hispanic/Latino(a) leaders are among the most likely to agree “very
much” that their knowledge and experience of their culture was part of the reason they were
selected for parish leadership (41 percent and 38 percent, respectively).
111
Parishioners of Different Cultures
Participate in Parish Life Together
A majority of parish leaders (55 percent) agree “somewhat” or “very much” that
parishioners of different cultures participate in parish life together (24 percent “very much”
only).
How much do you agree: Parishioners of different cultures participate in parish life together
"Somewhat" or "Very much" combined
"Very much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 55% 24% 45%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 49 18 51
Paid 53 20 47
Volunteer 57 29 43
Parish Structure
Multicultural 65 26 35
MPM 47 18 53
Consolidated 58 25 42
PLC 67 30 33
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 53 22 47
Non-Anglo 75 39 25
Hispanic/Latino(a) 69 41 31
Gender
Male 55 23 46
Female 55 24 45
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 56 26 44
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 54 24 46
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 55 22 45
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 64 18 36
Non-Anglo and Hispanic/Latino(a) leaders, more specifically, are among the most likely
to agree “very much” that parishioners of different cultures participate in parish life together (39
percent and 41 percent, respectively).
A majority (53 percent) of those at multi-parish ministry parishes agree only “a little” or
“not at all” that parishioners of different cultures participate in parish life together.
112
Racial and Ethnic Makeup of the Parish
is Represented in Parish Leadership
Two-thirds of parish leaders (65 percent) agree “somewhat” or “very much” that the
racial and ethnic makeup of the parish is represented in parish leadership (29 percent “very
much” only). Seven in ten of those in multicultural parishes respond as such, as do 81 percent of
non-Anglo parish leaders, and 74 percent of parish leaders self-identifying as Hispanic/Latino(a).
How much do you agree: The racial and ethnic makeup of the parish is represented in parish leadership
"Somewhat" or "Very much" combined
"Very much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 65% 29% 35%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 57 26 43
Paid 61 25 39
Volunteer 71 34 29
Parish Structure
Multicultural 70 33 30
MPM 62 26 38
Consolidated 64 18 36
PLC 75 38 25
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 63 26 37
Non-Anglo 81 51 19
Hispanic/Latino(a) 74 48 26
Gender
Male 70 30 30
Female 62 29 38
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 71 29 29
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 67 29 33
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 60 29 40
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 42 25 58
A majority of Millennials (58 percent) agree only “a little” or “not at all” that the racial
and ethnic makeup of the parish is represented in parish leadership.
113
Older and Younger Parish Leaders Work Well Together
Eighty five percent of parish leaders agree “somewhat” or “very much” that older and
younger members of the staff in their parish work well together (50 percent “very much” only).
How much do you agree: Older and younger members of the parish staff work well together
"Somewhat" or "Very much" combined
"Very much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 85% 50% 15%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 82 47 18
Paid 85 50 15
Volunteer 85 51 15
Parish Structure
Multicultural 84 50 16
MPM 92 56 8
Consolidated 89 59 11
PLC 87 57 13
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 86 52 14
Non-Anglo 80 38 20
Hispanic/Latino(a) 77 39 23
Gender
Male 82 47 18
Female 88 53 12
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 84 50 16
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 84 50 16
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 86 50 14
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 92 38 8
Despite often offering more negative evaluations in the survey, Millennnials are among
the most positive in terms of their agreement that at least “somewhat” older and younger
members of parish staff work well together (92 percent). However, they are among the least
likely to agree with this statement “very much” (38 percent).
Non-Anglo and Hispanic/Latino(a) leaders are also among the least likely to agree “very
much” (38 percent and 39 percent, respectively).
114
Technology
Respondents were asked a series of questions about how their parish uses technology as
well as their own use of technology in their ministry. This section includes the results for these
questions.
Use of New Technology and Media
Three in four parish leaders (77 percent) agree “somewhat” or “very much” that their
parish uses new technology and media effectively (36 percent agree “very much” only). Older
parish leaders are more likely than younger parish leaders to agree with this statement.
