A National Study on Catholic Campus Ministry

A Report Prepared for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Secretariat of Catholic Education

Brian Starks, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Kennesaw State University Maureen K. Day, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Religion and Society, Franciscan School of Theology A National Study on Catholic Campus Ministry 2017

A Report Prepared for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Secretariat of Catholic Education

Brian Starks, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Kennesaw State University Maureen K. Day, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Religion and Society, Franciscan School of Theology Foreword Catholic campus ministry provides a unique opportunity to meet and engage young adults and adults at every phase of Church life and testimony. The Church must be intentional and campus ministry must be accountable in every way possible to enrich the character and formation of the whole community; taking into account the ethnic, social and spiritual diversity of each campus and its surrounding community. As bishops, our support, encouragement and pastoral presence is essential. Campus ministry must address the needs of its family, inviting all to be of one mind in meeting the needs of students, faculty and staff within its confines and among the local community. Campus ministry can be an example for the wider Church of engagement and empowerment of young adults. A campus minister, like a pastor, needs a holistic perspective of the campus community. Our ministry must center on people, for we are forming men and women to be people that reflect Christ to each other and to the world. Auxiliary Bishop Fernand Cheri Archdiocese of New Orleans Catholic Campus Ministry Association, Episcopal Liaison Bishop John M. Quinn Diocese of Winona Committee on Catholic Education, Chairman Higher Education Working Group, Member

Introduction In 2016, the Secretariat of Catholic Education commissioned a National Study of Catholic Campus Ministry. This study defined a campus minister as someone whose primary responsibility is the pastoral care of the campus community. The study utilized an innovative, collaborative planning process. The Assistant Director for Higher Education in the Secretariat of Catholic Education, Barbara Humphrey McCrabb, proposed a two-pronged study and selected Brian Starks, Associate Professor of Kennesaw State University, to be the Principal Investigator. Through two national surveys, the research team considered 1) the formation and development of those who minister on campus and 2) the impact of Catholic campus ministry on those who participate. This report addresses the findings of the Campus Minister Instrument; the student data is not included in this report.

Photos: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Secretariat of Catholic Education, Getty Images, University of Dayton Campus Ministry. Used with permission.

ii Table of Contents

Foreword and Introduction...... ii Executive Summary ...... 1 A Profile of Catholic Campus Ministers ...... 3 Campus Ministry Today: A Changed Landscape...... 7 Today’s Campus Ministers: Distinct and Complimentary Gifts...... 8 Ongoing Formation and Development: Leaning into Strengths or Developing New Skills ...... 12 Conclusions...... 15 About the Study: Process and Methods...... 19

iii

Executive Summary The study yielded several key findings critical to 2. The distinct models of ministry (office- a thriving future for Catholic campus ministry. based, parish-based, center-based, diocesan / Within the last few decades, there have been multi-campus and missionary) as well as pas- many changes in the landscape of campus min- toral styles of Catholic campus ministry yield istry, in higher education as a context for min- differences in the campus ministers’ perceived istry and in the social worlds that young adults importance of pastoral skills and programmatic inhabit. There are also new pastoral styles of offerings. The variety of models reflect the campus ministry, shifts among the models of diverse and complex nature of the Catholic ministry that serve the campus community, dif- faith. While no one model captures the full- fering standards of what constitutes ‘enough’ ness of the Catholic faith, collectively these formation and more. A thoughtful analysis of models represent the incredible breadth of the the findings yields three key takeaways: Catholic faith. This diversity of models offers a variety of paths to encounter Christ, simul- 1. The landscape of Catholic campus min- taneously calling for greater respect and appre- istry has definitely changed since the writ- ciation among campus ministers as well as for ing of Empowered by the Spirit in 1985. The honest ministerial self-assessment. Valuing the Department of Education reports there are many gifts within the body of campus ministry more than 3,000 four-year colleges and univer- better meets the unique pastoral needs of indi- sities in the United States. For the 2017 study, viduals as well as any particular needs of the the Secretariat of Catholic Education identi- campus community. fied 1,911 campus ministers nationally, including more than 500 FOCUS missionaries, with 3. Significant variation in training, formation, 1,117 responding to the survey. Of those sur- and certification exists among those serving in veyed, nearly all serve at four-year institutions campus ministry. Among those who perceive with very few (43 or 2%) serving at commu- they possess greater training and formation nity colleges. Catholic campus ministers serve in an area, they report feeling more efficacy at 816 campuses including Catholic, public and in that area, increased satisfaction when per- private/non-Catholic institutions compared to forming that ministerial task and show greater 1,157 campuses served in 2007 according to interest in receiving additional training in that Catholic Campus Ministry Association records. area. In areas where they feel less competent, The Catholic Church has a pastoral presence they report lower levels of satisfaction and effi- at approximately 1 in 4 four-year institutions. cacy, as well as less interest in pursuing addi- With the Department of Education data report- tional training in that area. The bishops’ vision ing 1,500 Community Colleges, the Catholic for campus ministry, articulated in Empowered Church’s pastoral presence drops to 1 in 60 for by the Spirit, calls for “find[ing] dedicated per- community colleges. Two important findings sons for this ministry who have a solid faith, a emerge from the National Study: the rise of love for the academic world and the ability to missionary organizations in campus ministry relate well to both inquiring students and an and the need for a stronger Catholic campus educated faculty. They need proper training, ministry presence on colleges and universities, which includes personal development, practi- particularly community colleges. cal experience and theological study” (#104). In fact, 40% of campus ministers have not

