Sam Hughey, a welcome visitor to these shores, posed a question in the comment thread of my post on Thursday. He asked:
Is there a verifible report Southern Baptists can have which presents each state’s CP giving and what percentage actually goes where and to whom?
A very helpful, anonymous denominational employee spotted the question and e-mailed me this information today. Many thanks to that employee.
State Convention Cooperative Program Allocations
From 2005 Reports
Most Recent Data from www.sbc.net as of 6/1/2007
|
State Convention Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Dakota Fellowship District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Pacific Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas/Nebraska Kentucky Louisiana Maryland/Delaware Michigan Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi Missouri Montana Nevada New England New Mexico New York North Carolina Northwest (Wash/Ore/ID) Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania/South Jersey South Carolina Tennessee Texas (BGCT) Texas (SBTC) Utah/Idaho Virginia (BGAV) Virginia (SBCV) West Virginia Wyoming |
State % 57.71 67.02 75.03 58.23 70.16 70.99 86.74 65.00 61.90 57.87 68.50 58.03 69.03 74.22 68.59 64.66 64.50 60.50 68.26 86.79 40.40 62.50 78.07 71.25 78.54 70.02 75.48 72.80 75.15 60.00 60.00 75.76 58.99 62.25 63.61 41.01 79.00 86.29 49.00 62.50 67.75 |
SBC % 42.29 32.98 24.97 41.77 29.84 29.01 13.26 35.00 38.10 42.13 31.50 41.97 30.97 25.78 31.41 35.34 35.50 39.50 31.74 13.21 59.60 37.50 21.93 28.75 21.46 29.98 24.52 27.20 24.85 40.00 40.00 24.24 41.01 37.75 36.39 58.99 21.00 13.71 51.00 37.50 32.25 |
As I suspected, the vast majority of Cooperative Program dollars never leave the state conventions that collect them. Only three state conventions (Mississippi, Southern Baptists of Texas, and the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia) retain less than 50% of the Cooperative Program funds they receive. Each state convention, on average, retains 66.94% of each CP dollar. That’s 2/3! Interestingly, many dollars get recycled back to the state conventions through NAMB subsidies.Of course, it is understandable that the “frontier” conventions retain most of their dollars. Churches in Alaska, California, Colorado, the Dakotas, Montana, Nevada, New England, etc… need to keep those dollars and do their ministry on those difficult “front lines.”
But I wonder if most Southern Baptists (in states like Tennessee, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Florida – for instance) realize that the IMB, NAMB, our seminaries, and all of our other national agencies and endeavors are forced to complete their missions with only 1/3 of the Cooperative Program “missions” dollars that they place in their churches’ offering plates. I think that most would be shocked … no matter how beautiful and luxurious the state convention buildings may be.
Now I wonder how many churches are actually bypassing the state conventions and giving directly to the Executive Committee for distribution to national and international causes.
And many thanks to fellow blogger Mark Bass, who provided this link which provides many years of information on each state convention – www.cpmissions.net/2003/Yourstatescontribs.asp .
June 2, 2007 at 8:36 am
Geoff,
I’m curious about the underlying data. I know that the SBTC fraction is different from that specified. Although we do, indeed, give more than we keep, our current split is 54/46.
Maybe this includes Lottie Moon or something else other than CP? It looks to me like every state convention’s numbers are skewed, showing higher forwarding fractions than their budgets actually set. Or maybe this includes contributions from churches that give around the convention formula?
June 2, 2007 at 8:53 am
Also, Mark’s link doesn’t seem to show what it purports to show. It only shows one year’s worth of data from one state convention.
June 2, 2007 at 10:46 am
geoff,
i just want to point out that the poorest state in the union gives the most to missions….ms! i served in ms for 7 yrs, and i can tell you that they are very giving people. in fact, they give the most period….any kind of giving….from a survey that came out a couple of years ago. they are the most charitable giving state in the union as well. they truly did come to the aid of thier neighbors as well. i have seen them in action.
maybe the wealthy, liberal people who talk so much about social gospel type issues should move to ms and learn a lesson from the poorest among us!
david
June 2, 2007 at 11:42 am
While I like the general structure of the sbc- imb, namb, state conventions and associations- it is easy for increasing bureaucracy to keep our structure from effectiveness. The original hope for the cooperative program was that each state convention send at least half of their receipts on to the national agency. If that were to happen, it would encourage, I think, greater giving to cp. Many want to change the structure of the sbc. I think the greater need is a renewed emphasis on effectiveness- starting with a recognition of the ineffectiveness of ever-increasing bureaucracies. Doug Munton
June 2, 2007 at 11:43 am
Sorry, Bart …
I’m running on dumb today. I posted the wrong link. I have corrected it, and it does lead to a wealth of information.
