Here is the proposed budget of the Episcopal Church, 2013-2015.
I've been pondering (and tweeting @uaeeconomist ) about the "block grants".
They aren't block grants in the sense that we usually use the term. That is, in U.S. parlance you have the federal government making block grants to states. All states get the grants although they can decline them. But in the proposed budget you compete for the grants and it appears they are will be assessed on how closely they are judged to meet some criteria. Not only are block grants not by definition competitive they are because of that not categorical in the sense of someone saying whether your proposal is the best mousetraps. Under block grants everyone is given money for developing a mousetrap and its up to the recipients to design the mousetrap at the local level. It's part of the genius of the federal system of government.
John B. Chilton |
July 10, 2012 3:56 PM
Continuing my harangue on the proposed budget's notion of "block grants" -- Why not just cut the asking and leave the money with the dioceses?
Again, compare this to the U.S. system. The federal government has an efficient tax collection system. And it collects more per capita from rich states than it does from poor states. So block grants are a way of leveling the playing field, to help poorer states deliver social services.
But in TEC's system, the diocesan asking is the same for every diocese, rich or poor, and payment is voluntary. And some of our richer dioceses fall far short of paying the asking.
So my proposal is, forget about the block grants and reduce the asking.
The result will be more dollars at the diocesan level with which to do the experimentation that needs to be done in search of those mousetraps. Some of those mousetraps which prove to be successful can then be copied in other dioceses.
Keeping money at the local keeps the incentives in the right place. People have a stronger incentive to give and will be more responsible with how they spend than the money comes from on high.
John B. Chilton |
July 10, 2012 4:09 PM
Why oh why are we slashing the communications budget so much?
Communication is abysmal in the church. We can't even muster a newspaper. (The much-smaller Anglican Church of Canada has a very nice newspaper, Anglican Journal.) The result is that intra-church communication and shared knowledge of mission and ministry suffers dramatically. We fail to realize our oneness in the body of Christ.
We're all going to be on Twitter in the next Triennium to figure out what's going on in the church. I, for one, think church news deserves more than 140 characters.
Jesse Zink |
July 10, 2012 4:33 PM
Some here worried about cuts in the Anglican Communion budget. PB&F accepted PB's figures on that, which slashed Exec Council's number, which was already a significant cut.
Jim Naughton |
July 10, 2012 4:35 PM
More on the budget's impact on the Anglican Communion is here.
If the church doesn't want to be a part of the Anglican Communion, it should just say that. I'd prefer that to talking out of both sides of its mouth.
Jesse Zink |
July 10, 2012 5:21 PM
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by
requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real
names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.
Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)