How much do you agree: The parish uses new technology and media effectively
"Somewhat" or "Very much" combined
"Very much" only
“A little” or “Not at all” combined
All Respondents 77% 36% 23%
Lay Ecclesial Minister 73 31 27
Paid 79 34 21
Volunteer 75 37 25
Parish Structure
Multicultural 74 33 26
MPM 76 42 24
Consolidated 93 48 7
PLC 75 31 25
Race/Ethnicity
Anglo 79 37 21
Non-Anglo 68 26 32
Hispanic/Latino(a) 64 27 36
Gender
Male 74 32 26
Female 81 39 19
Generation
Pre-Vatican II (b. before 1943) 84 48 16
Vatican II (b. 1943-60) 78 35 22
Post-Vatican II (b. 1961-81) 72 29 28
Millennial (b. 1982 or later) 62 31 38
As shown in the figure on the next page, leaders at larger parishes are more likely to
agree that their parish uses new technology and media effectively. This may be due to these
parishes having more resources to do so.
115
116
Parish Website and Email
Ninety-four percent of parish leaders indicate their parish has a website. Leaders in multi-
parish ministry and PLC parishes are a bit less likely to indicate their parishes have a website (83
percent and 87 percent, respectively).
Those parish leaders who indicated their parish had a website were asked if they provide
any content for this. Half of parish leaders (50 percent) indicated they do. Fifty-six percent of
pastoral ministers indicated they provided content, as did 70 percent of those who are paid for
their ministry or service. Women are significantly more likely than men to say they provide
content for the parish website (61 percent compared to 35 percent).
As the figure on the next page shows, the biggest sub-group differences are generational.
Only 30 percent of Pre-Vatican II parish leaders say they provide content for a parish website,
compared to 77 percent of Millennial parish leaders.
117
Two-thirds of parish leaders say their parish provides them with an email address.
Only about half of non-Anglo leaders (52 percent) say their parish provides them with
email. Those in PLC parishes are least likely to report having a parish email (37 percent).
Leaders in paid positions are most likely to indicate their parish provides them with email (84
percent). The larger the parish, the more likely it is to provide email to leaders. Seventy percent
118
of those in parishes with 1,201 or more households have parish email addresses compared to
only 44 percent of those in parishes with 200 or fewer registered households.
Of those respondents indicating their parish provides email addresses, 43 percent say
these are from a commercial service such as Gmail or Yahoo. Fifty-seven percent of those
provided with an email address use a parish or diocesan address.
Eight in ten parish leaders (83 percent) say they access the Internet regularly from home.
About two-thirds (67 percent) say they do so on a work computer (91% of lay ecclesial
ministers). The likelihood that a parish leader uses a work computer to access the Internet
decreases with age. Nearly three in ten parish leaders (28 percent) use a mobile phone to access
the Internet. This is most common among younger parish leaders. Seven percent of all parish
leaders use some other device such as an e-reader, tablet, or gaming system to go online.
Indicate which method(s) you use regularly to access the Internet. Check all that apply.
Individual characteristics Generation
All
LEM
Anglos
Non-Anglos
Pre-Vatican II
Vatican II
Post-Vatican II
Millennial
Home computer 83% 79% 84% 78% 75% 84% 89% 85%
Work computer 67 91 69 55 38 71 82 93
Mobile phone 28 35 28 30 14 25 45 46
Other device 7 9 7 3 3 6 12 8
Of the online sites listed below, parish leaders are most likely to indicate that they use
Facebook or YouTube in their ministry (21 percent and 15 percent, respectively). Used less often
are blogs, LinkedIn, Twitter, and MySpace. Use of YouTube, blogs, and Twitter for ministry is
much more common among Millennials than older parish leaders. Outside of generational
differences, lay ecclesial ministers are among the most likely to use new media in their ministry.
Which of the following have you used in your ministry or service to this parish? Check all that apply.
Individual characteristics Generation
All
LEM
Anglos
Non-Anglos
Pre-Vatican II
Vatican II
Post-Vatican II
Millennial
Facebook 21% 40% 22% 22% 6% 20% 37% 39%
YouTube 15 36 15 15 4 14 24 39
Blog 9 16 9 8 4 8 11 31
LinkedIn 6 11 6 3 2 7 7 8
Twitter 3 5 3 3 0 2 3 31
MySpace 1 2 1 3 1 <1 2 8
119
Parish Reorganization
This section of the report is specific to parish leaders who are in a parish that has
undergone reorganization within the last five years. It is important to note that many leaders in
these parishes did not experience parish life before and after re-organization. Only those who
had this experience were asked to respond to these additional questions. Thus, this section is
specific to a smaller number of parishes and parish leaders where analysis of sub-group
differences is not possible.