And the figures on the table I posted are, I believe, from 2004 and 2005 (perhaps averaged figures for those two years?). According to my contact, these are the latest published figures on sbc.net.
David,
It is interesting that the state that everyone loves to pick on is the one that shows the most “generosity” in sending its funds on to national SBC causes. I thought the same thing.
June 2, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Doug,
It looks like we commented simultaneously.
Welcome to “Along the Shore.” I hope you will add me to your feeds and visit often.
I quite agree … we are quite encumbered by our levels of bureaucracy, as well as rampant redundancy, turf battles, etc…
I’m not sure that the knowledge that CP funds were being forwarded to national causes would increase CP giving. Indeed, I’m pretty sure that most rank-and-file SB’s probably think that is already happening … thus the point of my post. I’m pretty sure that most church-going folk would be shocked to know the level of CP $ consumption within their own states. As I looked at the info on the SBC site, I know I was.
June 2, 2007 at 12:31 pm
What will help increase cp is a growing sense of trust- trust that the money will be wisely spent, that our strategy is thought out well, that our institutions are kingdom-minded. I think a healthier percentage sent beyond the state convention helps with all those things.
June 2, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I agree, completely and wholeheartedly.
June 2, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Comments like that make me want to visit your site often!:)
June 2, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Whoa! I appreciate the kind comments about those of us in Mississippi. We are indeed number one in the nation in charitable giving, but I suspect those numbers for the 2005 CP percentages were inadvertently reversed. The only legitimate kudos for maintaining the original intent of 50/50 go to the two conservative conventions of the SBTC and the SBCV.
Bart, you may be correct about these being the numbers from churches who bypass the state in order to get our money onto the mission field. There are several here in Mississippi who do just that, but I still can’t imagine that would cause such a wide discrepancy in the Mississippi numbers.
June 2, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Doug,
Matt,
Actually, that 40% “figger” is, indeed, correct if we can believe the SBC site … which I hope we can!
Take a look here.
Blessings,
Geoff
June 2, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Geoff and Doug,
I wholeheartedly agree with your comments! Oops! That won’t win me any brownie points with the state convention guys whho pass out resume’s.
Oh well! If only more people would have the intestinal fortitude to point out that the emperors aren’t wearing any clothes. If they will lead by example and increase their giving to the ideal of 50/50, then they would have some credibility when they encourage churches to give the ideal of 10%.
June 2, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Geoff,
I think they made an honest mistake, but I’ll do some checking in my state annuals when I get to the office.
June 2, 2007 at 1:13 pm
OK! I hold in my hand the Official 2005 Annual of the Mississippi Baptist Convention. The CP breakdown is found on page 41.
35% to the SBC
3.02 % to annuity matching for Mississippi pastors;
24.71% to Mississippi Institutions;
27.27% to Mississippi Baptist Convention Board use.
That means 65% stayed in Mississippi. That is, if we are to believe the official stat’s put out by the Mississippi Baptist Convention Board itself. Which I hope we can.
Seriously, I don’t know what the mix-up on the site is, but this has been a bone of contention in Mississippi. We had voted to increase our giving to the national SBC incrementally each year, but our convention leaders encouraged us to renege on that decision. We have been at 65/35 for years.
June 2, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Oops again! That percentage for the Mississippi Baptist Convention Board should be 37.27%
June 2, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Matt,
What??!!
Are you saying that our denominational servants, with all of their education (Ph. D’s and such …) and expertise, have somehow reported a statistical mistake on the flagship web site of our beloved Southern Baptist Convention?
Shudders … Say it ain’t so!
June 2, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Yes, I’m afraid so. Some statistical reports, after further analysis, are not always as accurate in their portrayals as we would like to believe at first.
