Major Findings. Methodology. July 2011 / Volume 4 / Issue 1 ISSN

Transcription

1 Canadian Evangelical Congregational Staff Compensation, by Rick Hiemstra, Director of Research and Media Relations, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada As the competing interests of tightening church budgets and declining volunteer corps squeeze church decision makers, the inevitable pair of questions that will get raised at a board meeting is How many staff do we need? and What can we afford to pay them? After the ensuing discussion has halfway run its course, there will be one board member that will raise a third, albeit just as difficult, a question, What do other congregations pay their staff? There are startlingly few places to look for an answer. The Canadian Baptists of Ontario and Quebec have been publishing helpful salary guidelines for several years and the Canadian Council of Christian Charities produced a study in 2007 and it is planning a follow up for the fall of 2011, but after that the trail turns very cold indeed. 1 What is typical? Is there any typical compensation and what are the ranges? Major Findings Half of evangelical congregations invested between 34% and 52% of their total income in staff compensation with 43% as the median. The 34%-43%-52% is a good rule of thumb for how much congregations invest in compensation; Staff who worked for congregations with more full-time staff tended to be better compensated than those who worked for congregations with fewer full-time staff; Congregations with larger full-time staffing complements tended to invest a smaller percentage of their total income in part-time compensation than those with smaller full-time staffing complements; Urban congregations tend to be more generous in their compensation packages than rural ones. Methodology Since 2000, the Canadian Charities Directorate has been making Charity Information Returns (CIR) available online. 2 CIRs track over 200 pieces of financial and program data including staffing levels and compensation. 3 There are several lines from the CIR forms that this paper will consider: Line 300: The number of permanent, full-time, compensated positions in the fiscal period. This number should represent the number of positions the charity had including both managerial positions and others, and should not include independent contractors; 1 See, for example, Recommended Salary Guidelines and Group Benefits Information for ( accessed May 10, 2011) and Canadian Ministry Compensation Survey ( accessed May 10, 2011) See Registered Charity Information Return (T3010) ( 09e.pdf ), accessed May 10, 2011) for the most recent version of the CIR under consideration in this paper and Completing the Registered Charity Information Return ( accessed May 10, 2011). The T3010A-03 version of the CIR included a substantial revision of the compensation data that has been essentially carried forward into subsequent versions. There three versions of the CIR that were used to collect data between 2003 and 2009: T3010A-03 ( accessed May 10, 2011); T3010A-05 ( accessed May 10, 2011); and T3010B (09) ( accessed May 10, 2011). The compensation line numbers vary from form to form but the line descriptions are materially the same. 1 of 16

2 Line 370: The number of part-time or part-year (for example, seasonal) employees the charity employed during the fiscal period; Line 380: The total expenditure on compensation for part-time or part-year employees in the fiscal period; Line 390: The charity s total expenditure on all compensation in the fiscal period; Lines : For the 10 highest compensated, permanent, full-time positions the number falling within each of the following annual compensation categories: $1 $39,999 (line 305); $40,000 $79,999 (line 310); $80,000 $119,999 (line 315); $120,000 $159,999 (line 320); $160,000 $199,999 (line 325); $200,000 $249,999 (line 330); $250,000 $299,999 (line 335); $300,000 $349,999 (line 340); and $350,000 and over (line 345). 4 Line 4700: Total revenue. 5 This paper looks at Canadian evangelical congregations which, for the purposes of this paper, are defined as congregations that are affiliated with one of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada s (EFC) 39 affiliate denominations. 6 The dataset includes 5,456 congregations which had a CIR posted online for at least one of the fiscal years from 2003 to 2009 on April 21, These 5,456 congregations make up about three-quarters of the congregations affiliated with the EFC s affiliate denominations and approximately half of all Canadian evangelical congregations. Given that the median budgets of rural congregations are roughly half those of urban congregations and knowing that salaries are usually the largest line item in a congregation s budget, I hypothesized that a congregation s setting would influence its staffing. 8 Therefore it was decided to segment the data into urban and rural congregations. A congregation was identified as rural if the second character of its postal code registered with the Charities Directorate was a zero (per Canada Post procedures) and as urban otherwise. 9 Appendix A describes the sample further according to denomination, province, and setting. I categorized congregations for both full- and part-time staffing complements as follows: 0 staff, 1 staff, 2 staff, 3 staff, 4 staff, and 5 or more staff. 10 There is a great deal of variation in evangelical congregational compensation. In fact, it varies so much that standard deviations would not be very helpful to congregations trying to determine whether or not their compensation levels were comparable to those of other congregations. Therefore, in this paper it was decided to 4 Prior to the T3010B-09 revision of the CIR, charities were only asked to report on the 5 highest compensated full-time employees, instead of the 10 highest. There were also fewer compensation categories: $1 $39,999; $40,000 $79,999; $80,000 $119,999; and $120,000 and over. In order to facilitate comparisons of 2009 with other years, data from lines 320 to 345 have been aggregated to produce data equivalent to the earlier $120,000 and over category. 5 See Registered Charity Information Return ( accessed May 10, 2011): 6 and 8. 6 See (accessed May 10, 2011) for a list of the EFC s affiliate denominations. See Appendix A, table 4 for the sample s denominational distribution of these congregations Rick Hiemstra, Canadian Evangelical Congregational Income, Church & Faith Trends 3:1 (February 2010): 13. ( accessed May 10, 2011) 9 Canada Post has urbanized New Brunswick postal codes. There are many evangelical congregations in a rural setting in New Brunswick, but the general rule was followed for the analysis in this paper rather than trying to make an independent determination of which New Brunswick congregations were urban and which were rural. 10 Where no staffing data (missing values) were reported, those missing values were deemed to be zero for the purpose of this study. 2 of 16

