Q&A: Technology task force gathering data, preparing recommendations
01-06-2012Q&A: Technology task force gathering data, preparing recommendations
Since the approval of the Imagine Ministry proposal at the 2011 Arkansas Annual Conference, task forces and teams have begun working to determine the details of what the new Conference structure will look like.Among these groups is the technology task force appointed by Bishop Charles Crutchfield, which will make recommendations to the transition team concerning the Conference’s new Center for Technology. Their work has included a survey of the technology capabilities and needs of the Arkansas Conference churches.
Brian Swain, the administrator at Central United Methodist Church in Fayetteville, serves as a member of the technology task force and was the survey coordinator. He spoke recently with Arkansas United Methodist editor Amy Forbus about the survey results, as well as the team’s ongoing process of imagining the future of technology’s role within the Arkansas Conference.How has the Technology Center task force approached this process?
There is a good combination of laity and clergy on the task force, and they bring a variety of expertise to the table. The task force is under the direction of Jim Argue, president and CEO of the United Methodist Foundation of Arkansas. It began meeting in August, and has met both in person and via videoconferencing, which has been extremely helpful since task force members are located all across the state.
Early in the process, the task force brought a technology consultant, Dr. Jim Pagan, onto the team. His guidance has been especially helpful and an integral part of the process. He’s spent a lot of time talking with Conference staff, with district superintendents, and with churches of all sizes across the state, helping us get an accurate picture of our starting point in this process before guiding us forward.
What kind of participation did you get from the local church survey?
Close to 50 percent of our churches responded to the survey, which I considered a great response. A variety of church sizes participated, too. I think it’s a strong enough sample that the data can be extrapolated to represent all of the churches in Arkansas.
Did any of the survey results surprise the task force?
One that jumps out at me is that 36 percent of churches don’t have a computer on premises. That, along with an Internet connection, are the two things I consider essential to send and receive communication in this day and age, so that’s a number I want to see shrink. There are still places in the state where Internet access simply isn’t available, but there aren’t many.
A pleasant surprise was that 96 percent of pastors reported having an email account. I really didn’t expect the number to be that high.
What types of patterns did you see?
Only half of the churches that responded have websites. There are roadblocks to having a website for churches that I hope the Center for Technology can help remove.
Something I expected to see is that a lot of our churches seem to be very interested in exploring technology further, but don’t know where to turn. Consequently, they end up doing nothing.
And some churches that responded are what I call “technologically averse,” meaning they just don’t seem to have an interest in exploring or investing in technology tools.
Among many churches, though, there was significant interest in establishing online giving and in streaming their worship services live on the web.
What about technology tools that don’t depend on Internet access?
One need mentioned by multiple churches has to do with sound systems. Either they don’t have a sound system at all, or the one they have is not working well for them. And several responders indicated that they could really benefit from some hearing assistance devices for those who have trouble hearing everything that’s said in a worship service.
Another item that stands out is the lack of church management software, which can track church finances, membership, attendance and group activity data. Only 39 percent of churches indicated that they have a church management software package in place. Some churches are still doing manual recordkeeping of their financial and membership data. Others are using programs like QuickBooks, which isn’t designed with a church in mind.
By providing access and training to churches in how to use software designed specifically for churches, I believe great improvement can be made in recordkeeping and operational efficiencies.
So do you foresee some kind of grant program to help local churches get the equipment they need?
The task force has not come up with a specific plan on this yet, but I believe consideration should be given to allocating a certain amount of money for grants on a need-based basis.
Our task force will make recommendations, but the ultimate decisions on direction in this area will reside with the bishop’s office and the new technology center director.
Is the goal still to have a director for the Center in place by some time this summer?
Yes, the task force is currently developing a job description for the director position, as well as an organizational chart for staffing.
Providing support for using new technology will be crucial. The task force is working on pathways for supporting local churches with technology enhancements that are made available and put into place. The process for selection of the new director is also still under discussion.
Is there anything else you’d like our readers to know?
One of our goals for the Center is that it helps establish connections between churches already using technology with those who are considering it. Churches can learn a lot from one another. There are some excellent advancements being made in the church community, and hopefully some best practices can be adapted from these.
Key findings of the survey conducted by the technology task force
The technology task force survey resulted in 478 total responses. Some churches tallied more than one response, but no church had more than four. The following information represents some of the key findings of the report:• 36 percent of churches responding do not have at least one computer on the church premises.
• 40 percent of church offices to not have access to the Internet.
• Of the 60 percent of churches that do have an Internet connection, 92 percent indicated that they have a high-speed broadband connection.
• Of the churches with broadband, 60 percent use DSL, 17 percent use cable, and 16 percent use a wireless connection. Only 5 percent of those with high speed Internet had either a T1 connection or higher or fiber connectivity.
• 61 percent of senior pastors have a personal digital device or smartphone.
• 96 percent of senior pastors and church staff have an email account.
• 50 percent of churches have a church website.
• 51 percent of churches use social media, with Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube being the most popular of the media used.
• Of the churches that use social media, 7 percent noted that they have the capability to live-stream their church services.
• 66 percent of senior pastors use social media, with Facebook and YouTube being the two most popular.
• 8 percent of responding churches indicated that they offer online giving, with Paypal being the most popular service provider.
• 39 percent of churches have a church management software package in place to maintain church membership and accounting records. Of the 121 respondents who identified their church management software, the most common were: Church Windows (29 percent), PowerChurch (22 percent), Shelby (21 percent), and ACS (18 percent).
• 91 percent of churches have a copy machine; 41 churches (9 percent) do not.
‘What obstacles prevent your church from greater utilization of technology?’
Of the 394 responses to this question, the top answer was lack of funding, listed by 73 percent of respondents.
The second-highest response (33 percent) centered on other limitations: limited technical knowledge, lack of staff/volunteers, lack of training and lack of equipment.
The third-highest response (25 percent) involved resistance to change in the congregation; typically, it was a small and aging congregation.
Other responses that totaled less than 5 percent included lack of time (4 percent); low-quality or nonexistent Internet service (4 percent); and facilities not compatible with use of technology in worship (2 percent).
