Task Force Members

Kathy Bowman, Chair, Unitarian Church, Davenport, Iowa
Rev. Nancy Haley, UU Society of Iowa City, Iowa
Andrea Heier, UU Church of Minnetonka, Wayzata, MN
Randy McKeeman, First UU Church, Rochester, MN
Kathleen Oldfather, UU Fellowship of Manhattan, Kansas
Rev. Dr. Josh Snyder, Second Unitarian Church, Omaha, Nebraska

1. Introduction
2. Objective Data on Services
3. Responses to the Open-Ended Questions
4. Conclusion

I. Introduction

The Seventh Year Review Task Force would like to thank the Prairie Star District (PSD) Board for this opportunity to be of service. In this introduction, we will review the purpose of the PSD Evaluation and Vision Survey and the process used to evaluate the results. We will also include data regarding response rates and the consensus of the committee regarding the best way to interpret the data from the surveys.

The evaluation was devised to provide feedback to the PSD Board on the services that congregations had received in the past four years. The green form of the survey was sent to all congregational presidents from 2000-2001, ministers and professional directors of religious education. The yellow form of the survey was sent to district volunteers. Both groups were asked to rate vision statements written by the Board and to respond to four open-ended questions. The first open-ended question asked for an overall rating of District services. The second open-ended question asked for an overall assessment of the services provided by Nancy Heege, District Executive(DE). The third question asked respondents to state services that they would like to receive in the future that they have not received in the past. Finally, we asked all respondents to state their dreams and visions for the PSD in years to come. Additionally, the green form asked for a numerical rating (on a four point scale) of the specific services that were received by the congregation they represent.

A committee of six was appointed by the PSD Board to accomplish the Seventh Year Review. This committee was balanced by geography, by gender and by role (lay/ Minister/ DRE). The committee met for an organizational meeting on August 12, 2001. Tasks were assigned and a time line established. Publicity for the survey was in place by mid to late September. The survey format was created by mid October and mailed from the PSD office. Surveys were to be returned to Kathleen Oldfather before Thanksgiving. Follow up telephone calls were made to those who hadn’t returned the survey. By the end of January, Kathleen completed the compilation of the results: in early February the committee met to discuss the results; in mid February, the draft of the report to the Board was completed, e-mailed to the committee for their review, and finalized in March. The final draft of the report was submitted to the PSD Board on March 15th, 2002.

As of January 9, 2002, we had received at least one response from 48 of the 61 congregations surveyed. This is a response rate of 79%. Four of six surveys were returned by retired ministers and 5 of 11 surveys were returned from community ministers. Of the 120 green surveys mailed, 79 were returned for a response rate of 66%. Of the 132 yellow surveys mailed, 51 were returned for a response rate of 39%. Of the 32 green surveys sent to ministers, 26 were returned for a response rate of 81%. The response rate of District volunteers was lower. Groups that tended not to respond were the Unistar Management Committee members and the Youth with Adult working group. Four of five surveys were returned by Program Council people and 6 surveys were returned by the Resource Liaisons. Overall, the response rate was very high, tending to give greater validity to the results.

In the second section of this report, the objective data from the rating of services provided by the PSD and the vision statements will be reported. Observations from the Task Force will be included. In our opinion, the best way to look at the objective data is through rank ordering and comparison of numerical ratings. We did not analyze the data for statistical significance. The committee believes that there is narrative data in the open-ended responses to support any impressions that might be generated by looking at the objective data. In addition, the committee feels that it is important that all survey results be made public to anyone desiring to read them. In view of that belief, the committee urges all members of the PSD Board to review the survey results themselves, that the PSD staff have access to the survey results, and that the results, along with the report to the board, be made public to anyone requesting them at the PSD Annual Meeting in April.

In the third section of the report, the committee’s analysis of the four open-ended questions will be presented. Observations from the committee’s discussion of these responses will be included. These narratives are open to greater interpretation; the author’s intent may or may not always be clear, and our understanding of the comments may be incomplete. Nevertheless, for many items, there is sufficient repetition of narrative response such that, in our opinion, validity can be assigned to our observations.

In the fourth section of the report, we will attempt to summarize our observations. In addition, an appendix is included which is the compilation of the objective data and narrative response from the open-ended questions, and all of the raw data that we had.

II. Objective data on Services offered to PSD Congregations and Vision Survey Results

A. District Services Results

The following five services received the highest mean ratings:
(4-point scale)

District Sponsored Gatherings (3.60) and Camps (3.61) were also highly rated, but relatively few survey respondents rated these services.

The following categories received the two lowest mean ratings:

Observations:

• The two highest rated services are provided exclusively by the District Executive or under the supervision of the District Executive.
• Within each category of services, it is difficult to reach any definitive conclusions about the rating of a particular service due to the extreme variability in the number of respondents.
• The following specific services did receive relatively lower ratings than others, indicating that there is room for improvement: “Printed Resources provided by Resource Liaisons”, “Congregational Links receiving mailings from PSD/UUA”, and “Effectiveness of Electronic Communications”.
• Other services received ratings lower than 3.00, but because of the small number of respondents, it is difficult to determine if there is a significant problem. The PSD Board and Staff are urged to review these ratings to determine if, in their opinion, specific action is warranted.
• Since growth of membership in the PSD is rated as a high priority in the Visioning Survey, it appears that there may be under utilization of the Youth Programming/ Young Adult Network.