3 use quartiles (also referred to as the 25th, 50th (or median), and 75th percentiles) to mark out compensation ranges. The 25th and 75th percentiles provide boundaries inside of which half of the observations fall, and as such, a reasonable estimate of central tendency. The reader should be cautioned, however, that half of the observations fell outside this range, a quarter above and a quarter below. Full-time Staffing Compensation Categories Reported on CIRs Starting in 2009 the Canadian Charities Directorate required all registered charities to provide counts of the ten highest compensated, permanent, full-time positions and the number falling within a number of compensation ranges. 11 Prior to 2009, charities were asked only for the top five. A small percentage of congregations had more full-time staff than these two upper reporting limits. 12 These congregations will have had some under-reporting for the lower compensation ranges. Charts 1 and 2 examine the distribution of full-time staff across the CIR compensation ranges according to this study s full-time staffing categories in 2003 and In order to facilitate comparisons between 2003 and 2009, the larger number of compensation categories from 2009 have been reduced to match the four categories from With these qualifications, we make the following two observations about the distribution compensation ranges for full-time urban and rural congregations. First, most evangelical congregational compensation packages fell in the $1 $39,999 and $40,000 $79,999 ranges (See charts 1 through 4). Between 2003 and 2009 there was a substantial increase in the percentage of compensation packages in the $40,000 $79,000 range and a closely corresponding decrease in the $1 $39,999 range. The most likely explanation for this change is that many full-time staff previously in the $1 $39,999 had increases in their compensation packages that bumped them up into the next range. Second, urban congregations were more likely to provide higher compensation packages than rural ones. In 2003, 47.9% of urban full-time compensation packages were $40,000 or more, a number that rose to 58.9% by 2009 (see charts 1 and 2). By contrast, in 2003 only 27.3% of rural full-time compensation packages were $40,000 or more, and this number grew only to 46.9% by 2009 (see charts 3 and 4) 11 CIR lines See also footnote In 2003, 6.7% of congregations had more than 5 full-time staff, as did 7.0% in In 2009, 2.9% of congregations had more than 10 full-time staff. 13 See footnote 4. 3 of 16