1 completed ministerial degrees upon entering approaches. To maximize the pastoral efficacy of campus ministry. All campus ministers should campus ministry, ministers and those who sup- be given educational access to foundational port them must cast aside any posture of defen- and ongoing training and formation necessary siveness or suspicion of a ministerial model in for responsible ministry in a campus setting. favor of openness and critical self-awareness. If campus ministers and their institutions can These takeaways suggest a comprehensive embrace their personal gifts as well as recognize ministerial solution is required for growth in their own limits, they will more readily coop- presence and efficacy within campus ministry, erate with others whose gifts can complement respect and appreciation among campus min- their own. Finally, campus ministers must con- isters and enhanced competency among those tinue to improve and expand their competen- who serve. For growth, Catholic campus min- cies. This study illuminates the wide variation isters need to reach far more campuses than in formation among campus ministers and the they currently serve. Community colleges pres- ways in which this affects their experiences of ent a particularly urgent need. Growth should campus ministry as well as their understanding also be conceived of in terms of qualitative as of ministry more generally. well as quantitative expansion to better serve the needs of students and the entire campus These findings illustrate the reality of cam- community through creativity and innovation. pus ministry today so that informed leaders, Cooperation, rooted in respect and appreciation, campus ministers and other stakeholders can can help facilitate this growth. There are many more intentionally influence the trajectory of different ways campus ministers reach out, Catholic campus ministry, the Catholicity of engage and form students. As will be discussed young adults, and the health and vitality of the in the pages that follow, there are import- next generation of Catholics. ant assets and liabilities within these varied

2 Proﬁle of Catholic Campus Ministers 2017: 1,911 identified CMs (campus ministers) | 1,117 responses, 56% response rate PERSONAL

OVERALL 69% 31% LAYPERSONS ORDAINED AND 43% 57% RELIGIOUS 60% 26% 40% 5%

MEDIAN AGE 35 29 54

86% 90% of CMs work full-time OF CAMPUS report entering campus ministry out of a “sense of call” MINISTERS ARE 42% to campus ministry WHITE NON-HISPANIC 31% of CMs are married

MEAN NUMBER OF YEARS EXPERIENCE 6.9 2.2 6.7 7.5 9 9.6

Limited-term missionary-based Parish-based Newman Diocesan Office-based center with multiple campuses

3 EDUCATION, FORMATION, AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

MOST COMMON FORMATION AVENUES

Degree-based Education Supervised Fieldwork Missionary Training 53% 45% 35% Most CMs participate in several avenues of formation Those missionary-trained are least likely to experience other formation methods

HIGHEST LEVEL OF HIGHLY EDUCATED EDUCATION ATTAINED

Doctoral On average, CMs report degree (8%) Other (8%) relative Working toward Almost 2/3 openness to doctorate (4%) have additional graduate training degrees MDiv (17%) BA (33%)

MA/MS/ MTh (30%)

MINISTRY-RELATED DEGREES

10% 13% 68% 86% 60% OVERALL

Professional CERTIFICATION through CCMA missionary-based

hold public schools ministry-related degrees office-based 4 FORMATION AND JOB SATISFACTION Overall, job satisfaction correlates to prior formation. MORE EFFECTIVE FORMATION = MORE SATISFIED CMs

Generally, CMs report high-levels of satisfaction in these areas (‘very’ and ‘somewhat’ combined):

1. Relationships with students (95%) Relationships with students 2. Relationships with colleagues (87%) most highly rated (61% very; 34% 3. Compensation (74%) somewhat satisfied) 4. Reporting/accountability structures (74%) Satisfaction with level of student Facilities (73%) 5. participation is lower 6. Level of student participation (72%) (17% very; 55% somewhat satisfied) 7. Workload (68%) 8. Program budget (68%) LOWEST LEVELS OF SATISFACTION: 9. Process of evaluating program (65%) 1. Opportunities for training/professional development (35% dissatisfied) 2. Availability of sabbaticals /leaves (38%) THE STUDY GROUPED 15 DIFFERENT FORMATION ELEMENTS INTO 2 AREAS: FAITH-RELATED

Understand and articulate the faith ADMINISTRATIVE Represent the Church and its teachings Discern the needs of the Facilitate encounter with Jesus campus community Accompany people on their Call forth and coordinate spiritual journey the gifts of the community Share my personal witness Develop professional relationships Pastoral Care Disciple others in Christian living Administrative work/ management/supervision

Familiar with other Navigate diocesan religious traditions and institutional structures Organize public events

CMs generally perceive Create and their formation as equipping them for ministry manage budgets (most effective, somewhat effective, least effective) 5 PREPARING STUDENTS

of CMs strongly agree that campus ministry effectively prepares of CMs strongly agree 56% students for a lifelong students are relationship with Jesus well-prepared to be 49% compassionate to those on the margins

of CMs strongly agree that campus ministry effectively prepares 31% students to discern a religious vocation

PREPARATION AREAS INCLUDED: (% shows strongly and somewhat agree combined)

to live a MORAL LIFE in accordance with Church teachings (91%); a lifelong RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS (90%); to be COMPASSIONATE toward those on the margins (89%); to GIVE WITNESS to their Catholic faith (88%); to live a JUST LIFE in accordance with CST (88%); to FACE CHALLENGES to the faith such as secularism, consumerism, relativism (82%); to be active participants in a PARISH (81%) to discern a RELIGIOUS VOCATION (80%)

Vocational discernment is one of the least common activities offered to students

Vocational discernment and spiritual direction are ranked by CMs among the lowest as far as significance for spiritual growth of students