Experience of Reorganization
Nearly two-thirds of parish leaders (63 percent) from multi-parish ministry or
consolidated parishes were in ministry at an affected parish both before and after its
reorganization.31
Only 22 percent of parish leaders experiencing reorganization said their role in ministry
changed before and after the transition.
31
It is not possible to distinguish differences between multi-parish ministry parish respondents and those in consolidated parishes due to too few responses from parish leaders in consolidated parishes who were present both before and after re-organization.
120
Changes in Ministry and Parish Life
One in ten leaders (10 percent) in parishes experiencing reorganization within the last
five years notes that diocesan support for their parish “decreased” following the transition.
Nearly the same percentage notes a decline in willingness of parishioners to volunteer (9
percent), parishioner involvement (9 percent), and archdiocesan support for their ministry (8
percent). Most indicate all of the items listed either “stayed the same” or “increased.”
How did the following change after the reorganization?
Decreased Stayed the
same
Increased Not
Applicable Arch/diocesan support for this parish 10% 51% 8% 31%
Willingness of parishioners to volunteer 9 65 17 9
Parishioner involvement 9 60 19 11
Arch/diocesan support for your ministry 8 47 8 37
Your total hours of ministry per week 7 57 21 14
Sense of community among parishioners 6 48 40 6
Your time spent on administrative responsibilities
4
36
36
35
Collaboration of parish leaders and staff 4 50 37 10
Your time spent on your primary ministry 2 58 27 13
Your time spent on planning and coordination 2 47 27 24
Your effectiveness 2 61 28 9
Expectation of parishioners toward your ministry
0
69
19
13
General effectiveness of the parish staff 0 69 19 13
Majorities of respondents indicated that the following “stayed the same”:
General effectiveness of the parish staff (69 percent)
Expectation of parishioners toward your ministry (69 percent)
Willingness of parishioners to volunteer (65 percent)
Your effectiveness (61 percent)
Parishioner involvement (60 percent)
Your time spent on your primary ministry (58 percent)
Your total hours of ministry per week (57 percent)
Arch/diocesan support for this parish (51 percent)
Respondents were most likely to say the following “increased” after reorganization:
Sense of community among parishioners (40 percent)
Collaboration of parish leaders and staff (37 percent)
Your time spent on administrative responsibilities (36 percent)
121
Training for Reorganization
Most respondents say they did not receive any special training for the reorganization.
Among those who did, many found this training useful.
Did you receive and special reorganization training in the following areas? If yes, evaluate the usefulness of this training in your ministry:
“Yes”
Considered "somewhat" or "very" useful
Models of multiple parish ministry 22% 67%
Collaboration 15 66
Empowering and delegating 14 67
Bereavement and grief 12 50
Ability to lead change and deal with resistance 10 50
Inter-parish community building 10 43
Communication skills 8 40
Networking 8 60
Stress management 4 33
Fiscal management 4 67
Time management 4 100
Coaching 2 50
Diversity training 2 0
More than one in five (22 percent) received training for models of multiple parish
ministry, and among these respondents two-thirds (67 percent) found this to be “somewhat” or
“very” useful.
Other training with the most widespread use (among at least 10 percent of respondents)
include sessions and/or materials on collaboration (15 percent), empowering and delegating (14
percent), bereavement and grief (12 percent), ability to lead change and deal with resistance (10
percent), and inter-parish community building (10 percent). Of those receiving these,
respondents were most positive in their evaluations for sessions or content regarding
empowering and delegating, collaboration, bereavement and grief, and ability to lead change and
deal with resistance.
122
Difficulties Following Reorganization
Leaders in parishes recently affected by reorganization are most likely to find the
following to have been at least “somewhat” difficult: unhappiness of parishioners (50 percent),
finding enough volunteers (43 percent), and interaction of parishioners from affected parishes
(38 percent).
Leaders were less likely to indicate the following as being at least “somewhat” difficult:
coordination of time between parishes (34 percent), interaction of staff members from parishes
(26 percent), and getting support from their diocese (25 percent).
123
Attitudes about Reorganization
Most leaders in parishes affected by reorganization agree “somewhat” or “very much”
that the positive elements of the parishes involved were retained (87 percent). More than three in
four (78 percent) agree at least “somewhat” that their parish’s financial situation is healthy. Two
thirds (66 percent) agree “somewhat” or “very much” that the reorganization they experienced
was carefully planned.
