A national inventory of parish catechetical programs


323 WEST TT r r
CHURCHWEST ILLINOIS STREET

A NATIONAL
INVENTORY
OF PARISH

CATECHETICAL

PROGRAMS

Conducted by

The United States
Catholic Conference
in cooperation with

The Boys Town Center
for the Study of

Youth Development

—

The Catholic University
of America



Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2016

https://archive.org/details/nationalinventorOOunit



A NATIONAL
INVENTORY
OF PARISH

CATECHETICAL

PROGRAMS

Conducted by

The United States

Catholic Conference

in cooperation with

The Boys Town Center
for the Study of

Youth Development

—

The Catholic University

of America

1978

PUBLICATIONS OFFICE
UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005



Copyright © 1978, United States Catholic Conference

DeacMfflsd



CONTENTS

The National Inventory of Parish Catechetical Programs .... 1

History of Inventory 5

Part I

A Portrait of the Persons Who Are Responsible for
Parish Catechetical Programs 13

Educational Background and Continuing Education

of DREs 19

The DRE as Employee 24

Part II

Catechetical Ministries 33

Part III

The Support Systems of Parish Catechetical Programs 43

Summary 51

Support for Catechetical Programs 55

Conclusion 57

i



Page
FIGURES Nos.

Figure 1 Characteristics of the Director or Coordinator 2

Figure 2 Types of Ministries 3

Figure 3 Current Support for Ministry 3

Figure 4 The Distribution of Returned Questionnaires Accord-
ing to Regions 7

Figure 5 The Location of Parishes Responding to the National
Inventory of Parish Catechetical Programs 8

Figure 6 The Number of Families within Parishes Responding
to the National Inventory of Parsh Catechetical Pro-

grams 8

Figure 7 Ethnic and Racial Background of Parishes Respond-
ing to the National Inventory of Parish Catechetical

Programs 9

Figure 8 The Vocational Status of the Respondents and their
Locations 9

Figure 9 The Location of Parishes Not Responding to the Na-
tional Inventory of Parish Catechetcial Programs 10

Figure 10 The Number of Families within a Parish Not Respond-
ing to the National Inventory of Parish Catechetical

Programs 10

Figure 11 Ethnic and Racial Background of Parishes Not Re-
sponding to the National Inventory of Parish Cate-

chetical Programs 11

Figure 12 Age Distribution of DREs 14

Figure 13 Vocational Status of DREs 14

Figure 14 Age Range of DREs 15

Figure 15 Total Number of Diocesan Seminarians and Priests
in U.S. Catholic Dioceses, 1955-75 17

Figure 16 Distribution of Salaries for Paid DREs 25

Figure 17 Vocational Status of DREs in Relation to Salary 25

Figure 18 Distribution of Hours Per Week DREs Expend 27

Figure 19 Vocational Status of DREs Reporting a Role Descrip-
tion 28

Figure 20 Vocational Status of DRE and Number of Years in the
Same Parish 29



TABLES

Page
Nos.

Table 1 The Comparison of College Education with Vocational

Status 19

Table 2 The Comparison of Graduate Degrees with Vocational
Status 20

Table 3 Continuing Education within the Last Two Years 20

Table 4 Reading Habits of DREs 21

Table 5 A DREs Contact with Peers 21

Table 6 The Relationship Between the Hours Per Week a DRE
Expends and His or Her Monthly Salary 26

Table 7 Percentage of “Yes" Responses to the Various Grade
Levels That Fall Under the Responsibility of DREs 26

Table 8 Percentage of “Yes" Responses to Additional Minis-
tries DREs Undertake 27

Table 9 DRE Years in Present Parish 28

Table 10 The Comparison of DREs with and without a Role
Description and Hours Per Week Expended 30

Table 11 Location and Time Input of DREs 30

Table 12 Yearly Average of Adults Who Attend Adult Education
And Family Ministry Programs 33

Table 13 Frequency of Family Ministry Programs 34

Table 14 Frequency of Adult Education Programs 35

Table 15 Special Education Programs within the Area of the
Parish 35

Table 16 Catechetical Assistance for Handicapped 36

Table 17 Considerations for Handicapped 36

Table 18 Classes Per Year 37

Table 19 Location of Classes 37

Table 20 Services by Parishes for Youth 38

Table 21 Frequency of Parish Services for Youth 38

Table 22 Youth Services in the Parish 39

Table 23 Parent Participation in Sacramental Preparation 44

Table 24 Priests’ Involvement in Catechetical Functions 44

iii



Page
Nos.

Table 25 Complementary Services to Catechetical Programs on
the Primary Level 45

Table 26 Percentage of Certified Teachers on the Primary Level 46

Table 27 Catechetical Support from Higher Education, Parish
Libraries & Certification Programs 46

Table 28 Educational Hardware 46

Table 29 The Comparison of Parishes with or without a Catholic
School and whether there is a Catechetical Budget 47

Table 30 The Location of Parishes which have a Parish Cate-
chetical Budget 47

IV



THE NATIONAL INVENTORY
OF PARISH CATECHETICAL PROGRAMS

Introduction

The National Inventory of Parish Catechetical Programs
is the first effort of its kind to examine the status of Catholic
catechesis throughout the country. The study focuses on parish
catechetical programs that are not within the Catholic school
system. In some places, these programs are identified by the name
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD).

The study was undertaken in response to the need for a
comprehensive understanding of the structures and personnel in
the evolving area of parish catechesis. In the past the main bul-
wark of catechetical ministry for youth was the Catholic school.
Discussion groups, parish sodalities, occasional missions, and

guest speakers served the catechetcal needs of the adult popula-

tion. These structures were—and in many places still are

—

extremely effective in complementing catechesis. No longer, how-
ever, do they dominate the scene as they did in the past.

The catechetical scene has expanded beyond the classroom
in serving the faith needs not only of youth, but also adults.

Retreat movements, greater involvement in the liturgy, and field
experiences are some of the new models being employed in the
catechesis of young people. Catechetical ministry has likewise
broadened its perimeters to respond to a much wider diversity of
needs found in the adult population. Family ministry, ministry to

the elderly, the sick, and the dying are among the many new serv-
ices offered adults.

As this shift in emphasis has grown, it has generated a re-
thinking of catechetical needs and a re-structuring to meet them.