6 Campus Ministry Today: A Changed Landscape Before discussing today’s campus ministers, it will be helpful to survey the landscape in which contemporary ministers find themselves, especially regarding models of ministry and institutional types. Only a generation or so ago, four main models characterized Catholic campus ministry: office-based, parish-based, center-based and diocesan models. Today office- based models (comprising 31% of the study) exist primarily on Catholic campuses. This model is more likely to be well-staffed with long-term employees—averaging 9.8 years in campus ministry—and who are significantly long-term—averaging 7.6 years—and have a more likely to have attained a graduate degree graduate degree in ministry (64%). in ministry or a related field (77%). Campus ministers in this model serve the whole of the The diocesan model (6% of the study) involves campus—Catholic and non-Catholic, students, the intentional coordination of parishes, clergy faculty and staff. and lay ministers to ensure the university community has its pastoral and sacramental needs The parish-based model (14%), sometimes met. Roughly half of diocesan-based campus referred to as a University parish, maintains the ministers are responsible for two or more cam- primary Church structure of parish life. It may pus communities. Staff tend to be long-term, be a traditional parish with additional staff to have graduate degrees in ministry (61%). attend specifically to the campus community; Campus ministers in this model may rotate these ministers have been in campus ministry designated days on particular campuses or offer for an average of 6.8 years and roughly half of regional programming. these ministers have graduate degrees in ministry (51%). Geography often plays a role as the A new addition to this landscape is the mis- campus may be within the parish boundaries sionary organization model (24% of the study). and in some cases the majority of parishioners In this model, the campus minister/missionary are affiliated with the university. is typically a recent college graduate, averages 2.2 years of experience in this role and is sig- A classic example of a center-based model (20%) nificantly less likely to have a graduate degree would be a Newman Center, which was created in ministry (3%). Missionary campus ministers to provide pastoral care for Catholic students may serve within one of the aforementioned at public and non-Catholic universities. A models. They emphasize relationship and serve Newman Center might operate out of a house Catholic students through one-on-one men- close to campus or it could be a parish that toring, small group Bible studies or commu- exists for the Catholic college students, staff nity households. Two missionary organizations and faculty of the neighboring university, mak- participated in this study: the Fellowship of ing the campus the focal point of its ministries. Catholic University Students (FOCUS) and Center-based ministers are more likely to be Saint Paul’s Outreach (SPO).

7 The institutional types explored in the study are universities.1 The study finds Catholic campus four-year institutions including public (consti- ministers are present and active at approxi- tuting 53% of respondents); Catholic (31%), mately a quarter of four-year institutions. In and private non-Catholic institutions (15%). considering two-year community colleges, more Due to the dearth of Catholic campus minis- than 1,500 exist in the United States. A very ters at community colleges, this institution small number of community colleges currently type is not included in the charts that fol- benefit from an active Catholic campus minis- low. Only 2% of Catholic campus ministers ter (fewer than 1 in 60). The fact is that three- serve at community colleges. Catholic campus fourths of four-year institutions and the great ministers provide a pastoral presence on 816 majority of two-year institutions are currently campuses in the United States. According to without a campus minister. Meeting the needs the U.S. Department of Education, there are of women and men on college campuses will slightly more than 3,000 four-year colleges and require creativity, cooperation and innovation. Today’s Campus Ministers: Distinct and Complementary Gifts In conceptualizing contemporary Catholic various points of access to the Catholic faith campus ministry, the study reveals two distinct and give witness to distinct elements within the types of campus ministers within this current rich traditions of Catholicism. landscape: professional campus ministers (71% of respondents) and limited-term missionaries These findings are robust, based on a nation- (24%).2 Professional campus ministers tend to ally representative survey with a 56% (1,117 possess academic training and often expect to out of 1,911) response rate. The study utilized have a long-term career in campus ministry. alternative measurement strategies (mission- Limited-term missionaries are those who dedi- ary-based as compared to office-based; mission- cate typically two years of their life to serving ary-trained as compared to degree-trained) and Catholic college students. These two groups are explored multiple dimensions (campus minis- certainly not monolithic, nor exhaustive, and ters’ assessment of success in effectively prepar- individual variation exists throughout. Still, ing students, activities significant for growth in these two types provide a useful, broad-brush faith, and ongoing professional development). way of viewing the current landscape of Catholic Throughout, professional campus ministers and campus ministry. Perhaps most important from limited-term missionaries exhibit distinct roles a ministerial perspective is that the differences and characteristics that demonstrate the possi- between these groups yield distinct pastoral bility for cooperation by capitalizing on these styles, styles that attract and resonate with dif- complementary emphases. Yet, in many situa- ferent populations of students. Therefore, in tions, these different pastoral styles of ministry reading the following, it is best to do so through are not operative on the same campuses. a lens that affirms the uniqueness of these pasto- Campus ministers have important shared priori- ral styles, mindful that these differences provide ties exhibited in activity offerings. For example,

1 2016 Digest of Education Statistics, accessed 3/14/2018. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_317.10. asp?current=yes 2 Totals do not add to 100% as those who responded “other” are excluded.