Respondents are more divided in their agreement with other issues. Fifty-six percent
agree at least “somewhat” that their parish has a greater sense of common purpose since the
reorganization. Fifty-three percent respond similarly, when asked if ministry, in general, has
been enhanced. A minority (46 percent) agree at least “somewhat” that there was little opposition
to the changes in their parish.
124
Innovations and Best Practices
Leaders in recently reorganized parishes were asked about any innovations or best
practices they would recommend for other parishes undergoing reorganization. Responses were
recoded into categories and are displayed by the frequency of each type of comment made by
respondents in the figure below.32
A third of comments (32 percent) emphasize the need for communication. This was the
most numerous type of response. Examples of those emphasizing communication include:
Communication, training, spiritual enhancement, and involvement
Frequent and detailed information be given to members of the parishes
Keep the parish members apprised of all communication and status of the process. Don't
assume anything.
The parishioners help make decisions. Don't command. Have all groups meet together.
32
Responses can include multiple ideas and therefore, more than one coded comment.
125
About one in five (19 percent) emphasized preparations that should be made or issues of
timing. Examples of those emphasizing this include:
Preparation of any kind for people, staff, pastors. Understanding that all will not go
perfectly. Hire staff that are capable of communication.
Six months is an adequate time frame.
Prepare. If possible, share the rationale of your decision. Be open.
Training helpful.
About one in five (19 percent) referenced issues with priests or their pastors. Examples of
those emphasizing this include:
A reorganization requires more priests. One priest cannot manage two parishes without
making sacrifices of himself and of parishioners.
Don't take away the number of priests when you join two parishes. We went from 2 to 1.
Let your parish pastor be the leader. He has the best ideas.
More care taken on assignment of priests to multi-pastoral congregations, Consider
demographics.
One in ten, or fewer emphasized issues of community, openness to change, prayer, or the
need to retain existing parish cultures. Examples of these types of comments include:
Be open to change and consolidation.
For both parishes this is not easy. Some parishioners do not feel comfortable going to
another church. Parishioners were not happy not having an office at [Parish Name].
I know it is difficult to close parishes - but it is my opinion that keeping parishes open
puts more importance on the building than the community...
Keep praying and communicating.
Parish leaders need to avoid the perception of a hidden agenda.
Take your time. Involve as many people as possible.
Provide a workshop/forum etc. for parishioners to express/answer concerns.
Let each parish retain its own culture and tradition.
126
Appendix:
Questionnaires
Your pastor/parish life coordinator indicated that you are a parish leader (staff member, volunteer, member of a parish council, or are active in parish life in other ways). This is not a commercial survey and your responses are completely confidential. The results will only be presented in aggregate and the names of individuals will not be shared with anyone. If a survey question does not apply to you leave it blank. Questions or assistance: Mark Gray at [email protected] or 202-687-0885. Your name: __________________________________ Parish Name: _________________________________ ______ 1. Year you began ministry or service at the parish named above. ______ 2. Total number of hours you are involved in ministry or service at this parish in an average week. ______ 3. Total number of paid hours you are involved in ministry at this parish in an average week. Yes No □ □ 4. In addition to this parish above, are you currently involved in ministry at other parishes? ______ 5. If yes, the total number of other parishes where you provide ministry. ______ 6. Total number of hours you are involved in ministry at all other parishes in an average week. ______ 7. Total number of paid hours you are involved in ministry at all other parishes in an average week. The questions that follow are specific to your ministry, service or activity at the parish named on the label above. Yes No □ □ 8. Is there a title(s) for your ministry position/role? 9. If yes, please specify the title(s) below: __________________________________. □ □ 10. Is there a written description for this position(s)? ______ 11. Year you began ministering/serving in this position(s).
□ □ 12. Before beginning your ministry or service at this parish were you a parishioner here?
□ □ 13. Did you start ministry or service at this parish as a volunteer? _______14. Year you first felt a call to ministry or service at this parish.