1



The National Inventory of Parish Catechetical Programs is de-
signed to assess the resources and structures upon which cate-

chesis in our country depends.

Three basic concerns are at the heart of the Inventory. The
first of these concerns relates to the persons, usually called

coordinators or directors, most responsible for meeting the day-

to-day catechetical needs of a parish. What can be said of their
age, vocational status, ethnic background, and educational level?

What is the salary of a coordinator or director? What is the ratio
of those who have a role description of their work to those who
have none; of volunteer to paid administrators; of newcomers to
seasoned directors; of those doing the job alone to those who are
working in a team? What range of functions do directors perform
and how much time do they allot to each? See Figure 1.

Figure 1.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DIRECTOR OR COORDINATOR

il. ill.

In Him/ Herself As Educated Person As Employee

— Sex. Question
2* (Q.2)

— Age (Q. 3)
— Position in Life

(Q.5)

— Ethnic
Background

(Q.20)

— Educational
Background

(Q.6) (Q.21)

— Reading
Background

(Q.19)

— Contact with
other Educators

(Q17)

— Salary (Q.4)— Longevity on Job (Q.7)— Other Jobs of Some Nature
(Q-9) (Q.10)— Range of Responsibilities
(Q-8) (Q.14)— Priorities on Job (Q.19)

— Input Time/Work (Q.15)— Boundaries of Work (Q.6)— Job Description (Q.ll)
(Q.13)

The first area of focus of this survey therefore concerns the
decision-maker most responsible for setting the tone of parish
catechesis. The questions address themselves to the background
of those leaders responsible for inspiring catechetical models on
the parochial level.

The second area of concern is with the various catechetical
ministries: adult education and ministry to the family, youth, the
handicapped, and formal religious education. How many such
ministries in fact exist? How frequently does the parish community
become involved with them?

* The questionnaire, the National Inventory of Parish Catechetical Pro-
grams, is found in the appendix.

2



Here the study shifts to those who are served by the parish.
It asks whether the youth and adult populations are being exposed

to the wide range of catechetical ministries that are available. If

so, to what degree is the exposure being felt? See Figure 2.

Figure 2.

TYPES OF MINISTRIES

1. II. III. IV. V. VI.

To Adults To Family
To Handi-
capped To Youth

To Primary
Education

To Second-
ary

Education

(Q.31) (Q.32) (Q.36, 37) (Q-48, (Q.42, 35) (Q.50)
49, 52, 54)

Lastly, the Inventory is concerned with the various support

systems that are needed if shared responsibility is to be an in-
tegral part of catechesis. How much support is received from
parishioners, clergy, and the dioceses? Do the teachers who are
responsible for formal catechetical instruction, likewise receive

educational and spiritual support? See Figure 3.

Figure 3.

CURRENT SUPPORT FOR MINISTRY

1 . ll. III. IV.

Clergy Parish Diocesan Educational and
Participation Support Support Spiritual Support

(Q-29) — Parishioner
Involvement

(Q.33, 34, 39,

40)

— Parish Budget
(Q.57)

— Parish
Facilities

(Q.56, 58, 59)

(Q.30) (Q.44, 45, 46, 47, 53,

The future builds on the present. The statistics are an at-
tempt to understand whether basic structures, without which
catechesis cannot exist, are present. Proper interpretation of the
statistics requires a current understanding of the field. To be of
value the study must further be seen through the eyes of a
futurologist who says, “If this be the status quo, what must we

3



do now so that in the 1980’s catechesis will be stronger and
greatly improved?”

The Inventory is the result of considerable consultation.
Special thanks are due Bishop Thomas C. Kelly, O.P., General
Secretary of the United States Catholic Conference (USCC), Mon-
signor Wilfrid H. Paradis, Secretary for Education, USCC, Mon-
signor Thomas J. Leonard, Associate Secretary for Education,
USCC, and the staff of the Department of Education, USCC.

Particular acknowledgement must also be made of the con-
tribution of Dr. James O’Connor, Director of the Boys Town
Research Center at Catholic University, where the data were
processed and analyzed, Reverend Raymond H. Potvin, chief con-
sultant on the questionnaire design, and Doctors Dean R. Hoge,
Andrew D. Thompson, Hart M. Nelsen, and the Reverend Paul J.
Philibert, O.P. for their consultation and encouraging support.

A grant from the Scholl Foundation provided for many of the
expenses of the study. Much credit must go to the National Con-
ference of Diocesan Directors, (NCDD), the Association of Di-
rectors of Graduate Religious Education Programs (ADGREP),
Brother Bernard Glos, O.S.B., Monsignor William B. Friend,
Brother Joseph Moloney, Dr. Barbara McKillop, and the many
diocesan directors who helped pre-test the first three drafts of the
survey instrument.

Finally, thanks must be given to Theresa Lennon, Joseph
Shields, Mary Jean Verdieck, Diane Martin, Chuck Talar, Peggy
O’Reilly, and Mohammud Khan for their help in processing and
analyzing the data.

Eugene F. Hemrick
Chief Investigator

4



HISTORY OF INVENTORY
We distinguish five phases in the research project: (1) Pre-

liminary Preparation, (2) Data Collection, (3) Data Processing,

(4) Analysis and Preparation of the Report, and (5) Review of the

Report.

Preliminary Preparation

Work on the Inventory was begun by the United States Cath-
olic Conference in August, 1975, when a letter was sent to sev-
eral dioceses throughout the country requesting samples of

questionaires they might be employing to assess their catechetical

programs. About half of the dioceses contacted replied by sending

survey instruments. The other dioceses reported they had no such
questionnaires. Many of these dioceses said that they would wel-
come help in constructing one. This latter fact, coupled with re-
flection on the guidelines of the National Catechetical Directory

emphasizing the need for catechetical research, reinforced our
conviction that a study was needed. 1 Another supporting reason
for the study was found in an article in Momentum in which Dr.
William McCready bemoaned the fact that no real research had
been done in the area of CCD. 2

What to study was the first question. Examination of all the
research and symposia papers that have reported on the positive
and negative aspects of catechetics made it clear that these works
presumed a catechetical structure about which we have very little
data. To give one example, youth ministry has been fairly well
defined. On paper, it is a modern response to the problem of
making contact with the missing 3.2 million youth of high school

1 Sharing the Light Of Faith: National Catechetical Directory for Catholics
Of the United States, United States Catholic Conference, 1312 Massachu-
setts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, 1978.