8 more than 90 percent of both professional and For the sake of well-formed undergraduates and missionary campus ministers identify the Mass beyond, it is important to carefully discuss these as important for participants’ growth in faith. differences in ministerial type or pastoral style. In a similar way, nearly nine in ten say that Understanding one type of minister or model retreats are important for participants’ growth of ministry as objectively better than the other in faith. in all cases misses the larger picture and risks losing important opportunities for encounter It is crucial to understand the different theo- through campus ministry today. logical and pastoral emphases that distinguish professional ministers and limited-term mis- The study data illustrates pastoral and theo- sionaries. By appreciating the differences, both logical emphases between these ministers might understand how greater cooperation and within pastoral styles, illuminating both could most fruitfully happen. Professional cam- strengths and gaps. Fortunately, the data also pus ministers are more likely to stress service indicates that the strengths of each pastoral engagement and compassion to those on the style fill the gaps of the other style. Therefore, margins in working with students. They are in reading the analysis that follows, imagine more likely to engage personally in ongoing differences as exciting opportunities for coop- professional development. Limited-term mis- eration, rather than differences as a judgment sionaries tend to pay significant attention to of better or worse, or a challenge that warrants personal prayer, exhibit high levels of personal competition. The data implies that diversity, piety, engage in more discipling or one-on-one if responded to and coordinated well, could mentoring, and stress the importance of giving become a great asset to grow and strengthen witness to the faith through a personal rela- campus ministry overall. tionship with Christ. Activities Significant for Growth in Students’ Faith The formation received by degree-based and First, the areas of similarity where at least three- missionary-trained ministers within these five fourths of both missionary-trained and profes- ministerial models contain both common and sional, degree-formed campus ministers identi- distinctive elements. Differences in forma- fied activities as significant (very or moderately) tion of the ministers reflects different models for students’ growth in faith include: Mass and varied expectations. The more estab- (94% of missionaries and 92% of degree-based lished models—office-based, parish-based, center-based and diocesan models—prefer ministers with ministry-related degrees, while the newer missionary organization model provides their own trainings over summers. These primary methods of formation yield different ministerial approaches or pastoral styles. The similarities and differences between these styles emerge when investigating ministers’ evaluations of the spiritual impact of various student activities.

9 ministers), retreats (87% and 91%), small group Bible and faith-sharing groups (95% of missionaries and 83% of degree-based ministers), discipleship/one-on-one mentoring (95% vs. 80%), leadership development (78% and 80%), immersion trips (75% and 81%), and social events (78% and 77%). There is a clear basis for common action in engaging students. to connect their social action or civic engage- Looking at the contrasting or distinctive ele- ment to the Christian love that propels these. ments, missionary-trained campus ministers It risks diminishing personal piety and obscur- elevate particular activities such as studying the ing the theological meaning to good works; stu- Bible (91% vs. 73%), evangelization (90% vs. dents may ‘do good’ without being spiritually 62%), the Sacrament of Reconciliation (86% formed by the experience. vs. 66%) and men’s/women’s groups (85% vs. 65%) that promote personal holiness and a However, in not seeing the potential for spiri- personal, ‘vertical’ relationship with God, but tual growth through acts of mercy, solidarity and with less of an emphasis on one’s neighbor. friendship with those in need or students from Degree-educated campus ministers elevate the other faith traditions, missionary-based minis- importance of service/charitable work (79% vs. ters can miss the horizontal aspects of Catholic 56%), social justice/advocacy (68% vs. 36%), life. This risks cultivating a faith that—while and Ecumenical/Interfaith activities (40% tuned-in to one’s personal sins, graces and rela- vs. 25%) for growth in faith, strengthening a tionship with God—misses much of the rela- ‘horizontal’ orientation towards God through tionship of oneself to neighbor and creation. neighbor, but with less emphasis on the vertical dimension of one’s individual relationship Campus ministers need opportunities to inte- with God. grate the vertical and horizontal aspects of holy living so that they may serve undergraduate The commendable strengths to mission- students in a more holistic and authentically ary-based ministry—personal holiness and Christian way. Appreciation for what these intimacy with God—reveals a growing edge styles bring to campus ministry highlights their for degree-formed ministers. If ministers grant potential complementarity, which can help to lesser importance to these vertical elements of cultivate fruitful innovation and cooperation. their relationship with God, students may fail Successfully Preparing Students Areas for cooperation between these groups with Jesus, 2) to give witness to their Catholic appear in campus ministers’ evaluations of their faith, 3) to be compassionate to those on the success in preparing students for the future. margins, 4) to live a just life in accordance with Here the study asked campus ministers to eval- Catholic social teaching, 5) to live a moral uate the extent to which they agreed that cam- life in accordance with Church teachings, 6) pus ministry effectively prepared students in to face challenges to the faith such as secular- eight areas: 1) to have a lifelong relationship ism, consumerism, relativism, 7) to be active

10 participants in a parish and 8) to discern a reli- Important patterns emerged when campus min- gious vocation. The first four of these are help- isters considered these phrases and assessed the ful in illuminating the ways ministers within preparedness of their students. different models and institutional types assess student preparedness through campus ministry. Missionary-based ministries claim to be exceptionally successful in preparing students for a

11 lifelong relationship with Jesus and preparing stu- pastoral style leading to substantial disagree- dents to give witness to their Catholic faith. This ment that students are prepared in any of the could be attributed to their ministerial empha- four areas. Each pastoral style has distinct areas sis on relationship. Office-based ministries con- of success, linked to distinctive strengths in tend they are are exceptionally successful at preparing students for life. Both styles attempt preparing students to be compassionate with to meet the holistic needs of students and to those on the margins and to live a just life in develop them more fully as Catholics, but the accordance with Catholic social teaching. This fact that each pastoral style has distinctive may come from degree-based training that strengths cries out for greater collaboration. provides them with a better understanding of Each style of ministry has something to learn Catholic mission and outreach. (and something to teach) the other about successful preparation of students. Because these In truth, both a lifelong relationship with Jesus two styles are not often found on the same cam- and compassion for the marginalized are inte- pus, cooperation and learning from each other gral to the Christian life. Indeed, most of the must be intentionally fostered for the collective contrast between the above areas is between common good of campus ministry. ‘strongly’ and ‘somewhat’ agree, with neither

