1. Stronger as One? Amalgamations and Team Ministry Fiona Tweedie, Church of Scotland From Evidence to Action 4 th December 2014 www.fromevidencetoaction.org.uk @ChurchGrowthRD #EvidenceToAction

2. Further work on Strand 3c Standardised attendance (1,2) Same classifications (3c) How can we look more locally? What about Team Ministry? From Evidence to Action 4 th December 2014 www.fromevidencetoaction.org.uk @ChurchGrowthRD #EvidenceToAction

3. Average Church Unit Size In general, rural areas have more churches per benefice. Contrast Hereford with Birmingham From Evidence to Action 4 th December 2014 www.fromevidencetoaction.org.uk @ChurchGrowthRD #EvidenceToAction

4. Geographical Barriers to Services IMD Data – how long does it take to get to services, e.g. GP, Post Office Similar pattern – Correlation coefficient is 0.80, p<0.01 From Evidence to Action 4 th December 2014 www.fromevidencetoaction.org.uk @ChurchGrowthRD #EvidenceToAction

5. Looking more locally Two-thirds of SCU(1) are in urban-like areas Three-quarters of MCU(4-6)+ are in rural-like areas To compare national figures is to compare urban with rural. From Evidence to Action 4 th December 2014 www.fromevidencetoaction.org.uk @ChurchGrowthRD #EvidenceToAction

6. From Evidence to Action 4 th December 2014 www.fromevidencetoaction.org.uk @ChurchGrowthRD #EvidenceToAction

7. From Evidence to Action 4 th December 2014 www.fromevidencetoaction.org.uk @ChurchGrowthRD #EvidenceToAction

8. Statistical analysis We can see differences, are they statistically significant? Include geography in analysis 2-way analysis of variance – benefice structure – geography type – interaction From Evidence to Action 4 th December 2014 www.fromevidencetoaction.org.uk @ChurchGrowthRD #EvidenceToAction

9. Statistical analysis Results – benefice structure – geography type – Interaction Effect of amalgamation different in different places From Evidence to Action 4 th December 2014 www.fromevidencetoaction.org.uk @ChurchGrowthRD #EvidenceToAction

10. Statistical analysis 1-way analyses of variance at each level of geography Significant differences in all but “urban” areas Compare SCU(1) with each other level of amalgamation From Evidence to Action 4 th December 2014 www.fromevidencetoaction.org.uk @ChurchGrowthRD #EvidenceToAction

11. Statistical analysis “mostly-urban”, “urban-rural” SCU(1) show most decline, significantly lower than 3+. “rural” – SCU(1) show most decline, significantly lower than 4+. From Evidence to Action 4 th December 2014 www.fromevidencetoaction.org.uk @ChurchGrowthRD #EvidenceToAction

12. From Evidence to Action 4 th December 2014 www.fromevidencetoaction.org.uk @ChurchGrowthRD #EvidenceToAction

13. From Evidence to Action 4 th December 2014 www.fromevidencetoaction.org.uk @ChurchGrowthRD #EvidenceToAction

14. Statistical analysis “urban” areas – no significant differences “remote-rural” – significant across 5 years others – change significantly better with more amalgamations From Evidence to Action 4 th December 2014 www.fromevidencetoaction.org.uk @ChurchGrowthRD #EvidenceToAction

15. Team Ministries Percentage Active Team Ministries by Diocese Much less geographical effect, e.g. Manchester From Evidence to Action 4 th December 2014 www.fromevidencetoaction.org.uk @ChurchGrowthRD #EvidenceToAction

16. Team Ministries Wide variety of differences between figures for Active Teams, and others. No significant difference across all dioceses. Testing for significance where >10% teams, no significant difference in all but one diocese. From Evidence to Action 4 th December 2014 www.fromevidencetoaction.org.uk @ChurchGrowthRD #EvidenceToAction

17. Conclusions Complex relationship between standardised growth and structure Geography has an effect, not always “more churches, greater decline” No significant effect of Team Ministry. From Evidence to Action 4 th December 2014 www.fromevidencetoaction.org.uk @ChurchGrowthRD #EvidenceToAction