2 Feistritzer, Patricia, "American Catholics Want Catholic Schools,"
Momentum, May, 1976, p. 20.

5



age who are not receiving formal religious education and of vitaliz-
ing the faith of youth already deeply involved in religion.

3 But, it

had to be asked, how many parishes are actually aware of or
engaged in this ministry? Do parishes provide the various struc-
tures that compose youth ministry?

Because of reasoning along these lines, it was argued that

an inventory was needed to assess the range of catechetical

functions actually fostered by parishes and the personnel who are
responsible for administering them.

Data Collection

Once the rationale for the Inventory was established, parish
and diocesan directors, deans of graduate schools for religious
studies, the Department of Education of the USCC, and prominent
sociologists were asked to supply items for the survey instrument.

After several drafts and pre-tests the finalized instrument

was sent to 330 bishops and 158 diocesan directors of cateche-
tics with a note informing them that the questionnaire would be
used for a national study. Their assistance in facilitating the study

was solicited.

The Official Catholic Directory published by P. J. Kenedy &
Sons was then consulted and every 10th parish throughout the
country was chosen for the survey. Since the Directory at times
has been found to be inaccurate, the names of parishes selected
randomly in each diocese were sent directly to the diocesan di-
rector, who was asked to forward the questionnaire to the person
in each parish considered most responsible for its catechetical
program. The director was also asked to check the addresses for
possible corrections. Thanks to outstanding cooperation by the
diocesan directors, 1059 completed questionnaires—59% out of
1810—were returned to the national office.

In order to understand the background of the data of the
Inventory, the following graphs have been constructed reflecting
the percentage of replies from each region, and the location, size,
ethnic, and racial composition of the parishes that responded and
did not respond.

Figure 4 gives the breakdown of respondents according to
the 12 regions of the country.

Paradis, Wilfrid, H., and Andrew D. Thompson, Where Are the 6.6
Million?, United States Catholic Conference, Washington, D.C., 1976, p. 1.

6



FIGURE

4

THE

DISTRIBUTION

OF

RETURNED

QUESTIONNAIRES

ACCORDING

TO

REGIONS

7



Figure 5 shows that 59% of the parishes responding to the
Inventory are in small cities or rural areas. Another 34% are in
major cities (500,000 to 1,000,000) or suburbs, and 7% of the
responses come from major cities with a population over 1,000,-
00°- FIGURES

THE LOCATION OF PARISHES RESPONDING TO THE NATIONAL
INVENTORY OF PARISH CATECHETICAL PROGRAMS

31 % N = 951

City Over 50,000 to Suburb City Town/Rural
1,000,000 1,000,000

Figure 6 shows that parishes with less than 1,000 families

represent almost two thirds of the total respondents to the Inven-

t0ry
- FIGURE 6
THE NUMBER OF FAMILIES WITHIN PARISHES RESPONDING TO THE

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF PARISH CATECHETICAL PROGRAMS
41 %

Families

8



Figure 7 shows that the ethnic and racial background of the
parishes studied is predominantly Caucasian.

FIGURE 7
ETHNIC AND RACIAL BACKGROUND OF PARISHES RESPONDING TO THE

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF PARISH CATECHETICAL PROGRAMS
87%

N =l

4%

1 1

5%
3%

1

1

1%

Caucasion1 Black Hispanic Native American Oriental

Figure 8 shows the location of lay persons, sisters and priests
who responded.

FIGURE 8
THE VOCATIONAL STATUS OF THE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR LOCATIONS 41 %
Laity

Sisters

Priests

8% 8%

4%
CO CO

>. 3 GO
CO

To
0)

_i <z> CL

High Major
City

N = 322
N = 298
N = 282

24%

19%

16%

II

13°^0

CO CO

CD

w
Vi
0

CO ol

18%

12%

Major
City

Major City
Suburb

35%

32%

26% 27%

Small City Small
Town/Rural

9

Priests



Seven hundred fifty one parishes, 41%, did not return the
questionnaires sent to them. Figures 9, 10 and 11 describe where

these parishes are located, the number of families in them and
their ethnic and racial background.

FIGURE 9
THE LOCATION OF PARISHES NOT RESPONDING TO THE NATIONAL

INVENTORY OF PARISH CATECHETICAL PROGRAMS

29%

City Over 50,000 to Suburb City Town/Rural
1

,
000,000 1

,
000,000

FIGURE 10
THE NUMBER OF FAMILIES WITHIN A PARISH NOT RESPONDING TO THE
45 o/o NATIONAL INVENTORY OF PARISH CATECHETICAL PROGRAMS

Families
10



81 %

FIGURE 11
ETHNIC AND RACIAL BACKGROUND OF PARISHES NOT
RESPONDING TO THE NATIONAL INVENTORY OF PARISH

American

It should be noted that although 1059 questionnaires were
coded, often the actual number of respondents (N) to a particular
question is much below the number 1059. This may be the result
of several reasons:

1. In the case of specific information—for example, the
percentages of persons of particular racial and ethnic
backgrounds in a parish—the respondent may have opted
to leave the question blank because the information was
not available and it would be too time-consuming to
obtain it.

2. Some respondents who failed to respond may have meant
in this way to indicate a “no” answer to a “yes-or-no”
question.

3. For personal reasons a respondent may feel that a cer-
tain question does not deserve a response.

11



4. A respondent might accidentally skip a question.

5. A respondent might respond improperly and invalidate
his or her response.

The reader should be aware of the variance in the number
of responses (N) as he or she interprets the percentages in the

tables and figures.

Data Processing

Preparation of the data for analysis began almost as soon as

the questionnaires were returned. Each questionnaire required six

IBM cards to record the responses to the 60 items composing the
Inventory.

Analysis and Preparation of the Report

Once the data were processed, the responses were analyzed
to see with what frequency they appeared. As the frequency of

each response was analyzed, cross tabulations were suggested
and tables were designed to study various comparisons.