Ongoing Formation and Development: Leaning into Strengths or Developing New Skills? About 30 percent of campus ministers are department-based campus ministers hold min- ordained or religious, the rest are lay- women istry-related degrees. In contrast, less than half and men. Ten percent of all campus minis- of those at public schools hold ministry-related ters report professional certification through degrees. A relatively-new type of campus min- CCMA and about 40 percent lack a ministry ister is the missionary campus minister. These related degree. Given certification and educa- missionary ministers are typically recent col- tion data, it would be beneficial for the bishop, lege graduates who serve 1-2 years on a cam- the diocese and campus ministry organiza- pus. Their formation usually consists of several tions to encourage their campus ministers to weeks of summer training. A few (13%) mis- pursue additional formation and certification. sionary ministers hold ministry-related degrees. Ministry-related degrees are most common When limited-term, missionary-based campus on Catholic campuses, where 86 percent of ministers are excluded (most of whom serve at

12 public institutions) the portion of campus min- At the research symposium, investigations of isters at public campuses with ministry-related ministry formation and job satisfaction mea- degrees jumps from less than half to 68 percent. sures found significant associations between elements of prior formation and measures of On average, campus ministers report relative job satisfaction. For instance, those reporting openness to additional training in various areas, that prior ministry formation equipped them to ranging from pastoral to administrative. Yet, a disciple others in Christian living (64% strongly basic pattern emerges where underdeveloped agree) also reported higher satisfaction in their areas of formation are also areas of less interest, relationships with students (61% very satis- when it comes to additional training or forma- fied). Interestingly, this area, which receives tion. Campus ministers appear to have greater high marks for prior formation and current sat- interest in training areas of existing strength isfaction, also tends to be one in which campus (top-right corner of Graph 3) and less inter- ministers are interested in additional training est in strengthening areas of current weakness (39% very interested). This stands in contrast (bottom-left). This has potential implications to campus ministers who lack effective forma- for campus ministers and has practical conse- tion to create and balance budgets (14% strongly quences for job satisfaction. agree), which is also correlated to a dimension

13 of satisfaction. Unfortunately, lower effective between duties and desires, campus ministers prior formation correlates to lower satisfaction and those who support them must recognize with one’s program budget (30% very satisfied). that administrative skills are necessary to orga- Furthermore, fewer campus ministers are inter- nize and sustain ministry over time. ested in receiving additional training to create and balance budgets (29% very interested) as Perhaps this example can illuminate a potential compared with to disciple others in Christian liv- first step in expanding training and developing ing (39% very interested). In other words, as new skills for campus ministers. Let us consider a whole, campus ministers are less effectively vocational discernment. Undergraduates, who formed at creating and balancing budgets, are are acquiring skills for leadership and lifelong less satisfied with their own budget, and are less careers, are a population that would benefit interested in receiving additional training for from discernment skills. Improved discernment learning these skills. In contrast, campus min- would allow young adults to ground the choices isters, as a whole, are more effectively formed they make in their faith, during their college to disciple others, are more satisfied with their years and beyond. Likewise, insofar as campus discipling relationships with students, and ministers assist their students in vocational are more interested in additional training in discernment, they may realize their own need this area. for facilitated discernment through spiritual direction. A surprising number of campus min- It is not surprising that campus ministers are isters do not receive regular spiritual direction; more interested in the pastoral dimensions of fifty-nine percent receive spiritual direction campus ministry. Campus ministers primarily monthly or more, one-fourth receive this less provide pastoral care for the campus commu- than monthly and sixteen percent receive no nity, particularly the formation of the young spiritual direction at all. Aside from the spiri- adults present on campus. However, there are tual benefits of this practice, this study found implications for a limited scope in one’s forma- that spiritual direction had other import- tion. Examining the broader trends and themes ant benefits for campus ministers. Those who within this chart, campus ministers prefer train- receive spiritual direction are more likely to ing and claim more effective formation among see the activities they offer students as being items that are more directly relational or pas- ‘very significant’ for the students’ growth as toral; the lower-ranked items tend to be more compared to those who do not receive spiri- administrative or organizational. Given the gap tual direction. They are also significantly more

14 likely to be satisfied with the different aspects of growth (particularly in budgeting and admin- ministry—from relationships with students to istrative elements in the bottom-left corner of their workload—than non-directed ministers. Graph 3). Yet, developing new skills can be In sum, receiving spiritual direction as well as beneficial for increasing job satisfaction among learning how to help students develop discern- campus ministers. ment skills would be good starting points for developing new skills and enhancing one’s own In order to serve as on-campus sources of spir- ministerial repertoire. itual and intellectual assistance to the campus community, campus ministers must be well- Overall, campus ministers excel in several areas trained. The current context calls for campus (particularly faith-related and relational ele- ministers to develop new skills and expand ments grouped in the top right corner of Graph their professional competencies; vocational 3), but there are challenges when it comes discernment may be a prudent place to begin. to encouraging and empowering ministerial Conclusion Contemplating the data from this study points The formation and transformation of the stu- to a way forward in hope. With a better under- dent through an encounter with Jesus is the standing of the contours of Catholic cam- goal of many, if not all, campus ministers. It pus ministry today, how can campus ministry is important to recognize that some students respond in a fruitful way? For example, when find conversion in devotional practices, while the data highlights areas in which campus min- others experience conversion through service. isters could improve, we should receive these This reminds campus ministers that the prac- with gratitude and be aware of the opportunities tices which nourish their own faith life may not inherent in them. Taking cues from religious resonate with the student who sits before them communities animated by unique charisms, it or the one who curiously passes by the cam- is better to appreciate the diversity that charac- pus ministry office. Pastoral sensitivity toward terizes today’s campus ministers and encourage the spiritual needs of students and the campus cooperation and collaboration among them. community, from estranged Catholics to seek- ers to devout non-Christians to student lead- Examining professional and missionary-trained ers, is imperative and underscores the impor- campus ministers in the current landscape tance of respect and appreciation between the of U.S. Catholic campus ministry, the study ministerial models that provide different spir- demonstrates distinct pastoral styles among itual opportunities and varied points of access campus ministers. These different pastoral styles for students. have different emphases, yet they both attempt to meet the needs of students. To ensure that Campus ministers in the United States have a the comprehensive vision of campus minis- tendency to lean into existing strengths, rather try articulated in the bishops’ pastoral letter than seeking the development of new capabil- Empowered by the Spirit truly flourishes, broader ities through ongoing formation. Developing formation and greater cooperation is required. and deepening one’s strengths is an important

