EfM Program Survey: An Overview of Results

Jennifer Wickham, M.S. | mentor, trainer

 Jennifer has a master’s degree in Sociology with a concentration in nonprofit evaluation. She has served the EfM program as a mentor and trainer since 2002. She is also a member of the working group called together to review and incorporate feedback received from the EfM program’s organizational consultants. The working group consists of program staff, mentors, coordinators, and trainers.

As many of you know, Education for Ministry (EfM) is in the midst of a number of changes. In the summer of 2023, the program said goodbye to Karen Meridith, who served as Executive Director for 12 years. We also welcomed our new executive director, the Rev. Kevin M. Goodman. Roughly two years ago, and in anticipation of this transition, Karen and the Very Rev. James F. Turrell (Dean, School of Theology) began conversations with Learning Forte (LF!), an outside organizational consultant group. Working together with members of the university, program staff, and other EfM partners, LF! underwent an extensive evaluation of a number of program areas, including financial processes, staff responsibilities, curriculum review, training structure & design, and more. 

LF! also created a Mentor Training Survey “in order to produce substantive, measurable feedback from mentors and trainers, with a goal of improving mentor and trainer training in the future” (taken from the LF! survey analysis report). The survey was conducted between March 20 and April 1, 2023 and sent via email to 4,073 recipients. Just over 31% (n=1,279) responded. This effort represents one of the most comprehensive attempts ever undertaken by EfM to obtain feedback from a variety of program stakeholders, including active and retired staff, coordinators, mentors, and trainers. 

The questionnaire was both quantitative and qualitative in nature, designed by LF! to solicit the broadest range of feedback possible. While some questions had pre-determined answer choices, much of the program and training input received came from short- and long-form responses. In total, the survey consisted of 57 questions, although no single participant was able to respond to all of them. After beginning with a series of demographic questions asked of all participants, respondents were then directed to select the role they identify with the MOST. Based upon that selection, a pre-set path determined which questions they were then presented. As a result, people who serve in multiple capacities received only the questions pertaining to the role they selected. While no survey is perfect, this is one of a number of significant limitations we found with this particular design. Other limitations include:

• Some active coordinators, mentors, and trainers were omitted from the original email distribution list. 

• A number of people answered the survey more than once in an effort to answer all the questions relevant to the multiple roles they have.

• The blend of quantitative and qualitative answer formats make cross referencing difficult, e.g., in order to know how respondent answers may be informed by other factors (age, race, length of time in program, etc.).

• Furthermore, in spite of the value of gathering data from those who are no longer involved with EfM, there is no way to separate responses provided by active participants from those who are inactive. 

• There is unavoidable bias inherent in the subjective analysis of qualitative responses.

• Finally, a great deal of program- and training-related input was generated by the open-ended survey questions. Although all of this information is extremely important for the EfM program to know, the nature of this type of response makes it difficult to identify clear and statistically significant findings which reflect the experience of all stakeholders of the EfM program.

Regardless of its limitations, the survey results are of great value. As EfM approaches its 50th anniversary in 2025, these findings will help inform decisions about future program directions. It has taken many months to sift through all the information and organize the findings with helpful clarity. There were no significant findings which came as a surprise or revealed a blind spot in the program. Much of what was learned was already assumed or anticipated by program leaders.

What follows is a summary of the results we believe are most relevant to the broader EfM community. Additional findings will be used internally by planning groups working to review and refine a number of different EfM processes. 