4 Chart 1. Distribution of urban full-time Chart 2. Distribution of urban full-time compensation packages, 2003 compensation packages, 2009 $1 - $39,999 $40,000 - $79,999 $80,000 - $119,999 $120,000 and over $1 - $39,999 $40,000 - $79,999 $80,000 - $119,999 $120,000 and over ,705 1,943 2,032 1,613 Chart 3. Distribution of rural full-time Chart 4. Distribution of rural full-time compensation packages, 2003 compensation packages, 2009 $1 - $39,999 $40,000 - $79,999 $80,000 - $119,999 $120,000 and over 3 8 $1 - $39,999 $40,000 - $79,999 $80,000 - $119,999 $120,000 and over We know that the percentage of larger compensation packages grew between 2003 and Can we learn anything else about which congregations tended make these larger investments? 14 I looked at the percentage of compensation packages that were $40,000 or more (an aggregate of the three highest compensation ranges) for each of our full-time staffing categories. These data were further segmented by setting (urban or rural). We are looking for patterns in the data and in this case we found a fairly consistent dish shape for the various 14 I am making a deliberate decision to refer to compensation as an investment rather than a cost. While the reader may find this unusual, it reflects the author s conviction that an investment in the staff is an investment in the ministry of the congregation and the Kingdom. 4 of 16

5 segmentations (see chart 5), where the percentage was higher for the smallest and largest staffing categories and lower for the middle ones. The one deviation from this pattern was the rural 1 full-time staff category in 2003, where it appears one side of the dish has given way. Given that this anomaly does not appear in the 2009 data, it may be, in fact, just that, an anomaly. An additional study would be needed to explain why we are observing this pattern. Were the kinds of positions congregations were filling for the second, third, and fourth positions ones that were less generously compensated, or were there other explanations? Chart 5. Percentage of compensation packages $40,000 or more by full-time staffing category, urban and rural, 2003 and % 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 0 FT 1 FT 2 FT 3 FT 4 FT 5 or more FT 0 FT 1 FT 2 FT 3 FT 4 FT or more FT Urban 49.1% 43.9% 46.0% 46.9% 52.2% 65.8% 57.2% 53.7% 50.0% 59.0% Rural 23.7% 32.7% 30.7% 33.3% 40.0% 48.1% 45.1% 43.3% 46.9% 52.6% Before examining the data in charts 6 and 7, a comment about the presence of full-time compensation numbers for congregations reporting zero full-time staff is in order. These data are collected from CIRs. When the Charities Directorate receives these CIR forms, no attempt is made to verify or correct the data. 15 It is inevitable that there will be a certain number of errors when survey data are collected. In these cases there was a discrepancy between the reported total number of full-time employees and the number of full-time employees in the various compensation ranges. These errors could have occurred when the forms were initially completed or at the data entry stage at the Charities Directorate. In 2009 these data represented only 1.5% of both rural and urban reported compensation packages. I decided to present these data for the sake of completeness but I will not comment on them further. As already noted, the percentage of full-time compensation packages of $40,000 or more grew between 2003 and This growth was different for urban and rural congregations, however. The growth in the $40,000 $79,999 range was higher for rural congregations, 72.1%, than for urban ones, 13.1%. When we look at higher compensation ranges, however, it is the urban congregations that outstripped the rural ones. The percentage of urban full-time compensations of $80,000 or more grew from 2.1% in 2003 to 7.2% in 2009 a huge increase of 241%! Rural congregations, by contrast, grew this percentage from 0.8% in 2003 to 1.3% in 2009, a much smaller 15 Unless the charity is selected for an audit. 5 of 16

6 57% increase. Most of this growth in the highest compensation ranges comes from congregations with 4 or more full-time staff (see charts 6 and 7). Chart 6. Distribution of urban full-time staff salary ranges by full-time staffing complement group, 2003 and ,400 1,200 1, FT 1 FT 2 FT 3 FT 4 FT 5 or more FT 0 FT 1 FT 2 FT 3 FT 4 FT $120,000 and over $80,000 - $119, $40,000 - $79, $1 - $39, Notes: There are various reasons that congregations who reported zero full-time staff may, nevertheless, report full-time staff in various income ranges. The simplest and most likely explaination is that an error was made in either the completion of the CIR or in the transfer of the data from the form to the Charities Directorate database. These congregations represent less than 1% of the entire sample. 5 or more FT 6 of 16