15 part of excelling at what one does. A broaden- the national vision for campus ministry, the ing of formation will provide campus ministers Committee on Catholic Education approved a greater capacity to engage with students, with the following recommendations. academia, and with the wider Church community. Broader formation expands one’s skill set The first recommendation asked the Catholic and scope of practice while promoting greater Campus Ministry Association to review and cooperation. Imagine diverse ministers learn- update the National Standards for Catholic ing from and teaching one another, as members Campus Ministry. The second recommen- of the Body of Christ. Broader formation facil- dation asked the Catholic Campus Ministry itates job satisfaction and may even provide Association to update and redesign the certi- new avenues for professional advancement fication process for Catholic campus ministers. within ministry. The certification process would be strength- ened by the local bishop’s encouragement to The Church plays a substantial role in facili- pursue certification. The third recommen- tating ongoing formation and cooperation. dation, in keeping with the Secretariat of Schools and organizations of formation must Catholic Education’s strategic plan, calls for enliven a holistic vision of campus ministry, the development of guidelines for the forma- one that appropriately engages the diverse tion and ongoing professional development experiences of the students and the campus cul- of Catholic campus ministers in collabora- ture. Dioceses and campuses must develop and tion with the Alliance for Campus Ministry. financially support ongoing formation opportu- The two final recommendations from the sym- nities suitable for the cultivation of a variety posium stem from what the data does not say. of ministerial gifts, including those beyond a The demographic information reports that given minister’s strengths. The Church must 86% of campus ministers are caucasian. Aware introduce new initiatives, especially where of the growing diversity of campus life, sympo- opportunities for cooperation, innovation and sium participants suggested creating a Diversity creativity present themselves. The Alliance Initiative to pursue ways of cultivating intercul- for Campus Ministry will explore opportuni- tural competence and greater pastoral engage- ties for collaboration and develop tools for ment of diverse populations on campus. In light greater cooperation. of the dearth of campus ministry at community colleges (1 in 60), a similar recommendation The first fruits of this study are visible through was made to explore innovative and creative the recommendations of symposium par- means for providing pastoral presence and ticipants and actions by the Committee on engagement at community colleges. Catholic Education. A three-day symposium in the fall of 2017 gathered bishops and prac- As the initial recommendations are devel- titioners from across the country to discuss and oped and implemented, further conversation analyze the data. As participants reflected on is needed to identify areas of growth and con- the data and the lived experience of campus tinued improvement. May the Church con- ministry, several recommendations were artic- tinually support campus ministers, so they and ulated and submitted to the Committee on those whom they serve might daily rise anew, Catholic Education. In an effort to rejuvenate empowered by the Spirit.

16 A Pastoral Synthesis with a Proposed Action Plan from Bishops Fernand Cheri and John M. Quinn

“... You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build 2. Look for opportunities to collaborate among My church…” campus ministries within the diocese and across the state. Envisioning campus ministry today, the Catholic Church must make serious efforts to 3. As Bishop, host a listening session with develop and enhance Catholic campus minis- campus ministers and students to dialogue try. The USCCB can enrich the pastoral care about the future of campus ministry. and development of the Catholic Church through campus ministry and the formation of 4. Identify best practices among campus campus ministers. Like Jesus, we can build the ministries. Church through human resources, recogniz- a. What best practices implied in these ing in every woman and man a visible sign of findings can be extended to other Christ’s presence on campus. Catholic campus campuses? ministry needs to develop innovative pastoral and missionary methodologies sensitive to each 5. Develop a pastoral plan. campus’ context while rooted in the coopera- a. What resources can be allocated to tion and ongoing formation of campus minis- campus ministry? ters. Bishops are encouraged to: b. Can we create an innovative response 1. Take stock of the state of campus ministry to the pastoral need? within the diocese. i. For example - If there is a campus with no pastoral presence, can a. What are the directors of youth and a nearby campus ministry center young adult ministry doing relative to extend themselves to include the campus ministry? campus? Or can the local parish b. How do campus ministers bridge provide a pastoral / sacramental between youth and young adult outreach to the campus? ministry? c. Where is the Church present and where is the Church absent on college campuses? d. How can students get connected across diocesan ministries?

