In a vacancy, the parish will receive ministerial funding for the provision of services that they do not have to pay for through sequestration funds where the ministry costs are repaid to the PCC by the diocese. In addition, parishes in vacancy will also be receiving direct ministry support and developing ministry costs (e.g. safeguarding, training in lay ministry, training for clergy etc) even if they have no stipendiary clergy themselves. Therefore, there is a balance to be had between the parish share allocated for ministry received, and ministry that is anticipated in the coming years. 

Nationally, it is a challenging time for attracting and deploying clergy across all contexts. As a result, vacancies are currently taking longer than anticipated to fill. The Parish Share Team recognise that the lack of appointments can create resentment in paying parish share when not receiving stipendiary leadership. However, if the amount of parish share were significantly reduced due to a vacancy as a discount, it is unlikely that the parish/es in the PSPU would be able to increase it to the level needed when the appointment is made. The evidence seems to indicate that reductions in parish share are difficult then to turn around. As vacancies are filled throughout the year, it would be difficult to have a parish share trajectory that was based on not appointing, when the intention is to appoint, if there are suitable candidates.

The ‘journey of generosity’ recognises that every parish/PSPU is at a different starting point but all have to take responsibility over the next 10 years for their contribution towards the financial sustainability of ministry. For some, the first challenge is to reach direct ministry costs (stipend, housing, pension) and then increase to cover the costs of direct ministry support and developing ministry on the journey to full ministry costs. The Archbishops Council currently contributes £1.3 million towards the mission and ministry costs in the most deprived areas (where deprivation is calculated using the Index of Multiple Deprivation). This £1.3 million is known as Low Income Communities Funding (LInC). Parishes in the 25% most deprived areas across the diocese are eligible to receive LInC Funding on a sliding scale. If the Archbishops Council did not allocate LInC funding, the diocese would have to find the extra £1.3 million to keep stipendiary ministry in deprived areas at the same level.

The roles at Jubilee House only exist to support ministry ‘on the ground’ for example, in parishes, schools, and universities. Some roles are funded by the national church either to support parish ministry (for example the new building support officer and the parish finance enabler,) or to oversee the management and scrutiny of the extra national investment that is being made. The roles paid for by the Diocesan Board of Finance are under consistent scrutiny as to whether they are delivering support to ministry at the local level. These roles are subject to inflationary rises. It is also true that PCCs would have to pay for many of the tasks undertaken at Jubilee House, in order to meet their legal responsibilities. 

The Parish Share Team have borne in mind the diocesan vision for growth rather than managing decline (on the one hand), and the financial realities of where parishes are now (on the other). With many small and ageing congregations in rural areas, the responsibilities of church buildings do have an impact on financial challenges. It is also true that the cost of stipendiary ministry does not change no matter how many church buildings there are or the number of regular attendees. The argument that is sometimes made is that parish share expectations on multi-building PSPUs in rural areas should be reduced, regardless of the financial realities of ministerial costs. As the diocese develops its’ plan for rural revitalisation, the intention is that stipendiary costs are not reduced in rural areas. For that to happen, there must be a balance between sacrificial generosity and ministerial costs, even where non-attending villagers are also prepared to contribute. 

No. Over the course of any 10-year period, parishes/PSPUs will inevitably go through different seasons. Where a parish is moving from a vacancy to a revitalisation, part of the preparatory discussions would include an increased trajectory. The same might be the case where a parish is struggling to pay parish share under the current leadership, but a new incumbent brings fresh vision for the mission of the parish which inspires increased giving. Equally, there can be exceptional circumstances which would be the basis for a conversation between the PCC and the Parish Share Team.

Historically, (i.e. prior to the introduction of Common Tenure on 31^st January 2011), incumbents had the freehold and were entitled to receive the fees for occasional offices, if they didn’t assign them to the DBF. The fees received were directly related to the stipend which was adjusted by the total amount of fees received in the year. However, incumbents could receive over the level of the stipend if the fees income was greater than the level of the stipend. Some notable clergy were known for consistently receiving above the stipend level because they had large parishes with a high number of occasional offices, especially funerals. Partly as a result of these anomalies, the introduction of Common Tenure took away the potential for additional payments on top of the stipend. However, the DBF fees for occasional offices were intended to be connected to the costs of stipendiary ministry. Effectively, the change from freehold to Common Tenure, had disconnected the fees received in a particular parish for a particular incumbent and were transferred to the total costs of stipendiary ministry across a diocese. 