June 2, 2007 at 2:58 pm
matt and geoff,
ms is still the most charitable state in the union. they are the poorest, yet they give the most.
also, i’m going to report yall to marty and ben and wade and the crowd….how dare yall say that an sbc statistical report could be wrong. shame….shame….shame
david
June 2, 2007 at 4:59 pm
It’s hard to tell what makes up the disparity between the state convention “approved” budget allocations and any “actual” percentages reported on SBCNet. If you look at the link Geoff included at the end of his original post and pull up any of the individual states, there are whole-number percentages (or, at least, reasonable fractions) for most of the states up until 2003. The last two years of the listings show the odd-looking percentages.
Also, from the URL in the link, it looks like the original state charts on SBCNet were probably from a 2003 study where actual historical data was gathered from various sources. The numbers are a lot more consistent through 2003 with slight variations on a year-to-year basis or due to unique circumstances within a state. No telling where the “add-on” figures for 2004 and 2005 came from a1though perhaps it has to do with CP funds forwarded from the states to the SBC Executive Committee lagging by a month. (For example, SBTC would total up its December receipts, multiply by its split, and forward a check to Nashville in January.)
As noted by a few posters, some churches may be sending “CP” funds directly to the SBC and bypassing the state convention, thus “inflating” the percentage shown for the SBC above what would have been in the state budget. Of course, this assumes that the SBC actually credits those as CP funds and as coming from the state where the church is located and I’m not sure of their procedure.
An alternate may have to do with what is considered “Coopertive Program” in some states. Certain states, like BGAV, North Carolina and the BGCT have had multiple giving options that I believe may still be regarded as Cooperative Program at the state level although the SBC percentages would vary based on plan. Again, this is an assumption.
Whew!
I agree with “Eagle Eye” Brady that the Mississippi split for 2005 on their state list is probably just a reversal unless there was some kind of factoring for Katrina funds or something.
Regardless of some of the variations, it’s not that hard to draw some basic conclusions–particularly when you look back on the historical data for individual states and not just the one-year chart Jeff printed here. Some of the states have trended toward sending more outside their home area while others have moved toward keeping more “at home.”
As far as CP education goes, I’d say many, if not most, people in the pew have little to no idea what happens to the funds their church forwards as CP dollars. (Unless, of course, they are active in WMU!!!) For that matter, I’d venture to say that those of us in ministry might be able to use a “refresher” on what happens to CP monies at the state and national levels.
Executive Committee does have some informative materials about CP allocation and usage at the national level.
June 2, 2007 at 6:04 pm
John,
That WAS a good refresher.
I think the trend toward “keeping more at home” comes from simple human nature. When mounds of money pass through our hands, we can always think of reasons why we need to hold on to more of them. That is the allure of millions of $$$.
June 2, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Geoff (not Jeff),
Forgive my spelling error on your name. I know better!
(Must be that Hukt On Fonix kicking in.)
I even left the “a” out of “Cooper(a)tive Program.” Good think I wasn’t a participant in this week’s National Spelling Bee!
Blessings!
June 2, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Brother Geoff,
I have been told for years that we have a 68/32% split. However of that 32% we have a sizable amount going to the Annuity Board to cover the amount of providing insurance for those that give over $105 per month.
I guess when you look at it from that perspective, in reality, it comes out to 73/27.
Thanks for the input.
Blessings,
Tim
June 3, 2007 at 8:38 am
Just want to add my voice to a unique list of great information. I have this one flagged on my OMEA blog reader to refer back easier when needing the info. Thanks for a great contribution.
June 3, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Tim,
I think also that in NC, some of what is called “Cooperative Program” goes to “other-than-SBC” options, too. Isn’t that correct? It may leave the state, but not to SBC entities.
Guy,
Thanks a lot … dod you get my e-mail?
June 4, 2007 at 12:54 am
The figures for Mississippi are absolutely incorrect. According to the 2005 MBC Annual, the budget for 2005 was 65 for the MBC and 65% for the SBC. And the projected budget for 2006 is also a 65/35 split. That may be monies that were designated around the Mississippi Baptist Convention by those who wanted more of their money to go out of State but it was definitely not the percentage of monies given through the Cooperative Program.
June 4, 2007 at 12:55 am
Ops! What I meant to say was that the 2005 budget was 65% for the MBC and 35% for the SBC. Sorry
June 4, 2007 at 6:59 am
Thanks, Kendall
I think we are all a bit perplexed about the method of reporting these numbers.
That figure may be a typo, or it may, as you say, reflect funds sent “around” the state convention. I just don’t know.