_______15. Year you first felt a call to ministry or parish service in any setting (parish, school, hospital; paid or volunteer). _______16. Year you first became involved in ministry or service in any setting (parish, school, hospital; paid or volunteer). Yes No □ □ 17. Were you inspired to be in ministry by any movement or program within the Church (e.g., Cursillo, RENEW). If yes, specify: ___________________________________. Please use these responses for questions 18 to 36: 1=None 4=About half (41-60%) 2=A little (1-20%) 5=More than half (61-80%) 3=Some (21-40%) 6=Almost all (81% or more) On average, how much of your time in ministry or service to this parish per month is spent on the following? 1 2 3 4 5 6 □ □ □ □ □ □ 18. Liturgy and/or music ministry. □ □ □ □ □ □ 19. Religious education for youth. □ □ □ □ □ □ 20. Adult faith formation. □ □ □ □ □ □ 21. Sacramental preparation/ RCIA. □ □ □ □ □ □ 22. Youth ministry. □ □ □ □ □ □ 23. Young adult ministry. □ □ □ □ □ □ 24. Evangelization. □ □ □ □ □ □ 25. Stewardship and development. □ □ □ □ □ □ 26. Budget and finances. □ □ □ □ □ □ 27. General parish administration. □ □ □ □ □ □ 28. Parish council duties/meetings. □ □ □ □ □ □ 29. Services to those in financial need. □ □ □ □ □ □ 30. Ministry to the sick, people with disabilities, or the homebound. □ □ □ □ □ □ 31. Ministry to the separated and divorced. □ □ □ □ □ □ 32. Ministry to the bereaved. □ □ □ □ □ □ 33. Ministry to the elderly/seniors. □ □ □ □ □ □ 34. Ethnic/cultural ministries (e.g., celebrations, community, outreach). □ □ □ □ □ □ 35. Public affairs/advocacy. □ □ □ □ □ □ 36. Other(s) (specify): _____________________________. _______ 37. Using the numbers for items 18-36 above (e.g., “24” would represent Evangelization”) indicate your primary ministry (e.g., most involved).
Please use these responses for questions 38 to 58: 1=Not at all 3=Somewhat 2=A little 4=Very Much NA= Not Applicable How much do you agree with the following statements regarding your ministry or service to this parish? Check the “NA” box if it does not apply to your ministry. 1 2 3 4 NA □ □ □ □ □ 38. I feel adequately prepared for ministry. □ □ □ □ □ 39. I felt adequately prepared for my ministry at the time I began it. □ □ □ □ □ 40. I feel sufficient job security in the parish. □ □ □ □ □ 41. The parish provides me with the resources I need for my ministry/service. □ □ □ □ □ 42. As a youth/young adult I had a desire to be involved in parish ministry. □ □ □ □ □ 43. I consider my ministry or service a calling or vocation, not just a job. □ □ □ □ □ 44. My knowledge/experience of my culture is essential to my ministry. □ □ □ □ □ 45. I believe my knowledge/experience of my culture is part of the reason I was selected for leadership. □ □ □ □ □ 46. I often feel overworked in my parish ministry or service. How much do you agree with the following statements regarding this parish? Check the “NA” box if it does not apply to the parish. 1 2 3 4 NA □ □ □ □ □ 47. A larger staff would help this parish accomplish its mission. □ □ □ □ □ 48. This parish is multicultural. □ □ □ □ □ 49. This parish has undergone significant changes in the last five years. □ □ □ □ □ 50. Parishioners readily volunteer. □ □ □ □ □ 51. Parishioners are invited and encouraged to participate in parish ministry. □ □ □ □ □ 52. Parishioners are encouraged to have a role in decision making in this parish. □ □ □ □ □ 53. Things were better in this parish five years ago. □ □ □ □ □ 54. Parishioners of different cultures participate in parish life together. □ □ □ □ □ 55. Older and younger members of the parish staff work well together. □ □ □ □ □ 56. The parish uses new technology and media effectively. □ □ □ □ □ 57. Parishioners are provided with adequate information about parish finances. □ □ □ □ □ 58. The racial and ethnic makeup of the parish is represented in parish leadership.