Before any conclusions were drawn the frequencies and
tables were reviewed by means of in-depth interviews with per-
sons throughout the country who had participated in the study.
They were asked to reflect on each set of responses and comment
on what the information indicated to them. Many of the ideas in
the sections of the report which are entitled “Questions Raised
by the Data" are the result of this process.

Review of the Report

The report of the Inventory has been sent to every bishop
and diocesan director of catechetics for their review. Up to this
point nine dioceses have requested that the Inventory be used to

do a 100% study of their parish catechetical programs.

Format of the Report

The report is organized in four parts:

(1) Frequency of responses resulting from each question;

(2) Cross tabulations suggested by the data; (3) Questions raised

by the data; (4) Summary and considerations for the future.

12



PART I

A PORTRAIT OF THE PERSONS WHO ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR PARISH CATECHETICAL

PROGRAMS

Formal Title

Sex & Age
Status & Ethnic & Racial Background

The National Inventory of Parish Catechetical Programs

begins by asking the person designated most responsible for
parish catechetical programs, “What is your formal title in regard
to catechetics?” Of the 1020 responding, 51% say they are called
coordinators, 32% are called directors, 9% are pastors, and
8% have other titles, such as principal, facilitator, chairperson,
assistant pastor, administrator, religious education consultant,

and pastoral minister. (Throughout the remainder of the study
the abbreviation DRE, Director of Religious Education, will repre-
sent the various titles.)

Women outnumber men 59% to 41% among DREs.

Figure 12 indicates the age distribution of DREs between 21
and 61.

Lay persons compose the largest group of DREs, with a 35%
representation. Religious sisters are next with a 29% representa-
tion, and priests follow very closely at 28%. At the bottom of the
list are religious brothers with 7% representation and permanent
deacons and seminarians, both at less than 1% * See Figure 13.

* Since religious brothers, permanent deacons, and seminarians make
up less than 9% of the population of DREs when comparisons are made
that require vocational status, only priests, sisters, and lay persons will be
included in the figures and tables that follow.

13



FIGURE 12
19% AGE DISTRIBUTION OF DREs

VOCATIONAL STATUS OF DREs

Laity Sisters Priests Bros. Perm. Seminarians

Deacons

14



Of those priests reporting they are DREs, 71% are pastors,
27% are either assistant or associate pastors. Diocesan priests
not assigned to a particular parish and priests belonging to a
religious order account for 1% each.

When priests, sisters, and brothers are combined and com-
pared with the laity, it becomes apparent that about two-thirds of
the parish catechetical programs are directed by priests, religious
sisters, or brothers.

Of the 955 DREs who reported their racial and ethnic back-
ground, white Caucasian-Americans predominate, with an 85%
representation. Hispanics are 9%, Blacks 2%, Native Americans
2%, and Orientals 2%.

Figure 14 relates age to vocation in life for the DREs. It
shows a downward trend in the number of lay DREs as age in-
creases, while the numbers of priests and sisters increase as age
increases.

FIGURE 14
AGE RANGE OF DREs

Laity

Sisters

Priests

30%

(N = 354)
(N = 301)
(N = 291)

30%

11 %

Ages 21-30

28%

19%

31-40

37%
36%

33%

28%

23%

16%

41-50 51

15



Questions Raised By the Data On
Age and Vocational Status

Ethnic and Racial Background

The Vitality of the DRE

In follow-up interviews on the findings of the Inventory,

several basic questions were immediately raised because of the

statistics on age, vocational status, and ethnic and racial back-

ground. One DRE, looking at the statistics in Figure 14, candidly

remarked, “I fall into that 23% category under lay person. I am
in my early forties, have been on the job for six years as a favor

to the pastor, and am just about ready to call it quits.” She then

told of going to a coordinators’ meeting. While listening to a

lecture there she looked around the room and saw five other

coordinators who, as she described them, looked burned-out and

lifeless. She ended her remarks by saying that she prayed God

would give her the wisdom to get out before she reached that

stage.

The discussion that followed this comment led to the fol-

lowing questions:

• What is being done by dioceses and parishes with persons

who have served religious education for a considerable

length of time and feel it is time to step down? Do we try to

retain them until they collapse? Are DREs offered alternatives

in the area of catechetics that offer a change of atmosphere

and subsequent relief? Are mini-sabbaticals encouraged and

supported?

• Is there a feedback system whereby a diocese or parish

monitors a DRE's endurance level and is able to detect

fatigue before it reaches a critical point?

• Do policies address the question of incentive as a means

for sustaining vitality for the DRE position?

• Have we built into the office of DRE protections, such as

clearly defined role descriptions, that help insure against

over-extension?

• Once a person reaches the level of DRE, is that it? Within

the position itself are there further levels of achievement

for which a DRE can strive?

Religious Vocations As the Bulwark of Catechesis?

When Figure 14 was reviewed by a group of priests familiar

16



with the statistics in Figure 15 below, the fact that one-third

of the priests and one-third of the sisters serving as DREs are 51
or older became a point of discussion.

• If vocations to the priesthood and sisterhood continue to fall
short of meeting the demands of the Catholic population,
who will replace these sisters and priests in the 51-and-over
age category?

• If, as it seems, catechetics will need to be carried out pre-

dominantly by the laity in the future, are recruitment policies,

budget planning, and preparation of a mentality underway to
accommodate and encourage lay administration?

FIGURE 15
TOTAL NUMBER OF DIOCESAN SEMINARIANS AND PRIESTS

IN U.S. CATHOLIC DIOCESES, 1955-75A

A. Source: Official Catholic Directory

B. The projected decline between 1975 and 1985, indicated by a
broken line, is based on data presented in an article in the
“National Catholic Reporter,” May 5, 1978, p. 4.

C. Seminarians

The Minorities Who in Some Places Have Already Become the
Majority

The fact that only 13% of the parishes responding to the
Inventory are of some other ethnic and racial background than

17



white Caucasian and that a low percentage of DREs are found
among the minorities raises some serious questions. Another
study seems needed which focuses on the minorities solely to
determine the status of leadership among them. Such a study
might assess whether low visibility is the result of organizational

difficulties or arises from the fact that leadership which gives

visibility has not yet developed. The study might further investi-
gate whether minority groups are making an effort to accept their
own members as leaders. It might ask if white Caucasian-Amer-
ican leadership among minorities is encouraging “home rule.” Is
the mentality prevalent which considers the minorities still in-

capable of managing themselves, or is the “bootstrap” mentality
present which believes that the best way to serve others is to
encourage them to develop their leadership?