The fees for occasional offices are set annually by the Archbishop’s Council of the Church of England. There are two different ‘parts’ to fees. The first belongs to PCC. The second belongs to the DBF. In the advice from Archbishop’s Council, it is stated that there is a balance between the costs of ministry and the biblical encouragement that the labourer is worthy of their hire (1 Timothy 5:18). The DBF fee goes towards the total cost of ministry and is therefore NOT related specifically to a particular minister for a particular service. It is for each diocesan DBF to decide whether retired clergy or SSMs receives part or all of the DBF fee and how much they should receive as each diocese makes its own policy.

The current position of the Southwell & Nottingham DBF is that the amount received in fees in total is offset against the total costs of ministry in the diocesan budget. We don’t currently relate the fees received from specific parishes to the amount of parish share paid by that parish/benefice or PSPU.

The PSRG have borne in mind the diocesan vision for growth rather than managing decline (on the one hand), and the financial realities of where parishes are now (on the other). With many small and ageing congregations in rural areas, the responsibilities of church buildings do have an impact on financial challenges. It is also true that the cost of stipendiary ministry does not change no matter how many church buildings there are or the number of regular attendees. The argument that is sometimes made is that parish share expectations on multi-building PSPUs in rural areas should be limited, regardless of the financial realities of ministerial costs. As the diocese develops its’ plan for rural revitalisation, the intention is that

stipendiary costs are not reduced in rural areas. For that to happen, there must be a balance between sacrificial generosity and ministerial costs, even where non-attending villagers are also prepared to contribute. The PSRG expect that the trajectories towards full ministry costs will bear a range of factors in mind, including the level of giving, the commitment to growth, the ministerial costs, but not ignoring the number of people attending and the number of buildings in the benefice or PSPU.

Similar to the previous question, the costs of stipendiary ministry are the same regardless of the number of attendees (as it was with the number of buildings). As a diocese we are seeking to maintain and preferably increase stipendiary ministry over the coming years if financial sustainability is established. The analysis of current giving levels and the challenge of realistic trajectories need to be faced in the context of a multi-year approach. Help for PCCs on their growing disciples plans is part of the diocesan support through the Archdeaconry team in conjunction with the Discipleship and Ministry Team and programme Management Office (PMO).

In a vacancy, the parish will be receiving ministerial funding for the provision of services that they do not have to pay as it is through sequestration funds. In addition, parishes in vacancy will also be receiving direct ministry support and developing ministry costs (e.g. safeguarding, training in lay ministry, training for clergy etc) even if they have no stipendiary clergy themselves. Therefore, there is a balance to be had between the parish share allocated for ministry received, and ministry that is anticipated in the coming years.

Nationally, it is a challenging time for attracting and deploying clergy across all contexts. As a result, vacancies are taking longer than anticipated to fill. The PSRG recognised that the lack of appointments sometimes create resentment in paying parish share when not receiving the stipendiary leadership. 

The evidence seems to indicate that reductions in parish share are difficult then to turn around. As vacancies are filled throughout the year, it would be difficult to have a parish share trajectory that was based on not appointing, when the intention is to appoint, if there are suitable candidates. 

While other denominations to have a national network of local churches, the Church of England expresses itself around the 42 dioceses. Each parish is connected to, and under the authority of, its diocesan bishop such that at the licensing of the incumbent it is explicitly stated liturgically by the bishop that the responsibility ‘for the cure of souls’ in the parish/benefice ‘is both yours and mine’ – i.e. there is a shared responsibility for mission and ministry that comes from the bishop. By being connected to the diocesan bishop, each parish/benefice is also connected to all other parishes in the diocese. This relationship to the bishop across parishes in poorer areas and richer ones establishes a picture that mission and ministry is a

network of relationships. As a result, parish share becomes an expression of mission. This diocese is focussed on growing disciples in every parish whatever the context. Through the parish share trajectories it is also encouraging every parish to take financial responsibility for the ministry it receives, while also recognising that some parishes/PSPUs in more deprived areas are likely to need support.

Prior to 2016, the ministerial impact for a parish of their incumbent becoming area dean was factored into the parish share formula as a 0.3 contribution across the whole deanery to the ministry received. However, this has not been used in recent years. Area deans are commissioned for three years and can change during and after the three years. Equally, some area deans do not hold a parochial stipendiary post. As the parish share trajectories are looking to 2030 as a staging point on the journey to 2035, it would be difficult to create a trajectory that assumes the ministerial impact of an area dean who may only fulfil that role for a few years within that 10-year time period.