Please use these responses for questions 59 to 68: 1=Poor 3=Good 2=Fair 4=Excellent Please evaluate these aspects of parish life in this parish: 1 2 3 4 □ □ □ □ 59. Your overall satisfaction with the parish. □ □ □ □ 60. Sense of community within the parish. □ □ □ □ 61. Masses and liturgies in general. □ □ □ □ 62. Vision provided by parish leaders. □ □ □ □ 63. Encouragement of parishioners to share their time, talent, and treasure. □ □ □ □ 64. Efforts to educate parishioners in the faith. □ □ □ □ 65. Spreading the Gospel/evangelizing. □ □ □ □ 66. Hospitality or sense of welcome to all. □ □ □ □ 67. Celebration of the Sacraments. □ □ □ □ 68. Promoting important Church teachings/ causes (e.g., protecting life, helping the needy). Please use these responses for questions 69 to 77: 1=None 3=Some 2=A little 4=Very much In your opinion, how much priority should this parish give to: 1 2 3 4 □ □ □ □ 69. Sense of community within the parish. □ □ □ □ 70. Masses and liturgies in general. □ □ □ □ 71. Vision provided by parish leaders. □ □ □ □ 72. Encouragement of parishioners to share their time, talent, and treasure. □ □ □ □ 73. Efforts to educate parishioners in the faith. □ □ □ □ 74. Spreading the Gospel/evangelizing. □ □ □ □ 75. Hospitality or sense of welcome. □ □ □ □ 76. Celebration of the Sacraments. □ □ □ □ 77. Promoting important Church teachings/ causes (e.g., protecting life, helping the needy). Which of the following first led you to enter Church ministry and/or service in any setting (e.g., parish, school, hospital)? Check all that apply. □ 78. Response to God’s call. □ 79. To be of service to the Church (e.g., parish, school). □ 80. To enhance my spiritual life. □ 81. Fit areas of competence, interests, and/or gifts. □ 82. Invited by a pastor/parish life coordinator. □ 83. Wanted to be more active in parish life. □ 84. Attracted to ministry/service in local community. □ 85. Wanted to minister to or serve a particular ethnic, income, age, or disability group. □ 86. Other (specify): ____________________________.
Did any of the individuals listed below encourage you to begin your service or ministry? Check all that apply. □ 87. Spouse. □ 92. Deacon. □ 88. Other family member. □ 93. A friend. □ 89. Priest. □ 94. Teacher/professor. □ 90. Lay ecclesial minister. □ 95. A parishioner. □ 91. Religious brother/sister. Please use these responses for questions 96 to 112: 1=Not at all 3=Somewhat 2=A little 4=Very Much NA= Not Applicable How much do you agree that you have sufficient time for the following aspects of your ministry and life? 1 2 3 4 NA □ □ □ □ □ 96. My ministry or service to the parish. □ □ □ □ □ 97. Continuing education and professional development. □ □ □ □ □ 98. Personal prayer and spiritual reflection. □ □ □ □ □ 99. Family responsibilities. □ □ □ □ □ 100. Time with friends or guests. □ □ □ □ □ 101. Hobbies or special interests. How prepared are you in the following areas of parish life? 1 2 3 4 NA □ □ □ □ □ 102. Providing ministry to others. □ □ □ □ □ 103. Communicating. □ □ □ □ □ 104. Recruiting staff and volunteers. □ □ □ □ □ 105. Administration and planning. □ □ □ □ □ 106. Collaborating. □ □ □ □ □ 107. Teaching/providing instruction. □ □ □ □ □ 108. Managing conflict. □ □ □ □ □ 109. Counseling. □ □ □ □ □ 110. Working in a multicultural environment. □ □ □ □ □ 111. Supervising others. □ □ □ □ □ 112. Facilitating events/meetings. 113. Which of the following best describes you (select one): □ 1. Diocesan priest. □ 5. Religious priest. □ 2. Permanent deacon. □ 6. Religious sister. □ 3. Lay woman. □ 7. Religious brother. □ 4. Lay man. 114. If a deacon or lay person, what best describes your current marital status? □ 1. Single, never married. □ 3. Separated/divorced. □ 2. Married/remarried. □ 4. Widowed.