17 Authors Dr. Brian Starks is Associate Professor of Dr. Maureen Day is an Assistant Professor Sociology at Kennesaw State University and of Religion and Society at the Franciscan former director of the Catholic Social and School of Theology in Oceanside, California Pastoral Research Initiative at the University and Research Fellow at the Center for Church of Notre Dame. He completed his Ph.D. at Management at Villanova University. Her Indiana University in 2005 with support from writings on American Catholic life appear the National Science Foundation for his dis- in both Catholic and academic publications, sertation. His research explores the impact of including an edited collection on young religion on parental values, politics, generosity, adult Catholics and vocational discernment and more. His research can be found in a vari- (Paulist Press) as well as a forthcoming book on ety of academic journals including Social Forces, American Catholic civic engagement (NYU Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, and Press). Maureen has taught undergraduates Sociology of Religion. He has served as researcher at both public and Catholic institutions and and consultant on studies of religious educa- speaks regularly to young adult audiences, such tors, religious giving, and Catholic Parishes as Theology on Tap and other university and with Hispanic Ministry. His co-edited book, parish programs. American Parishes: Remaking Local Catholicism, will be published by Fordham University Press in the spring of 2019. Research Team Lourdes Alonso Tim O’Malley Campus Minister, Catholic Community at Director, Notre Dame Center for Liturgy, Stanford McGrath Institute for Church Life, University of Notre Dame Leonard DeLorenzo Director, Notre Dame Vision, McGrath Fr. Nathan Malavolti, TOR Institute for Church Life, University of Notre Vice President of Pastoral Care & Dame Evangelization, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Franciscan University Hilary Draftz Senior Director of Quality, Growth, & Hans Plate Innovation, Fellowship of Catholic University President, Vinea Research Students Brian Starks Jonathan Holland Principal Investigator and Associate Professor Research Associate, Center for Applied of Sociology, Kennesaw State University Research in the Apostolate, Georgetown University Jane Steinhauser Director of Campus Ministry, Sinclair Barbara Humphrey McCrabb Community College, Diocesan Director for Assistant Director for Higher Education, Campus Ministry, Secretariat of Catholic Education, USCCB Archdiocese of Cincinnati

18 About the Study Process and Methods Seeking to advance Catholic identity in type. Second, type may be used to describe the higher education and to rejuvenate a vision of two prevailing kinds of campus ministers today: Catholic campus ministry nationally, the study professional campus ministers and limited-term utilized an innovative, collaborative process missionaries. Finally, pastoral style or sometimes of planning and analysis. This included the simply style refers to two prevailing approaches development of a nationwide research team to among campus ministers. Missionary campus formulate the surveys and, following data col- ministers are often characterized as having a lection, to participate in a research symposium zeal that is more reminiscent of evangelical to interpret preliminary results. This process, Protestant groups (e.g., Campus Crusade for and especially the research symposium, brought Christ) than that of the university Catholic together practitioners, institutions, networks, centers that dominated campus ministry only a organizations, stakeholders and bishops rep- generation ago. They tend to be much younger, resenting the breadth of Catholic Campus allowing them a posture of peer-ministry for Ministry in the United States. A basic descrip- traditional-age students that affords them easier tion of the study process and research method- access into the young adult realm. Professional ology, from inception to symposium, follows. campus ministers employ a style reflective of their training to serve the whole community, A brief word on vocabulary: The research team including faculty, non-Christian students and was deliberate in using the words model, type those beyond the campus. This inspires them to and style. Model refers to the organizational reach out to a more diverse set of constituents structure that provides context for the campus and fosters a desire to improve the flourishing of minister. The models examined within this the whole of the campus culture, rather than a study include office-based, parish-based, cen- particular emphasis on reaching out to individ- ter-based, diocesan, and missionary organiza- uals. Of course there is greater nuance among tion. Type is used in two ways that is clarified individuals and institutions than these rigid by its context. First, type describes the edu- categories of models, styles and types allow; cational institution, such as Catholic, private still, they are analytically useful and illuminate non-Catholic or public four-year institution; actual differences. this usage is specified by referring to institutional 2016 Research Team Meeting In the fall of 2016, a national research team, Team *All Appendixes will be found online at composed of eleven members, held a design www.usccb.org/campus-ministry). conference at the University of Notre Dame to discuss goals, articulate key concepts, develop Prior to the fall meeting, a case statement for survey instruments and agree on a timeline for the study was constructed and served as the ini- conducting the study. The research team, iden- tial charge and guideline for the research team tified and selected by the Assistant Director for (Appendix B—Case Statement). During the Higher Education, included a diverse array of three-day design meeting, the research team interested parties (see Appendix A—Research developed two survey instruments—one for campus ministers and one for students involved 19 in campus ministry. Because surveying a ran- sample) was implemented. The method focused dom national sample of student participants on those who are actively involved in campus in campus ministry would have been cost-pro- ministry, allowing us to include their voices in hibitive, an extremely cost-efficient method for the discussion as a way of understanding what sampling students (though not a probability attracts and engages them. Pre-Testing Our Instruments Following the design conference, the cam- The student instrument was created and pre- pus ministers’ survey instrument (with close tested by students who were personally invited to 150 questions/items, estimated at 30-40 by campus ministers from either the Alliance minutes) was pre-tested by members of the or the research team. Students participating in Alliance for Campus Ministry (Appendix the pretest were asked to complete the survey C—Alliance Members) in December of 2016. and provide a critique. The student instrument, This group of practitioners serves as an advi- despite intentionally being shorter to encourage sory body to the Secretariat. Based on detailed greater participation, was still over 60 questions, feedback from Alliance members, the cam- and most pre-test respondents took 20 minutes pus minister instrument was revised, clarified, to complete it. Based on detailed feedback, the and refined (Appendix D—Campus Minister student instrument was also refined and revised Questionnaire). The final instrument explores (Appendix E—Student Questionnaire). The a variety of topic areas such as formation, train- final student instrument mimics the campus ing, professional development, personal spiri- minister survey in asking for an assessment of tual practices, and job satisfaction. It also asks how well campus ministry prepares students questions about campus ministry activities and for life after college. The instrument also asks the campus minister’s assessment of the signif- about campus ministry activities, but rather icance of each activity for students growth in than assessing importance for growth in faith, the faith. Demographic information and ques- students are asked about their frequency of par- tions about campus context, along with the ticipation in various activities. Finally, in addi- campus ministers’ self-assessment of how well tion to demographic questions, a whole series campus ministry prepares students for life after of questions assess students’ concerns and/or campus, concludes the instrument. The scope struggles in their daily lives. of the instrument allowed for the development of a detailed profile and view of campus ministers and campus ministry across the country. Sampling and Surveying A campus minister, for the purpose of this study, Education initially identified 1,911 campus is defined as someone who has primary pasto- ministers throughout the United States. ral care for the campus community. Through diocesan searches, contacts with national and Under Dr. Starks’ supervision, Kennesaw State regional organizations, as well as religious University’s Burruss Institute conducted both congregations, the Secretariat for Catholic instruments using Qualtrics. Relying on the sampling frame provided by the USCCB in