Another question that would help vacant parishes is more clarity on whether there is a difference of understanding between the parish and the diocese about which PSPU the parish is part of and whether the parish is realistically going to have a stipendiary clergy person in their own right or whether it will be part of the overall ministerial resources that are shared through the costs of ministry exercised by stipendiary clergy, retired clergy with PTO, licensed lay ministers and other authorised or commissioned ministries.

It is possible that the grouping of parishes in a PSPU might change. Theoretically, that could affect the proportion paid of parish share in the PSPU. This is most likely in smaller rural parishes but could also be true of PSPUs in other contexts. As the plans for rural revitalisation are being worked through as part of the refreshed diocesan vision, it is too early to say whether this question will need to be addressed in reality, and if so how the trajectory would managed.

It is unlikely that this scenario affects many parishes that have such a high level of occasional offices that the total of the 1/3 fees paid to DBF plus parish share paid (as part of a PSPU) is greater than full ministry costs. [This assumes that retired clergy with PTO are receiving 2/3rd fees.] 

a) In one sense, this is only a theoretical question because, as the table shows at 2.1.3, there were only 10 PSPUs in 2023 that contributed full ministry costs and above. The diocese is prepared to invest in growth by maintaining the current level of stipendiary posts, even though this level of DBF cannot be maintained indefinitely. Financial sustainability in the next 10 years, without external funding, has to be the goal. While it is likely that the Archbishops’ Council will continue to fund dioceses over the next 10 years, it is unwise to assume their automatic financial support. If full ministry costs are achieved by all PSPUs, it would allow for additional DBF investment to be made in parishes to support their mission and ministry.

b) The diocese currently receives funding from the Archbishops’ Council in relation to Low Income Communities Funding and programme specific funding such as Strategic Development Funding (SDF). The former is related to deprivation and the latter is something that the diocese applied for, with an expectation that after the investment period ceases, the costs would be borne locally by parishes or the diocese. Sustainability was built into the expectations. As the funding cycle of the Archbishops’ Council cannot be guaranteed into the future, it is necessary to plan towards financial sustainability. Diocesan investments are carefully managed to support and subsidise mission and ministry in the diocese. The proposals enclosed in

this report highlight examples of diocesan transitional financial support, for example paying the Governance and Statutory costs from 2025 to 2030 and the projected subsidy where ministry costs are not being met by PSPUs. This transitional support will enable the majority of parishes to address their parish share trajectories without the concern that reductions in stipendiary ministry might have to be made or recruitment ‘paused’.

It is generally considered good practice to hold between three and six months in reserves as part of a reserves policy unless there are particular reasons for holding a greater amount to fulfil their aims and objects as set out to the Charity Commission. Sometimes it is not always clear why PCCs hold a higher level of reserves when there is no obvious intended use. Anecdotally, there are stories where parishes have encouraged givers to contribute to a specific fund, e.g. fabric, rather than as an unrestricted donation that could be used to contribute to parish share. There is an irony here – in that there can be a parochial expectation of ministerial support provided by the diocese, while the PCC sustains a financial strategy that prioritises buildings rather than the resources to facilitate the mission of the parish. When other parishes in a deanery are committed to, and deliver, 100% parish share payment and they have no reserves, diverting donations undermines trust. As a result, there is a balance to be held between being part of the family of the diocese with the financial responsibilities that go with ministry across all contexts (on the one hand) and the responsibility of PCC members as Trustees responsible and accountable for the mission of their parish (on the other). As a result, communication between diocesan staff and parishes representatives are crucial so that there can be appropriate challenge about the appropriate trajectory figures.

There will be some parishes in a multi-parish benefice that have a well-established and agreed practice of receiving the parish share figures for the benefice which are then discussed and agreement is reached on the final amount for each parish. This comes from excellent relationships often built up over time. If this is the case, it makes sense that this ‘self-moderation’ across the benefice is affirmed, even though each parish will receive its’ own trajectory based on the financial analysis. However, if the trajectories are not reaching full ministry costs such that the PSPU is on a significant upward journey, an analysis of the giving in each parish would be beneficial. If not, there could be the same issue found in the current system ‘writ small’, that some parishes in a PSPU are disproportionately contributing more (perhaps because they have done historically), and there isn’t a robust conversation about the levels of giving in the other parishes. It is also true to say that not every PSPU has such a good working relationship between the parishes and so it would be unwise to create an understanding that all PSPUs must divide the total parish share for the PSPU.