B. Visioning Results

The following are the rank order of the Vision Statements based on the mean of the weighted average of each question in the category:

green Surveys -- highest rated categories

yellow Surveys -- highest rated categories

• Within the category, “Healthy, vital congregations in the District by 2010”, both the green and yellow survey respondents rated, “High quality life span programming in congregations” as the highest priority. Both survey groups rated, “Two new full service congregations” as the lowest priority.
• Within the category, “Strong related UU organizations by 2010”, both groups rated, “Compensation and benefits for the district and congregational staff meet UUA standards” as the highest priority. Both groups rated “Seventy five percent of individuals understand the role of the PSD and UUA”, as the lowest priority.
• In the category, “Interconnected Web of UUs by 2010”, both groups rated, “Consistent, majority of children move through RE and stay in the denomination”, as the highest priority. Both groups rated, “A camp or conference center in the southern part of the district”, as the lowest priority.
• In the category, “A world which lives by UU Principles by 2010”, both respondent groups rated the statements in the following order: first, “UU Congregations are recognized as centers of learning on ethical issues”, second, “Unitarian Universalism is a household name and recognized as a positive social force”.

The green survey responses rated the following as the highest priorities across all categories:

1. Consistently, a majority of children move through RE and stay in the denomination.
2. High quality life span programming in congregations.
3. UU Congregations are recognized as centers of learning on ethical issues.
4. Unitarian Universalism is a household name and recognized as a positive social force.
5. A significant increase in congregational membership.

The yellow survey respondents rated the following as the highest priorities across all categories:

1. Consistently, a majority of children move through RE and stay in the denomination.
2. High quality life span programming in congregations.
3. A vibrant and active young Adult Network.
4. UU congregations are recognized as centers of learning on ethical issues.
5. UU congregations collaborating on projects.

The green survey respondents rated the following as the lowest priorities across all categories:

1. Two new full service congregations.
2. A camp or conference center in the southern part of the district.
3. Increased activity by UUs with national and international organizations.
4. Enthusiastic congregational support of UUA and PSD services.
5. Increased District resources and support of social justice activities.

The yellow survey respondents rated the following as the lowest priorities across all categories:

1. A camp or conference center in the southern part of the district.
2. Increased activity by UUs with national and international organizations.
3. Two full service congregations.
4. Increased district resources and support for social justice activities.
5. High expectations of congregation members.

Observations:

• There is probably no significant difference between the ratings of the two items under “A World that lives by UU principles by 2010”.
• There seems to be an inconsistency between a desire for increased membership and lack of enthusiasm for two new full service congregations.
• There seems to be consistency among respondents rating religious education for children and life long religious education as a high priority. The survey results seem to indicate that the focus should be on UU congregations as “teaching” congregations, such that if you were brought up a UU, you would stay a UU.
• Since respondents were not separated by geographic location, it is hard to interpret the lack of enthusiasm for a camp or conference center in the southern part of the district; those in the southern part might find it appealing, while those in the northern part might not see it as a priority.

III. Responses to the open-ended questions

Four open-ended questions were asked of both respondent groups. The first two questions asked for an overall assessment. The first question was about PSD services and the second was about the services provided specifically by Nancy Heege, District Executive. The final two questions were future oriented. Firstly, about what services the respondents would like to receive in the future and finally, what dreams and visions the respondents have for PSD.

A. District Services -- Overall Assessment

The overall assessment responses can be categorized as positive, positive/negative, negative, and no comment. Along with the assessments, a few suggestions were offered. The following chart summarizes the character of the responses.

(*Responses in this category were written comments about having no comment. Blank spaces in the response area were not tabulated.)

Nearly 77% of all respondents had only good things to say about PSD services. The most often used descriptors are excellent, positive, good, supportive, helpful, and strong. Other descriptors include wonderful, valuable, friendly, professional, responsive, and favorably impressed.

There were a few negative comments. The recurring themes in these comments seem to be centered on geographical isolation and communication issues. These results correlate with the lowest rated district services noted on page 3.

B. District Executive -- Overall Assessment

The general character of responses is summarized in the chart below.

Greater that 93% of all responses were exclusively positive and only one response (.8%) was exclusively negative and that one refers to a specific instance of conflict resolution (please refer to the appendix). These results are extremely positive. The most commonly used descriptors are excellent, responsive, professional, organized, prompt, knowledgeable, helpful and caring. These survey results confirm that Nancy Heege, District Executive, has served the PSD with distinction.

C. District Services for the Future

This open-ended question asks respondents to state what services they would like the district to offer that have not been provided in the past. Responses fall into several categories with some emerging themes. Below is a list of all topics mentioned with the number of times each was noted.

The following topics were mentioned once -- small group ministry, more OWL training, needs of larger congregations, community ministry, Camp Unistar, Camp in Southern PSD, UU retirement housing, and PSD history.

The previous summary list gives you an idea of the prevailing thinking out there. There is no substitute for reading the comments in their entirety.

D. Dream and Visions for PSD

The final open-ended question asks respondents to share their dreams and visions for the PSD. Three particular topics were mentioned more than 5 times:

Four more topics drew 3 comments each:

• More Leadership training
• Diversity
• Fund raising/ finance training
• Religious Education

The following topics were mentioned once or twice: District Liaison Program, regional UU groupings within the district, history, lifespan program, services to small congregations, web/communications, community ministry, camp in southern part of the district, building maintenance, service to larger congregations, and more adequate staffing in PSD.

IV. Conclusion

Again, the Task Force wishes to express its thanks for this opportunity to serve the PSD. It is our hope that this report adequately reflects the total body of responses gathered and we urge readers to read through the comments and ratings enclosed as appendices. It is our hope that this project will serve the district well now and into the future.

Seventh Year Review Task Force

Kathy Bowman, Chair
Rev. Nancy Haley
Andrea Heier
Randy McKeeman
Kathleen Oldfather
Rev. Dr. Josh Snyder