One question plaguing many interviewed in the southwest
part of the country is the possible loss to the Church of Hispanic
youth if Hispanic leadership in catechetics is not cultivated.

18



EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
AND

CONTINUING EDUCATION
OF DREs

Degrees, Continuing Education,

Reading, Contact with Peers

After establishing the identity of persons most responsible

for parish catechesis, the Inventory is next concerned with the

educational background of the DRE: “What is the average educa-
tional level of the DRE and how is it being updated and sup-
ported?"

Table 1 shows that of the three major groups of DREs, most
sisters and priests have had four years of college, whereas 32%
of the lay persons report having had no college education.

Table 1

THE COMPARISON OF COLLEGE EDUCATION WITH
VOCATIONAL STATUS

No

College 1 Yr. 2 Yrs. 3 Yrs. 4 Yrs. N

Lay Persons 32% 8% 7% 5% 48% = 100% (N = 271)
Sisters 2% 1% 3% 3% 91% = 100% (N - 193)
Priests 0% 0% 0% 3% 97% = 100% (N == 180)

Table 2 shows that one-third of the DREs who are lay per-
sons, approximately one-half the priests, and two-thirds of the
sisters have graduate degrees. See Table 2.

19



Table 2

THE COMPARISON OF GRADUATE DEGREES WITH
VOCATIONAL STATUS

No

Degree MA/MS Ph.D.

Profes-

sional

Degree

Religious

Education N

Lay Persons 66% 27% 0% 4% 3% = 100% (N = 259)
Sisters 32% 57% 0% 5% 6% = 100% (N = 278)
Priests 49% 23% 1% 2% 25% = 100% (N = 274)

Table 3 reflects two dimensions of concern in the area of

continuing education. The first dimension of the table assesses
the means DREs utilize in order to continue their education. The
statistics under the column Workshop show that a high percentage
of DREs use this mode of education more frequently than taking
undergraduate or graduate courses to continue their education.

The second dimension of Table 3 is concerned with course
matter DREs pursue. The subject matter most frequently pursued
in workshops is religious education. Educational methodology

and courses in administration are more frequently chosen on the
undergraduate level. On the graduate level DREs favor theology.

Table 3

CONTINUING EDUCATION WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS
IF YES, IN THE SETTING OF:

No Courses If Yes, in the Setting of:

Educational Experience or Undergrad Graduate

in the Last Two Years Workshops Workshops Courses Courses N

Theology 13% 53% 8% 26% = 100% (N = 847)
Educational

Methodology 28% 47% 10% 15% = 100% (N = 732)
Administration 47% 32% 10% 10% = 100% (N = 761)
Counselling 36% 43% 6% 15% = 100% (N = 781)
Religious Education 16% 61% 6% 17% = 100% (N = 827)

Table 4 examines the reading habits of DREs. Data under the
Never column show that very few DREs report no reading in
religious education, theology, and education. Religious education
journals and articles are somewhat more frequently read than
those dealing with theology and education.

20



Table 4

READING HABITS OF DREs

Very Very

Never Little Moderate Frequently Frequently N

Religious

Education

Articles/

Journals 4% 10% 24% 22% 40% = 100% (N = 879)
Theology

Articles/

Journals 4% 14% 25% 27% 30% = 100% (N = 859)
Educational

Articles/

Journals 7% 20% 26% 19% 23% = 100% (N = 849)
Table 5 reflects how often a DRE takes advantage of possible

contact opportunities with peers for gaining a sense of shared

responsibility and receiving new insights into his or her work. In
the row designated Never it is shown that approximately one
fourth of the DREs do not come together for diocesan meetings
or meet with DREs in neighboring parishes. DREs who attend
diocesan meetings most frequently meet on a semester or yearly
basis, whereas when they meet with DREs from neighboring
parishes they are more likely to meet on a monthly basis.

Table 5

A DREs CONTACT WITH PEERS

Frequency of Attendance

Diocesan

Meetings

(N = 821)

Inter-Diocesan

Meetings

(N = 752)

Meetings

Between

Parishes

(N =787)

Never 23% 40% 25%

Once a Week 2% 1% 6%

Every 2 Weeks 1% 1% 5%

Once a Month 10% 6% 21%

Every 2 Months 16% 8% 19%
Once a Semester 24% 18% 14%

Once a Year 24% 26% 10%

100% 100% 100%

21



Questions Raised by the Data On

Undergraduate & Gradute Degree Persons
Workshops; Contact with Peers

The College Degree

Since 32% of the DREs who are lay persons do not have a
college degree, certain questions might be raised as to:

• whether diocesan offices and parishes have identified these
persons as a separate entity;

• whether a more in-depth profile should be constructed to find
out how non-degree persons become DREs and how well they
function by comparison with those with degrees;

• whether the needs of non-degree DREs differ from those with
degrees.

The DRE with a Masters?

Table 2 shows that 66% of the DREs who are lay persons
and 32% who are sisters do not have Master’s Degrees. It might
be asked where on the list of parish and diocesan priorities
desire for a DRE with an MA or MRE ranks. Are academic creden-
dials valued as a primary means for engendering quality? Are
parishes seeking out and encouraging degree DREs; or, as one
interview suggested, is there a movement toward preferring local
non-degree talent because it is “cheaper,” “less threatening,”

and “more convenient?” Or is it the simple fact that degree DREs
are scarce?

In light of the fact that workshops are the chief vehicle for
providing continuing education to DREs, questions of a more
technical nature were addressed to this area by a specialist in

designing continung educaton programs: He asked:

• “Do workshops rely on the traditional lecture and dialogue
model, or do they, where possible, endeavor to employ
processes which cause the DRE to utilize actual field ex-
perience?”

• “Are workshops ‘one-shot’ experiences, or are they logically

sequenced in order to cause a more continuous and con-
centrated learning experience?”

The underlying concern of these questions is that continuing
education be experienced as formation, rather than as schooling

where the main emphasis is on cognitive input.