Yes No □ □ 115. If married, is your spouse Catholic? □ □ 116. If married, is your spouse employed? Please use these responses for questions 117 to 137: 1=Not at all 3=Somewhat 2=A little 4=Very Much Please evaluate the success of the parish where you are in ministry in achieving the following: 1 2 3 4 □ □ □ □ 117. Recruiting and retaining ministers/staff. □ □ □ □ 118. Communicating with parishioners. □ □ □ □ 119. Welcoming new parishioners. □ □ □ □ 120. Listening to parishioner concerns/input. □ □ □ □ 121. Celebrating cultural diversity. □ □ □ □ 122. Collaborating with other parishes. □ □ □ □ 123. Managing parish finances. □ □ □ □ 124. Providing cultural, ethnic, or national celebrations important to parishioners. □ □ □ □ 125. Promoting ministry opportunities. □ □ □ □ 126. Effectively using committees/councils. □ □ □ □ 127. Educating parishioners in the faith. □ □ □ □ 128. Providing social activities/programs. □ □ □ □ 129. Providing Mass in preferred languages. □ □ □ □ 130. Ministering to young adults. □ □ □ □ 131. Ministering to families. □ □ □ □ 132. Ministering to the elderly. □ □ □ □ 133. Ministering to those who are grieving. □ □ □ □ 134. Ministering to recent immigrants. □ □ □ □ 135. Ministering to those in financial need. □ □ □ □ 136. Outreach to inactive Catholics. □ □ □ □ 137. Providing accessibility for persons with disabilities. Did you ever attend… Yes No □ □ 138. Catholic primary school (K-8)? □ □ 139. Catholic secondary school (9-12)? □ □ 140. Catholic college/university/seminary? ______ 141. Year you were born. Yes No □ □ 142. Were you raised Catholic? Were any of these persons born outside of the United States? Check all that apply. □ 143. Yourself. □ 145. Your father. □ 144. Your mother. □ 146. Any of your grandparents. 147. Language(s) used in ministry:__________________.
Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA)
2300 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20007 ©2011, All rights reserved.
Which of the following best describes your racial or ethnic background? Check all that apply. □ 148. Asian/Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian. □ 149. Black/African American/African/Afro-Caribbean. □ 150. Hispanic/Latino(a). □ 151. Native American/American Indian/Native Alaskan. □ 152. White/Caucasian/European descent. 153. Is there a national origin, ethnicity, ancestry, tribe, or other group with which you identify yourself? __________________________________________. 154. What best describes your highest level of education? □ 1. High school graduate or less. □ 2. Some college or a two-year degree. □ 3. Four-year college degree. □ 4. Some graduate or professional school. □ 5. Graduate or professional school degree. Have you ever participated in a ministry formation program sponsored by any of the following? Check all that apply. □ 155. A diocese or a diocesan office or agency. □ 156. A college or university. □ 157. A seminary or school of theology. □ 158. An extension program for ministry formation. □ 159. Any other ministry certification program. Do you have or are you in the process of completing any of the following? Check all that apply. Have In Progress □ □ 160. Ministry formation program certificate. □ □ 161. Associate’s in ministry/religion/theology. □ □ 162. Bachelor’s in ministry/religion/theology. □ □ 163. Master’s in ministry/religion/theology. □ □ 164. Doctorate in ministry/religion/theology. Did any of the following provide financial assistance to you for any of the education or formation needed for your parish ministry or service? Check all that apply. □ 165. Parish. □ 168. Religious community. □ 166. College/Univ. □ 169. Catholic arch/diocese. □ 167. Seminary. □ 170. Other (specify): _________________________. Indicate which method(s) you use regularly to access the Internet. Check all that apply. □ 171. Work computer. □ 173. Mobile phone. □ 172. Home computer. □ 174. Other device.
Which of the following have you used in your ministry or service to this parish? Check all that apply. □ 175. YouTube. □ 178. LinkedIn. □ 176. Facebook. □ 179. Twitter. □ 177. Myspace. □ 180. A blogging site. Yes No □ □ 181. Does this parish have a website? □ □ 182. If yes, do you provide any content for the website for this parish? □ □ 183. Does this parish provide you with a dedicated parish e-mail address? □ □ 184. If yes, are these addresses from a commercial e-mail service (e.g., gmail, aol)? $____________185. Your current total annual salary or wages received for ministry or service in your parish (indicate “$0” if a volunteer). Yes No □ □ 186. Do you have a non-ministry job outside of the parish? □ □ 187. If yes to #186, is this job a paid position? □ □ 188. If yes to #186, is this job a full-time position? 189. Including income or wages from any jobs outside of the parish and any wages or income earned by a spouse or others in your household, in what range is your household’s total annual combined income? □ 1. Less than $25,000. □ 6. $70,000-$84,999. □ 2. $25,000-$39,999. □ 7. $85,000-$99,999. □ 3. $40,000-$54,999. □ 8. $100,000-$114,999. □ 4. $55,000-$69,999. □ 9. $115,000 or more. Please use these responses for questions 190 to 198: 1=Not at all 3=Somewhat 2=A little 4=Very Much NA= Not Applicable For each type of compensation or benefit for your ministry listed below, how satisfied are you? If you do not receive or use a particular type of compensation/benefit select “NA.” 1 2 3 4 NA □ □ □ □ □ 190. Wages/salary. □ □ □ □ □ 191. Retirement/pension. □ □ □ □ □ 192. Life insurance. □ □ □ □ □ 193. Health insurance. □ □ □ □ □ 194. Dental insurance. □ □ □ □ □ 195. Paid sick days. □ □ □ □ □ 196. Paid vacation days. □ □ □ □ □ 197. Education tuition assistance.