7 Chart 7. Distribution of rural full-time staff salary ranges by full-time staffing complement group, 2003 and FT 1 FT 2 FT 3 FT 4 FT 5 or more FT 0 FT 1 FT 2 FT 3 FT 4 FT $120,000 and over $80,000 - $119, $40,000 - $79, $1 - $39, Notes: There are various reasons that congregations who reported zero full-time staff may, nevertheless, report full-time staff in various income ranges. The simplest and most likely explaination is that an error was made in either the completion of the CIR or in the transfer of the data from the form to the Charities Directorate database. These congregations represent less than 1% of the entire sample. Marginal Increases in Compensation for Additional Full-time Staff The CIR compensation range data are really quite limited in what they can tell us about congregational compensation because such a large percentage of compensation packages fall into one of two ranges. I was looking for another way to try to understand some of the differences in congregational compensation. To do this I segmented the congregations by staffing complements (i.e., into groups according to their number of full- and part-time staff). Out of these groups I decided to look just at those who had full-time staff and no part-time staff. This allows us to isolate compensation that pertains just to fulltime compensation. 16 This left me with several groups of congregations that had only full-time staff: 0 full-time staff, 1 fulltime staff, and so on. Analysing each of these groups individually, I calculated each group s median total compensation (which in these cases meant total full-time staff compensation). My question, then, was How much more is the median from one group, i.e., the median for those with 1 full-time staff, than the median for the group with one more full-time staff? I called this number the marginal increase in compensation for additional full-time staff. It is important to say what this number does not represent. It does not represent the compensation for individual staff except in the case where there is just one full-time staff. We have no way to know from these data how a congregation divides up its compensation between 2, 3, 4 or 5 or more full-time staff. Rather, we are looking at what a group of congregations with a particular staffing complement typically (meaning in the median in this case) invest in compensation compared with the group of congregations with one more staff. The difference between these two numbers is what I am calling the marginal compensation associated with additional staff (see chart 8). 5 or more FT 16 I investigated whether or not full-time compensation numbers could be generated by subtracting part-time compensation from total compensation. I found that there were too many cases where one or the other of these numbers were missing, which made the calculation impossible. In addition to this, I was concerned about the ambiguity of the line definitions and whether or not this calculation would, in fact, produce what I was intending. Because of this data problem and my concern over definitions, I did not pursue this line of analysis. 7 of 16

8 Chart 8. Marginal median compensation as congregations add full-time (FT) staff, urban and rural, 2003 and 2009 ab $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 All Urban Rural All Urban Rural FT to 1 FT $40,549 $38,152 $40,960 $43,756 $48,478 $38,963 1 FT to 2 FT $53,033 $62,433 $43,111 $70,285 $75,723 $54,026 2 FT to 3 FT $81,192 $105,739 $69,511 $108,681 $53,406 a There were too few observations for rural congregations with 3 full-time staff in 2003 to include the data on this chart. b There were only sufficient observations to present the data for three increments. In 2003, each additional full-time staffing position was associated with a larger increase in median total compensation. This does not necessarily mean, for example, that the second full-time staff person was being compensated more generously than the first. Rather, it means that the overall jump in total full-time staff compensation associated with the second staff person was greater than that of hiring the first. The increase may have been and likely was spread across all full-time staff. What this likely means is that as congregations expand their staffing complements everyone on staff tends to get paid more than if they were working in a congregation with a smaller staffing complement. In short, we might say that bigger congregations (bigger meaning those with larger staffing complements) tend to provide bigger compensation packages. This seems to hold true for urban congregations in both 2003 and 2009, but for rural congregations there needs to be a qualification. The marginal median compensation from 1 to 2 full-time staff is larger than from 0 to 1 full-time staff. However, the marginal median compensation from 2 to 3 full-time staff adds roughly the same amount to a congregation s total compensation as the marginal median compensation from 1 to 2 (see chart 8). This is a fascinating result because it suggests that, at least for urban congregations, that it costs more to staff large congregations. This could reflect what it costs to attract good candidates in what is usually a comparatively more costly living situation. It would be interesting to pursue this finding further with qualitative research to understand why congregations with larger full-time staff tend to offer higher compensation. Total Compensation as a Percentage of Total Income Compensation packages are negotiated, which is to say that a staffing candidate would, generally speaking, like congregations to be as generous as possible, while congregations might have a tendency to be somewhat more parsimonious. Both sides are interested in what is typical. While we cannot say what is typical for particular 8 of 16