22



Learning From Each Other

More often than not, dioceses and parishes have rich internal
resources. In order to capitalize on these, opportunities for shar-

ing must be provided and utilized in the interests of cross-fertili-
zation. Since 23% of the DREs never attend diocesan meetings,
and 25% never attend meetings between parishes, certain ques-
tions about non-attendance are in order:

• To what extent are DRE meetings actually an opportunity for
sharing resources? Is the emphasis in these meetings on
social contact, or are they consciously structured to encour-

age learning experiences? Are they evaluated to determine
the purpose or purposes they serve?

• Do those who never attend DRE meetings do so because:

• none is offered?

• distance is a factor?

• meetings in the past gave no satisfaction?

• there is no feeling of shared responsibility?

23



THE DRE AS EMPLOYEE

Salary, Range of Tasks, Weekly Hours, Role Description,

Longevity on Job, Number of Parishes Served at Once,
Priorities, Co-coordinators

Some DREs may object to the implications of being called
employees. An employee is usually under an employer and sells
his or her services for a price. The general impression in inter-
views with DREs is that their services are given out of a desire
to serve rather than sold, and they function as a part of the com-
munity, not under a particular person. Devotedness and commun-
ity spirit are of critical importance to the success of catechesis.

Devotedness and community spirit, however, need structure to
succeed. By viewing the DRE as an employee, it is possible to
make more concrete and measure many of the human structures
intertwined with and essential to the spiritual variables of devoted
ness and community spirit. In the responses that follow, the
Inventory is concerned with those elements which describe the
working condition of the DRE.

Fifty-one percent of the DREs report they receive a salary.
Nationally, the monthly salary averages approximately $270.

Figure 16 shows that 80% of the salaried DREs receive $500 or
less per month.

Figure 17 depicts the vocational status of salaried and un-
salaried DREs. As is reflected, sisters lead in the category of DREs
who receive a salary.

Table 6 is concerned with salaried DREs only and the rela-
tionship between hours per week they expend and their monthly
income. In the table there is an upward sliding scale which shows

that DREs who work more hours fall into higher wage brackets.

24



47%
FIGURE 16

DISTRIBUTION OF SALARIES FOR PAID DREs

or less

FIGURE 17
VOCATIONAL STATUS OF DRE IN RELATION TO SALARY

85% (N
= 904)

(N = 353) (N = 297) (N = 252) (N = 74)

25



Table 6

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOURS PER WEEK A
DRE EXPENDS AND HIS OR HER MONTHLY SALARY

$300 or less

per month $301-600 $601-900 901-1000+

per week (N = 203) (N = 169) (N = 49) (N = 34)
1-10 hours 26% 8% 4% 3%

11-20 hours 24% 10% 2% 6%

21-30 hours 14% 13% 2% 0%

31-40 hours 18% 32% 43% 29%

41+ hours 18% 37% 49% 62%

100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 7 indicates that DREs are primarily responsible for
catechetics which take place outside of the Catholic school system.

It likewise indicates that most of the DREs are involved in direct-
ing or coordinating grades 1 through 8, and that two-thirds are

also responsible for grades 9 through 12. Very few DREs have
responsibility for catechetics within the Catholic school system.

Table 7

PERCENTAGE OF “YES” RESPONSES TO THE VARIOUS GRADE
LEVELS THAT FALL UNDER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DREs

Grade Levels Not Within

Catholic School System “Yes” Replies

Grade Levels Within

Catholic School System “Yes” Replies

(N = 906) IDocnIIz
Pre-School 39% Pre-School 3%

Primary 85% Primary 14%

Intermediate 86% Intermediate 13%

7th & 8th Grade 82% 7th & 8th Grade 14%

9th-12th Grade 65% 9th-12th Grade 6%

Table 8 shows that the DREs responding to the Inventory
also are responsible for other ministries besides those involved

with school-oriented catechetics. Sacramental preparation ranks
first, adult education second, and family ministry a distant third
among the additional ministries undertaken by DREs.

26



Table 8

PERCENTAGE OF “YES” RESPONSES TO
ADDITIONAL MINISTRIES DREs UNDERTAKE

Additional Ministries

Sacramental Preparation

Adult Education

Family Ministry

“Yes” Replies

64%

46%

22%

When salaried DREs were compared to volunteer DREs it was
found that, in addition to having first grade through to fourth year

high school under their responsiblity, salaried DREs significantly
outnumbered volunteers when it came to having additional re-
sponsibility for adult education, family ministry and sacramental
preparation.

The national average of time spent planning and administer-
ing parish catechetical programs is 22 hours per week. Figure 18
reflects the distribution of hours per week that DREs expend in
planning and directing catechetical programs.

FIGURE 18
DISTRIBUTION OF HOURS PER WEEK DREs EXPEND

44% (N
= 854)

Between: 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61 + hrs.
hrs. hrs. hrs. hrs. hrs. hrs. per week

Fifty one percent of the DREs report having a role descrip-
tion. Figure 19 shows sisters are most likely to have a role de-
scription, priests least.

27



FIGURE 19
VOCATIONAL STATUS OF DREs

REPORTING A ROLE DESCRIPTION

66%

To the question, “Do you direct catechetical programs in
more than one parish at the same time?” 87% of the DREs replied
they serve only one parish. Of the 13% who said they serve more
than one parish, 70% serve two parishes, 20% serve three par-
ishes, and 10% serve four or more parishes.

Table 9 reflects how long DREs have served in the parish
in which they are employed.

Table 9

DRE YEARS IN PRESENT PARISH

Years Percentage of DREs

1 28% (N = 246)
2 18% (N = 165)
3 15% (N = 133)
4 10% 00COIIz

5 8% (N = 75)
6+ 21% (N = 188)

100%

28



Figure 20 compares the percentage of lay persons, sisters
and priests with the number of years they have served in the
present parish in which they are employed as DRE.

FIGURE 20
VOCATIONAL STATUS OF DRE AND NUMBER OF YEARS IN THE SAME PARISH

38%

Among the tasks which consume the most time of a DRE,
planning curricula and programs ranked first. Teaching religion,
providing materials, and coordinating in-service teacher train-
ing ranked equally close for the second most time-consuming task.