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
South: 44.8%
Pacific Coast: 12.4%
Southwest: 12%
Midwest: 11.2%
Mid-Atlantic: 10%
New England: 5.6%
Rocky Mountains: 4.1%

AGE
65+: 73.4%
50-64: 21.6%
35-49: 4.6%
18-34: 0.4%

GENDER IDENTITY
Female: 66.5%
Male: 32.3%
Prefer not to say: 0.79%
Self describe: 0.39%
Non-binary/ Third gender: 0.08%

RACE/ ETHNICITY
White or European American: 93.4%
Black or African American: 1.9%
Prefer not to say: 1.7%
American Indian or Alaska Native: 1.2%
Hispanic or Latino: 1.0%
Asian: 0.6%
Middle Eastern or North African: 0.2%

ECCLESIAL IDENTITY
Lay person: 77.8%
Ordained priest/ minister: 14.9%
Ordained deacon: 6.4%
Prefer not to say: 0.5%
Bishop: 0.4%

EfM RELATIONSHIP
Inactive mentor: 49.6%
Active mentor: 41.4%
Diocesan coordinator: 3.2%
Active trainer: 2.3%
Inactive trainer: 2.2%
Trained mentor: 0.9%
EfM staff: 0.4%

YEARS AS ACTIVE MENTOR
1-4 years: 40.4%
5-9 years: 28.6%
10-14 years: 15.6%
15+ years: 15.3%

EVER CO-MENTORED A GROUP
Yes: 86.2%
No: 13.8%

VALUE OF CO-MENTORING
Highly valuable: 63.0%
Some value: 30.0%
Little value: 5.0%
Does not add value: 2.4%

PRE-PANDEMIC WAY OF GATHERING
On site/ face to face: 93.4%
Video conferencing, discussion board, or a combination: 6.6%

POST-PANDEMIC WAY OF GATHERING
On site, Zoom when necessary: 26.4%
On site only: 24.1%
Video conferencing, discussion board, or a combination: 27.1% 
Other: 22.3%

CHALLENGES TO MENTORING
There were no statistically significant findings in the qualitative responses received. Notable challenges identified included general concerns about:

• Co-facilitating/ leading;

• Group dynamics;

• Recruitment;

• Theological reflection;

• Challenging curriculum; and,

• Time commitment required for mentors and participants. 

FREQUENCY OF MENTOR TRAINING (12-18 MONTHS)
Just about right: 49.6%
Too frequent: 47.8%
Not frequent enough: 2.5%

EFFECTIVE ASPECTS OF TRAINING
There were no statistically significant findings in the qualitative responses received. Notable effective aspects of training include learning about and practicing:

• Theological reflections;

• Group dynamics and leadership skills;

• Worship;

• Wisdom and feedback received from others;

• Ways to structure time; and,

• Various administrative and recruitment strategies.

INEFFECTIVE ASPECTS OF TRAINING
There were no statistically significant findings in the qualitative responses received. Notable ineffective aspects of training include:

• How the training was structured;

• How much/ little time was spent on theological reflections;

• How much/ little time was spent on various other topics; and,

• Length of training and/ or length of individual days.

FUTURE DIRECTION OF EfM & WAYS TO GROW
There were no statistically significant findings within the qualitative responses received. Notable suggestions were for EfM to: 

• Promote and support multiple models and methods of gathering (applies to both group meetings and trainings);

• Strengthen the content, structure of, and access to online training; 

• Increase availability of online resources (including videos) to support the work of participants, mentors and trainers;

• Incorporate the use of asynchronous content to help streamline formal meeting or training time;

• Seek diversity (race, age, gender identity, denomination/ religion, regional availability, etc.); and,

• Help mentors and dioceses with recruitment and publicity.

LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH STAFF COMMUNICATION
(% highly satisfied, satisfied, or neither, as opposed to those dissatisfied or highly dissatisfied)
Encouragement and nurture: 94.7%
Timely response to inquiries: 97.1%
Clarity about who to contact: 92.8%
Updates about wellbeing and future of EfM: 88.5%
Communication about curriculum changes: 86.7%
Easy access to information about mentor training: 86.1%
Updates about honorarium status: 92.7%
Timely confirmation and updates about group registration: 87.6%
Updates about participant book delivery: 87.6%
Ability to access mentor/ trainer contact information: 83.1%