□ □ □ □ □ 198. Other (specify): ________________
QuestionsSpecifictoThoseProvidingMinistryinaMultipleParishSetting
Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) ©2010, All rights reserved.
Your pastor/parish life coordinator indicated that your parish has undergone reorganization in the last five years and now operates under a different structure involving shared ministries with another parish. Please complete the following questions relating to your ministry. If any of the questions do not apply to you leave them blank. Please return this form with your questionnaire. Parish Name: ___________________________________ Parish City: ____________________________________ Yes No □ □ 1. Prior to the recent reorganization, were you in ministry at any of the parishes involved in this recent reorganization? □ □ 2. Did your role in ministry change after this reorganization? □ □ 3. Prior to this reorganization, was your primary ministry at the current physical location of the parish named above? Please use these responses for questions 4 to 16: 1=Decreased 2=Stayed the Same 3=Increased NA= Not applicable How did the following change after the reorganization? 1 2 3 NA □ □ □ □ 4. Your total hours of ministry per week. □ □ □ □ 5. Your time spent on your primary ministry. □ □ □ □ 6. Your time spent on administrative responsibilities. □ □ □ □ 7. Your time spent on planning and coordination. □ □ □ □ 8. Your effectiveness. □ □ □ □ 9. Expectations of parishioners toward your ministry. □ □ □ □ 10. General effectiveness of the parish staff. □ □ □ □ 11. Willingness of parishioners to volunteer. □ □ □ □ 12. Collaboration of parish leaders and staff. □ □ □ □ 13. Arch/diocesan support for this parish. □ □ □ □ 14. Arch/diocesan support for your ministry. □ □ □ □ 15. Parishioner involvement. □ □ □ □ 16. Sense of community among parishioners.
Please use these responses for questions 17 to 41: 1=Not at all 3=Somewhat 2=A little 4=Very much Did you receive any special reorganization training in the following areas? Select yes or no. If yes, evaluate the usefulness of this training to your ministry. Yes No 1 2 3 4 □ □ □ □ □ □ 17. Ability to lead change and deal with resistance. □ □ □ □ □ □ 18. Inter-parish community building. □ □ □ □ □ □ 19. Communication skills. □ □ □ □ □ □ 20. Empowering and delegating. □ □ □ □ □ □ 21. Collaboration. □ □ □ □ □ □ 22. Time management. □ □ □ □ □ □ 23. Models of multiple parish ministry. □ □ □ □ □ □ 24. Networking. □ □ □ □ □ □ 25. Stress management. □ □ □ □ □ □ 26. Fiscal management. □ □ □ □ □ □ 27. Coaching. □ □ □ □ □ □ 28. Diversity training. □ □ □ □ □ □ 29. Bereavement and grief. How difficult have these been since reorganization? 1 2 3 4 □ □ □ □ 30. Finding enough volunteers. □ □ □ □ 31. Getting support from the Arch/diocese. □ □ □ □ 32. Unhappiness of parishioners. □ □ □ □ 33. Interaction of parishioners from parishes. □ □ □ □ 34. Interaction of staff members from parishes. □ □ □ □ 35. Coordination of time between parishes. How much do you agree with the following statements? 1 2 3 4 □ □ □ □ 36. The reorganization was carefully planned. □ □ □ □ 37. There was little opposition to the changes. □ □ □ □ 38. Positive elements of the parish(es) involved have been retained. □ □ □ □ 39. Ministry in general has been enhanced. □ □ □ □ 40. The parish financial situation is healthy. □ □ □ □ 41. The parish has a greater sense of common purpose since reorganization. Over
42. What innovations or best practices would you recommend for other parishes that are undergoing reorganization?