Thirty nine percent of the DREs report they have co-directors
in coordinating parish catechetcal programs. The following list of
titles are given to the co-workers who team up with the DRE:

• Co-coordinator

• Coordinator of Primary

/

Secondary Grades

• Coordinator/ Director

of Adult Education

• Spiritual Director

• Coordinator/ Director

of Youth Programs

• Coordinator/ Director

of Liturgy

When the 39% of the DREs who said they had a co-coordi-
nator were compared in relation to vocational status, priests,
sisters, and lay persons were found to be equally likely to have
such a collaborator. Whether there is a Catholic school or not has
no influence on the presence of an additional co-coordinator.

29



Table 10 shows that more hours per week are expended on
planning and coordinating catechetical programs by DREs who
report they have a role description than by those who report hav-
ing none.

Table 10

THE COMPARISON OF DREs WITH AND WITHOUT A ROLE
DESCRIPTION AND HOURS PER WEEK EXPENDED

DREs Who Have DREs Who Have No

Hours Per Week Role Description Role Description

(N = 437) (N = 404)
1-10 hours 25% 66%

11-20 hours 15% 14%

21-30 hours 9% 6%

31-40hours 22% 7%

41+ hours 29% 7%

100% 100%

Table 11 compares the location of a parish to the number of
hours per week DREs report giving to a parish. As the table shows,
rural parish catechetical programs receive the least amount of
time from a DRE, whereas suburban parishes located next to a
city receive the most time.

Table 11

LOCATION AND TIME INPUT OF DRE

Major City

Over Major

Suburb

Next to

Small City

Under Rural

1
,
000,000 City City 50,000 Town

(N = 58) (N = 132) (N = 155) (N = 272) (N = 226)
1-20 Hours 53% 53% 36% 55% 85%

21+ Hours 47% 47% 64% 45% 15%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Questions Raised by the Data On
Salary, Range of Tasks, Weekly Hours & Role Description

During one interview a full-time youth minister, having heard
the statistics on salary and role description, made the following
comments. “I am thirty-six years old, married, and have a family.
When I took on this work my father was very opposed to it. He
asked me to think for a minute about the future. ‘When you are

30



forty,' he said, ‘and perhaps don't want youth ministry any more,

where do you go within your profession for an alternative? And
further more, what retirement and health benefits will you have?'

"

The youth minister concluded by saying he loved his work

and would continue in it, but he often wonders where youth

ministry will lead him and his family in the future.

In interview after interview the question of the uncertain

future for a DRE was raised. The data show that many parishes
still have not defined their position or given them, at the least,

the minimum wage scale. If the responsibility for administering
parish catechetical programs will increasingly rest with lay per-
sonnel, then, as was asked in many of the interviews:

• What type of financial programs are being designed to at-
tract married as well as single professionals? If financial

programs do exist, are they short- or long-range in vision?
Do they reduce the risk of having to start from scratch
should a DRE decide to leave the parish?

• Equally important is the overall question of role description.

Role descriptions establish expectations, set limits and free

a person of frustration. Do dioceses and parishes give estab-
lishment of role descriptions number one priority? Once role
descriptions are establshed, is there a feedback system set
up by the parish and diocese to assess whether the original
role descriptions need further refining? Is establishing role
descriptions seen as an ongoing task?

Are We Wasting Valuable Personnel?

The burned-out syndrome was a recurring subject for dis-
cussion in interviews. In places where a salaried DRE is putting in
40 or more hours a week and is in charge of a large parish pro-
gram, the question of being a “jack-of-all-trades” was raised. If,
as is reported, a high percentage of DREs have a range of respon-
sibilities extending from adult education through high school
down to first grade with pre-school education and sacramental
preparation thrown in for good measure, a team approach would
seem to be essential. In efforts to build a corps of resilient DREs
for the future it must be asked:

• Whether parish and diocesan policies are designed to en-
courage a team approach at the executive level of parish
catechetical programs?

• Whether periodic workshops should address themselves to
the importance of the utilization of time, and whether par-

31



ishes actually do assess the time line of the DRE? Is there a
balance that allows for breathing space?

Are the Catechetical Needs of the Rural Areas Being Neglected?

One priest, in responding to the National Inventory inserted a
letter in his returned questionnaire. He said his rural parish is
served only by himself and he must cover as much as a hundred
miles a day to serve his parishioners. The parishioners are of a
low educational background and lack the ability to run cate-
chetical programs. The priest concluded he was doing his best
and added that the questionnaire was totally unrealistic for his
area.

A heavy percentage of those DREs reporting 20 or less hours
come from small country parishes. We would call many of these
parishes, "missions.” In the past there were organizations and

religious who specialized in catechizing in these areas. Now, their
ranks are thinning and not being replenished. It must be asked
whether a renewed thrust is needed which puts strong emphasis
on utilizing lay personnel. How do we attract them to this aposto-
late and, once they are attracted, what type of formation will prove
most valuable to them?

When Does a DRE Move On?

When Figure 20 was reviewed it was noticed that there was
a rise in the number of DREs who report being in the same parish
six or more years. This raises the question whether dioceses and
parishes should strive to keep DREs in one parish indefinitely or
whether there should be a policy of encouraging moves after a
determined length of time in the same parish. When does desir-
able stability turn into entrenchment and inertia? When does the
quest for change lead to turmoil and uncertainty?

32



PART II

CATECHETICAL MINISTRIES

Family Ministry and Adult Education

Ministry to the Handicapped

The Ministry of Formal Education

Youth Ministry

With the identity of the DRE established and the
various

administrative dimensions of his or her position
defined, the

Inventory shifts its focus. In this section
the concern is with the

existence of catechetcal ministries which respond
to the many

needs of a parish. The Inventory asks whether the
adults of the

parish have the opportunity to experience
programs relevant to

their religious needs. It also asks whether,
within the parish or

its surroundings, the handicapped receive
services suited to their

needs. Finally, it focuses on the catechesis
of the young and

measures the range of educational and formational
experiences

available to them.

When parishes were asked what percentage of the parishion-

ers participated in adult education and family ministry
programs,

approximately two-thirds said they had a 1% to 10% attendance

each year. See Table 12.