9 0 FT, 0 PT 0 FT, 2 PT 0 FT, 4 PT 1 FT, 0 PT 1 FT, 2 PT 1 FT, 4 PT 2 FT, 0 PT 2 FT, 2 PT 2 FT, 4 PT 3 FT, 0 PT 3 FT, 2 PT 3 FT, 4 PT 4 FT, 0 PT 4 FT, 2 PT 4 FT, 4 PT 5 or More, FT 0 PT 5 or more FT, 2 PT 5 or More FT, 4 PT July 2011 / Volume 4 / Issue 1 compensation packages beyond what we have seen for the reported full-time compensation ranges, we can say what is typical with respect to total compensation as a percentage of total income. Charts 9 and 10 graph the quartiles of total compensation as a percentage of total income. The horizontal axis in both these charts represents various staffing complements starting from 0 full-time and 0 part-time, adding 1 part-time for each gradation until we come to 5 or more part-time staff. One full-time staff is then added, the part-time staffing complement is dropped to zero and the pattern is continued to the right along the axis. All of this is to say that the gradients in the horizontal axis are not regular and readers should be aware of this as they examine it. In spite of this irregularity I believe that the axis provides a helpful way for us to understand changes in total compensation as staffing complements grow. Charts 9 and 10 show the combined data for both urban and rural congregations. 17 We can see that, especially after a congregation has one full-time staff, that the quartiles are remarkably regular across the various staffing complements. What is more, these data are very consistent between 2003 and While the charts presented do not demonstrate this, the same consistency extends across urban and rural settings. Chart 9. Total compensation as a percentage of total income, quartiles, by full-time (FT) and part-time (PT) staffing complements, % 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 25th Percentile 50th Percentile 75th Percentile 0% 17 I made a methodological decision not to present data where there were fewer than 25 observations. Therefore, had I presented urban and rural charts separately they would have been substantially incomplete due to the low number of observations for several staffing segmentations. Therefore, only the more comprehensive charts, which include both urban and rural data, are presented. 9 of 16

10 0 FT, 0 PT 0 FT, 2 PT 0 FT, 4 PT 1 FT, 0 PT 1 FT, 2 PT 1 FT, 4 PT 2 FT, 0 PT 2 FT, 2 PT 2 FT, 4 PT 3 FT, 0 PT 3 FT, 2 PT 3 FT, 4 PT 4 FT, 0 PT 4 FT, 2 PT 4 FT, 4 PT 5 or More, FT 0 PT 5 or more FT, 2 PT 5 or More FT, 4 PT July 2011 / Volume 4 / Issue 1 Chart 10. Total compensation as a percentage of total income, quartiles, by full-time (FT) and part-time (PT) staffing complements, % 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 25th Percentile 50th Percentile 75th Percentile 0% Once there was at least one full-time staff person, the total compensation as a percentage of total income quartiles for 2003 and 2009 was as follows: 25th percentile, 34.1% in 2003 and 34.2% in 2009; 50th percentile (median), 43.1% in 2003 and 42.9% in 2009; and 75th percentile, 53.0% in 2003 and 52.1% in Roughly speaking 34%-43%-52% are the quartiles for total compensation as a percentage of total revenue; these quartiles seem to hold steady over time and across various staffing categories. We must keep in mind, however, that one quarter of congregations invested less than 34% of their total income in compensation and another quarter invested more than 52%. Part-time Compensation as a Percentage of Total Income Investment in part-time compensation (CIR line 380) was not as consistent as congregations investments in total compensation. In charts 11 and 12 below, we have used the same horizontal axis as in charts 9 and 10 above. There were, of course, gaps in the data where there were no part-time staff to compensate. This has led to the data appearing as a series of clusters for each full-time staffing category. As before, quartile data are presented but this time the data are the percentages of total income invested in part-time compensation. From these two charts (11 and 12) we make the following four observations. First, the percentage of a congregation s total income invested in compensation for part-time staff is markedly higher for congregations with no full-time staff than those with full-time staff. The median for congregations with no full-time staff was 29.3% in 2003 and 31.0% in 2009, while for congregations with full-time staff it was 6.0% in 2003 and 4.0% in It is understandable that in the absence of full-time staff a congregation would rely more heavily on part-time staff and, therefore, end up investing more in their compensation. What is somewhat surprising is to see the slight reduction, 6.0% to 4.0%, in the median percentage invested by congregations with full-time staff. Congregations have been increasing their part-time staffing complements so it would be natural to 10 of 16

