Evaluating the United Methodist Agencies

By Brad Brady, Connectional Table member

The Connectional Table has conducted external evaluation of the nine programmatic general agencies since its inception in 2004.  Previously, the General Council on Ministries conducted external agency evaluation.

The Connectional Table’s assignment for the evaluation function is found in paragraph 905.4 of the Book of Discipline:

“To review and evaluate the missional effectiveness of general program-related agencies and connectional structures of the church as they fulfill the mission of The United Methodist Church to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the Transformation of the world.”

The external evaluation conducted by the Connectional Table is in addition to the internal evaluation each agency conducts at the direction of its board of directors.

The current Agency Evaluation Advisory Group, which operates under the umbrella as the CT’s Vital Congregations Through the Four Areas of Focus Working Group, met in November 2016 to begin developing our strategy for this quadrennium.  We constructed the framework for our evaluation process over the following six to nine months in consultation with the agencies and the entire CT board.  The evaluation framework was approved in May 2017 at our Oslo meeting.

The process is grounded in four values:

  1. Missional fruitfulness – Outcomes

  2. Continuous improvement – Evaluation

  3. Building partnerships – Increasing capacity

  4. Communicating the story – Increasing transparency

This quadrennium’s evaluation process is divided into three phases.  Below is a broad overview of each phase.

Phase One:  

Phase one was designated as the “Learning” phase.  During this phase, the CT sought information about the programmatic ministries of each agency as it related to the “Four Areas of Focus.”  Specifically, each agency was invited to submit information about their ministry activities using the logic model tool. This tool helped standardize the collection of data and asked program agencies to think about designing their ministries with measurable missional fruitfulness as the end goal.

The agency evaluation team supported evaluation staff from the agencies in learning and using the logic model tool.  A beneficial day of training was held at the CT office to introduce the logic model tool and to coach agency staff on how to utilize the tool to frame their programming.  Recently, the CT hired Brian Cesario, Ph.D., as a part-time evaluation consultant to continue supporting efforts to build evaluation capacity within the agencies.

Phase Two:  

Phase two was designed to synthesize the volumes of data received in the learning phase and generate actionable information.  Each of the four areas of focus has an agency designated as the “Lead Agency.” The four lead agencies collated the combined logic model data from the participating agencies with programming in their area of focus.  Where possible, the lead agency organized the program data “buckets” of similar activities so all could begin to see the scope and scale of the collective ministry offerings related to each of the four areas of focus.

The evaluation team hosted a “Learning Dialogue” for each of the four areas of focus.  This was a significant day of mutual learning for all participants. Using the data organized by the lead agency, all participants were enlightened on what each agency working on in an area of focus.  This information sharing revealed each agency’s creative and faithful efforts to address the area of focus. There is much to celebrate about the collective efforts of our agencies. Other initial observations included identifying:

  • Several significant inter-agency partnerships;

  • Some overlapping of efforts that could result in new partnerships; and

  • One or more agency deciding to redirect its resources to another purpose due to the fruitfulness of another agency’s work.

In addition to the four areas of focus dialogues, the agency evaluation advisory group met with each programmatic agency to learn about its disciplinary mandates and other essential ministries.  These aspects of each agency’s work pre-date the four areas of focus and flow out of their original primary purpose for existing.

The agency evaluation team will report its collective observations and recommendations to the Fall 2018 Connectional Table meeting.  

Phase Three:

Phase three, “Strategic Planning and Resource Allocation”, will continue as leaders proceed toward the budgeting process for next quadrennium.  It is important to note that each agency designs its own line-item budgets, which is approved by their own board of directors. It is the CT evaluation team’s expectation that the information and insights gained from the evaluation process and dialogues will assist each agency’s leadership in the challenging resource allocation decisions that lie ahead.

Brad Brady is a pastor at Perry United Methodist Church in Perry, GA, and an elder in the South Georgia Annual Conference. He is serving his second quadrennium on the Connectional Table as an elected member from the Southeastern Jurisdiction. On the CT, he serves as the convener of the Agency Evaluation Advisory Group and a member of the joint CT-GCFA Budget Advisory Team.

United Methodist Communications is an agency of The United Methodist Church

©2024 United Methodist Communications. All Rights Reserved