June 4, 2007 at 9:58 am
Geoff,
Sorry for the delay in following up. Yes we have 4 plans here in NC. Plan A, which the overwhelming majority of NC churches contributes through, has a 68/32% break. Plan B, which many dually aligned churches contribute through, has a 68/11% break. Plan C, which the CBF only churches contribute through, has a 68/0% split. Plan D which is mainly strong conservative churches has a 49/33% split.
The above % are as follows; first # is the amount that stays in NC and the second # is the amount going to the SBC. In Plans B & C there is an additional 10.9% going to NC Colleges/Universities for their Divinity Schools. Also, they have 10.6% going to a section called “Special Missions” which consists of BWA, BJC, ABP, and Baptist Center for Ethics. In Plan D there is 5% going to Fruitland Baptist Bible Insitute, 6% going to International Mission Partnerships, 6.5% going to NC Home Missions Projects and 1/2% going to Guidestone Adopt-An-Annuitant, designated to NC Pastors.
I know this is convoluted but that is how it is done here in NC. I am pushing for a 50/50 split myself, but I believe that will be somewhere down the line.
Blessings,
Tim
June 4, 2007 at 11:12 am
Great discussion on the Cooperative Program and the division of funds between the state conventions and national entities. It’s encouraging when Baptists are taking an active interest in understanding the nuts and bolts of how their missions giving is being used here at home and around the world.
I may be able to shed light on some of the questions being asked. I serve as communications director for the Kentucky Baptist Convention and part of my work relates to helping to educate Kentucky Baptists about the Cooperative Program.
First, let me say that I am a big supporter of all Southern Baptist missions work, both on the national and international levels. I myself came to Christ through the witness of a wonderful Baptist missionary on the island of Okinawa.
On the issue of CP spending in the U.S. though, please remember that America is far from evangelized. The North American Mission Board estimates that as many as 224 million of North America’s 316 million population do not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I think CP dollars spent in the states by NAMB and the state conventions are integral to our carrying out the Acts 1:8 mandate to simultaneously reach people locally, regionally, nationally and internationally.
Cooperative Program dollars that stay in the United States are also used to offset the tuition costs for future church leaders at Baptist colleges and seminaries, support children’s homes and many other vital ministries. These dollars also get used extensively in activities that are geared toward strengthening the local church. This is crucial because without strong, growing churches here at home providing prayer and financial report, the other national and international work will slowly decline.
One thing to keep in mind regarding the percentage divisions between the state and national entities is that – especially in the older state conventions – CP dollars are being used to help provide support for children’s homes, Baptist colleges, homes for the aging, etc. so the percentage that is actually being used by the state’s own Mission Board is actually much less than it might appear if you just look at the simple division. Some of the newer conventions do not have these ministries and are therefore able to divide more equally between their state convention and the SBC. That said, however, most state conventions are working on increasing the percentage sent to SBC. That is certainly the case here in Kentucky.
(By the way, when we talk about the “state convention,” we are talking about all of us. Baptists in each state who serve on their various state mission boards develop all of the budget percentages and the messengers to the annual meetings approve all budgets. Most states are looking for people who desire to serve on the state Mission Board and on committees so I encourage anyone with a strong interest in this to explore how they can be actively involved in their own state convention.)
None of this is to say that churches, state conventions and our national agencies can’t make improvements or be more efficient. Certainly, all can. I just see CP, while imperfect, as one of the best tools we have for reaching our world (both here at home and abroad).
I apologize for such a long post. I didn’t intend for it to be when I started. If anyone has a question that you think I can answer I will be glad to do so. The information about the Cooperative Program budget here in Kentucky can be found on our Web site at http://www.kybaptist.org/cpmissions. I think most state conventions include this information on their sites as well so it’s pretty easy to get whatever information you need about your CP giving. Here in Kentucky, we can even print out a breakdown that shows your church’s specific giving record and the exact dollars that you give to each Convention entity. It’s available on request.
Also, for any Kentucky Baptists out there reading this, we’d love to have you come visit your Kentucky Baptist Building and meet the people here who are responsible for managing missions giving. I think you will be pleased by the good stewardship. We have tremendously dedicated and highly professional state servants who are stretching your CP dollars quite a long way and are happy to share about that.
June 4, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Tim,
Thanks for the breakdown.
Robert,
Great report. No apologies necessary. I appreciate your service and dedication to Kentucky Baptists.
But I think that it is the structure and “overhead” of buildings, “homes,” etc… that more and more Southern Baptists are taking issue with … especially at the state convention level.