11 0 FT, 0 PT 0 FT, 2 PT 0 FT, 4 PT 1 FT, 0 PT 1 FT, 2 PT 1 FT, 4 PT 2 FT, 0 PT 2 FT, 2 PT 2 FT, 4 PT 3 FT, 0 PT 3 FT, 2 PT 3 FT, 4 PT 4 FT, 0 PT 4 FT, 2 PT 4 FT, 4 PT 5 or More, FT 0 PT 5 or more FT, 2 PT 5 or More FT, 4 PT July 2011 / Volume 4 / Issue 1 assume that the percentage of their total incomes that they invest in part-time staff would rise accordingly, but this was not the case. 18 Chart 11. Part-time compensation as a percentage of total income, quartiles, by full-time (FT) and part-time (PT) staffing complements, % 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 25th Percentile 50th Percentile 75th Percentile 0% 18 See Rick Hiemstra, Canadian Evangelical Congregational Full-time and Part-time Staffing Complements, Church & Faith Trends 4:1 (July 2011). 11 of 16

12 0 FT, 0 PT 0 FT, 2 PT 0 FT, 4 PT 1 FT, 0 PT 1 FT, 2 PT 1 FT, 4 PT 2 FT, 0 PT 2 FT, 2 PT 2 FT, 4 PT 3 FT, 0 PT 3 FT, 2 PT 3 FT, 4 PT 4 FT, 0 PT 4 FT, 2 PT 4 FT, 4 PT 5 or More, FT 0 PT 5 or more FT, 2 PT 5 or More FT, 4 PT July 2011 / Volume 4 / Issue 1 Chart 12. Part-time compensation as a percentage of total income, quartiles, by full-time (FT) and part-time (PT) staffing complements, % 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 25th Percentile 50th Percentile 75th Percentile 0.0% Second, if we track compare the full-time staffing clusters in charts 11 and 12 we see (for congregations with 1 or more full-time staff) that there was a slight linear decline in the percentage of total income invested in part-time staff compensation as full-time staffing complements grew. This does not necessarily mean that part-time staff were more poorly compensated in churches with larger full-time staffing complements. Third, the larger a congregation s part-time staffing complement, the more variability there was in the percentage of a congregation s budget invested in part-time compensation. Looking at the range provided by the 25th and 75th percentiles for 2003 for 1 part-time staff and 5 or more part-time staff we find the ranges 1.9% to 6.8% and 5.2% to 15.6% respectively. 19 This pattern of variation extends into the 2009 data as well. Fourth, while the data are not presented in the preceding charts, there is a difference in the median percentage of total income that urban and rural congregations invest in part-time compensation. In 2003 there was not much difference with urban congregations investing 6.4% and rural ones 5.4%. By 2009 the numbers were 4.9% and 2.2% respectively. So both urban and rural congregations reduced the percentage of total income invested in part-time compensation from 2003 to 2009, but rural congregations made the most significant reductions. As stated earlier, more research is needed to determine why we are seeing these reductions, and more research is needed to determine why these reductions were more significant for rural congregations than urban ones. 19 These data were calculated from the dataset and are not easily discernable from charts 11 and of 16

13 Conclusions So what is normal or typical for evangelical congregational compensation? Here are seven findings. First, most evangelical congregational compensation packages were in the $1 $39,999 and $40,000 $79,999 ranges. These are modest compensation packages. Even the large growth in the percentage of compensation packages in the $40,000 $79,999 range accompanied by a somewhat corresponding reduction in the $1 $39,999 range suggests that most of the new $40,000 $79,999 compensation packages are made up of those who were simply bumped over the threshold. Second, urban congregations tend to be more generous in their compensation packages than rural ones. This is to be expected because there is a corresponding higher cost of living in urban centres and urban congregations also tend to have higher incomes. Third, in congregations with larger staffing complements everyone on staff tended to get paid more than if they were working in a congregation with a smaller staffing complement. Fourth, half of evangelical congregations invest between 34% and 52% of their total income in compensation for their staff. The median was 43%. This quartile triad 34%-43%-52% is a very stable rule of thumb for what congregations invest in compensation. The reader should be cautioned, however, that half of congregations were outside this range, and that compensation packages need to be tailored to the needs of staff and the congregation, not necessarily to what is done elsewhere. There is a great deal of variation in evangelical congregational compensation just as there is a great deal of variation in their ministries. Fifth, congregations with larger full-time staffing complements tend to invest a smaller percentage of their total income in part-time compensation than those with smaller full-time staffing complements. Sixth, the larger a congregation s part-time staffing complement, the more variability there was in the percentage of a congregation s budget invested in part-time compensation. Seventh, both urban and rural congregations reduced the percentage of total income invested in part-time compensation from 2003 to 2009, but rural congregations made the most significant reductions. There are both broad and stable patterns to how evangelical congregations invest in compensation and at the same time there is a lot of variability from congregation to congregation. It is my hope that this provides a helpful basis from which denominational leaders, congregations, and their staff can begin a discussion about investing in staff compensation. 13 of 16