20 early February 2017, personal email invita- ministers sent the survey to their email list tions were sent to 1,911 campus ministers. As of participating students which had varying responses came in, adjustments were made for degrees of comprehensiveness. At least one personnel changes, the addition of new staff, university obtained permission to send the and other situations. The final sampling frame invitation out to all students at their univer- list encompassed 2,009 campus ministers. sity. Finally, some campus ministers did not Several follow-up reminders were sent with send the invitation out to students at all (due encouragement videos from the bishops. A to institutional concerns about human subjects monetary incentive program to enhance par- approval). Consequently, we do not know how ticipation was utilized. The survey instrument many students were invited to participate in closed at the end of March 2017 with over the student survey. Therefore, probability can- 1,117 responses and a calculated response rate not be calculated for a student being invited, of 56%. The high response rate strongly demon- nor can an overall response rate be calculated. strates the success of the overall approach. To Thus, the student sample is a convenience further ensure that the final profile of campus sample, not a probability sample. Therefore, ministers accurately represents the entire popu- statistical generalizations cannot be made to a lation of campus ministers, post-survey weights student population beyond our respondents. were calculated and utilized in this executive summary (Appendix F—Weighting). The student respondents tend to be very involved in campus ministry. This is most nota- To gather student responses, campus ministers ble when looking at the fact that about 81% of were used as an intermediary. A generic student respondents go to mass weekly through campus invitation (with a non-personalized link) was ministry. Obviously, respondents, composed of sent to all campus ministers with the request campus ministry-involved students, are NOT that they forward the invitation to their stu- the average student. As a result, caution is dents. Over 5,000 students responded, with warranted in interpreting descriptive statistics about 4,400 answering a majority of the ques- about responding students. Proper interpreta- tions asked. For the research symposium, we tion requires recognizing processes of self-se- limited most analyses to those who answered at lection alongside causation. With this type of least 90% of all questions, still providing well data set, relationships between variables tend over 3,000 student responses. This is a large to be more robust for generalization to larger number of students and provides a wealth of populations. Therefore, any exploration should data to be considered. Based on communica- emphasize relationships between variables, tions with campus ministers, however, there rather than simple description of percentages, is not uniformity in terms of which students when discussing student data. received the invitation. In most cases, campus Research Symposium The research symposium process began in the uploaded into Protobi (an online data analy- spring of 2017 upon completion of data collec- sis program) and in early May, an online train- tion and selection of symposium participants. ing session (provided by Vinea Research) was After organizing and cleaning raw data, the made available to all symposium participants, campus minister and student data sets were allowing them to access and analyze the data.

21 This process provided symposium participants The first two days of the symposium consisted the opportunity to both interrogate the data for of panel presentations. Each panel member themselves and bring their findings back to the presented their position paper and responded larger group. to written feedback, and this was followed by an open discussion among the entire group. After dividing researchers into seven different The final day of the symposium closed with a topic groups, participants received instructions discussion of observations and implications for developing position papers. These position for the future of campus ministry. As a result, papers prompted results and findings informed a series of recommendations were developed by the diverse experiences and alternative and submitted to the Committee on Catholic contexts of researchers. Each research topic Education. The recommendations included the included a qualified ‘data person’ designated following items. as a point person for helping resolve any quantitative or methodological questions in the 1. Revise and update National Standards for group. The ‘data person’ gained access to addi- Catholic Campus Ministry facilitated by tional STATA data files, including a file that CCMA. joined the two data sets (minister and student) 2. Update and redesign the Certification together via an institution code, allowing for process for campus ministers facilitated by additional quantitative methods beyond those CCMA. available within PROTOBI. 3. Develop guidelines for the formation and on-going professional development of In early June, Dr. Starks provided all partici- Catholic Campus ministers to be reviewed pants with a sample position paper for them to and approved by the Committee on emulate. All other participants submitted posi- Catholic Education. tion papers by the beginning of August. Once 4. Create a Diversity Initiative to pursue ways these position papers were collected, they were of cultivating intercultural competence and made available electronically to participants greater pastoral engagement of diverse pop- and written feedback was requested (each par- ulations on campus. ticipant was assigned to respond to 2-4 posi- 5. Create a Community College Initiative to tion papers). After receiving written feedback explore innovative and creative means for in early September, all of the original position providing pastoral presence and engage- papers and subsequent written feedback were ment at community colleges. compiled into a binder sent to participants prior to the symposium. *All appendices can be found online at www.usccb.org/campus-ministry. In October of 2017, the three-day research symposium, in which results of the survey were dis- Appendix A—Research Team cussed and analyzed, was held at Notre Dame. Appendix B—Case Statement The thirty-two symposium participants (see Appendix C—Alliance Members Appendix G—Symposium Roster) included Appendix D—Campus Minister Questionnaire the original research team, members of the Appendix E—Student Questionnaire Alliance, additional sociologists, campus min- Appendix F—Weighting isters, USCCB personnel and several bishops. Appendix G—Symposium Roster