14 Appendix A: The Sample Table 1. Number of congregations reporting a Charitable Information Return, urban, rural and New Brunswick (NB), 2003 to Urban a 3,167 3,219 3,273 3,325 3,379 3,395 3,399 Rural a 1,627 1,629 1,638 1,645 1,649 1,651 1,641 NB b Missing Total 5,456 5,456 5,456 5,456 5,456 5,456 5,456 a A congregation was considered rural if the second character of the postal code which was registered with the Charities Directorate on April 21, 2011 was a zero ( 0 ). b Canada Post has urbanized New Brunswick postal codes. There are many evangelical congregations in a rural setting, but the general rule was followed for the analysis in this paper rather than trying to make an independent determination of which New Brunswick congregations where urban and which were rural. Table 2. Number of urban a congregations reporting a Charitable Information Return by province or territory, 2003 to 2009 Province b BC AB SK MB ON 1,413 1,435 1,463 1,486 1,507 1,516 1,510 QC NS PE NL YT NT NU Total 3,167 3,219 3,273 3,325 3,379 3,395 3,399 a A congregation was considered urban if the second character of the postal code which was registered with the Charities Directorate on April 21, 2011 was not a zero ( 0 ). b Canada Post has urbanized New Brunswick postal codes. There are many evangelical congregations in a rural setting, but the general rule was followed for the analysis in this paper rather than trying to make an independent determination of which New Brunswick congregations where urban and which were rural. 14 of 16

15 Table 3. Number of rural a congregations reporting a Charitable Information Return by province or territory, 2003 to 2009 Province b BC AB SK MB ON QC NS PE NL YT NT NU Total 1,627 1,629 1,638 1,645 1,649 1,651 1,641 a A congregation was considered rural if the second character of the postal code which was registered with the Charities Directorate on April 21, 2011 was a zero ( 0 ). b Canada Post has urbanized New Brunswick postal codes. There are many evangelical congregations in a rural setting, but the general rule was followed for the analysis in this paper rather than trying to make an independent determination of which New Brunswick congregations where urban and which were rural. Table 4. Number of congregations in sample, by denomination Denomination N Percentage Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada % Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches % The Christian and Missionary Alliance in Canada % Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches % Canadian Baptists of Ontario and Quebec % The Salvation Army Canada/Bermuda Territory % Christian Reformed Church in North America % Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches % Mennonite Church Canada % Church of the Nazarene in Canada % Canadian Fellowship of Churches and Ministers % Canadian Baptists of Western Canada % Canadian National Baptist Convention % Associated Gospel Churches of Canada % Evangelical Free Church of Canada % The Free Methodist Church in Canada % Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada % North American Baptist Conference % 15 of 16

16 Table 4 (continued) Denomination N Percentage The Wesleyan Church of Canada % Vision Ministries % Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland and Labrador % Baptist General Conference of Canada % Fellowship of Christian Assemblies of Canada % Evangelical Mennonite Conference % Apostolic Church of Pentecost % Reformed Church in America - Canada % Vineyard Resource - Canada % Canadian Conference of the Brethren in Christ Church % Church of God - Anderson % Fellowship of Evangelical Bible Churches % Evangelical Mennonite Mission Conference % Anglican Network in Canada % United Brethren Church % Grace Communion International (formerly the Worldwide Church of God) 5 0.1% The Evangelical Christian Church in Canada (Christian Disciples) 2 0.0% Total 5, % 16 of 16