Table 12

YEARLY AVERAGE OF ADULTS WHO ATTEND ADULT EDUCATION
AND FAMILY MINISTRY PROGRAMS

1-10%

Attend

11-20%

Attend

21-30%

Attend

31-50%

Attend 51+%

Parishes having

Adult Education 63% 16% 8% 7% 5% = 100%

Parishes having

Family Ministry 66% 13% 6% 7% 7% = 100%

33



Table 13 depicts the various programs that comprise family

ministry and how frequently they are employed by parishes across
the country. With the exception of parish marriage preparation the

statistics under the Never column show that those programs

designated part of family ministry have not yet become a signifi-
cant part of the local parish ministry.

Table 13

FREQUENCY OF FAMILY MINISTRY PROGRAMS

Never

Parish Marriage

Preparation 30%

Parenthood
Education 60%

Ministry to

divorced/

separated 74%

Marriage and
Family

Enrichment 55%

Natural

Family Plan 71%

Family Living

and sex
education 73%

Once or

more a

month

Once

every 2

months

Once

every 6

months

33% 11% 17%

15% 6% 8%

13% 3% 3%

17% 7% 10%

9% 3% 6%

7% 3% 6%

Once a

year N

8% = 100% (N = 711)

11% = 100% (N = 726)

6% = 100% (N — 681)

10% = 100% (N = 698)

10% = 100% (N = 676)

11% = 100% (N =650)

When the various adult education programs are compared,
Table 14 shows that monthly prayer groups are most frequently
offered, closely followed by discussion groups and catechumenate
and post-baptismal catechesis. Least seldom offered are programs
for singles, followed a considerable distance down the scale by
programs in leadership skills and programs for senior citizens.
See Table 14.

34



Table 14

FREQUENCY OF ADULT EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Never

Once or

more a

month

Once

every 2

months

Once

every 6

months

Once a

year N

Discussion

groups 28% 43% 9% 12% 7% = 100% (N = 913)
Lecture series 32% 24% 8% 20% 16% = 100% (N = 843)
Leadership
skills 56% 14% 5% 11% 13% = 100% (N = 816)
Retreats/

missions 31% 4% 2% 14% 48% = 100% (N = 829)
Catechumenate

and post
Baptismal

catechesis 34% 37% 10% 9% 9% — 100% (N = 848)
Programs for

senior

citizens 54% 27% 4% 7% 7% = 100% (N = 825)
Prayer groups 35% 52% 6% 4% 2% = 100% (N = 877)
Programs for

Singles 81% 11% 2% 2% 3% = 100% (N = 687)

In studying the status of ministry to the handicapped, the

Inventory in Table 15 is first interested in knowing where a person

who is handicapped is able to participate in specal education
programs not of a catechetcal nature. As is shown in the Table
under the column None

,
almost one-half of the DREs reported that

pre-school children who are handicapped have no programs in the
area of their parish that can assist them. One third reported that
young and middle aged adults also have no such programs.

Table 15

SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS WITHIN THE AREA
OF THE PARISH

Special Education Public Private Other than Pri.

Programs

Pre-school

Developmentally

None Parish Inst. Inst. or Pub. Inst. N

Delayed 49% 8% 26% 8% 9% = 100% (N = 891)
School age 25% 18% 37% 10% 10% = 100% (N = 942)
Young Adult to
Midlife 38% 13% 30% 10% 10% = 100% (N = 901)
Elderly

Handicapped 25% 8% 40%

35

10% 16% = 100% (N = 838)



The battery of “yes" responses in Table 16 reflect whether
parishes across the country are providing special help in cate-

chetics for the handicapped.

Table 16

CATECHETICAL ASSISTANCE FOR HANDICAPPED

Percentage of

Parishes saying "Yes” N

Slow learner or
mentally handicapped 43% (N = 868)
Learning disabilities

Emotional disturbed or

socially maladjusted

Blind or

partially seeing

Deaf or hard of
hearing

42% (N = 965)

27% (N = 873)

14% (N = 861)

14% (N = 840)

The third area of concern is with the parish’s effort to pro-
vide special liturgies and aids for those with sensory handicaps.

Also assessed is whether parishes have made provisions to elimi-
nate architectural barriers for those with physical handicaps. As is

reflected in Table 17, most individual parishes do not provide
liturgies or special aids, and better than 50% have not taken into
consideration physical barriers.

Table 17

CONSIDERATIONS FOR HANDICAPPED

Percentage of

Parishes saying "Yes”

Liturgy for Handicapped 11%

Elimination of Physical

Barriers 44%

Special Aids 21%

N

(N = 833)

(N =835)

(N = 823)

As for how many classes in catechetics are offered to the
young people of the parish annually, Table 18 shows that more
formal classes of religion are offered at the primary level than on
the secondary level.

36



Table 18

CLASSES PER YEAR

Between 21-30 31 +
1-20 classes classes classes

Pre-school 23% 51% 26% = 100%

Grades 1-8 15% 60% 25% = 100%

9th grade 43% 43% 14% = 100%

10th grade 44% 41% 15% = 100%
11th grade 48% 38% 14% = 100%
12th grade 50% 38% 12% — 100%

When asked where religion classes are held, Table 19 re-
flects that the Catholic school is utilized most on the primary level,

with the parish center most employed on the secondary level.

Table 19

LOCATION OF CLASSES

Parish Catholic Public

Hall School School Rectory Sacristy Home Convent

Pre-school 33% 55% 2% 4% 1% 3% 1% = 100%
Grades 1-8 32% 57% 3% 2% 1% 3% 1% = 100%
9th grade 43% 36% 2% 6% 1% 9% 2% = 100%
10th grade 42% 38% 1% 7% 2% 9% 1% = 100%
11th grade 44% 35% 1% 7% 1% 9% 2% = 100%
12th grade 45% 35% 1% 7% 0% 10% 1% — 100%

At the primary level, 83% of the parishes report that the
length of the average class is one hour, 10% two hours and 6%
over two hours.

Three tables were constructed to assess the extent to which

youth ministry on the secondary level is found in parishes. The
tables correspond to categories in a 1976 document by the De-
partment of Education, USCC, entitled “The Vision of Youth
Ministry,” which sees the parish providing services for youth, and
to youth, while likewise receiving services provided by youth.

In Table 20, it is found that individual parishes rank highest

in the Frequently and Very Frequently columns in providing the
opportunity for organized sports and the use of a youth parish
center. Providing job opportunities for disadvantaged youth, op-
portunities for camping, and leadership training rank lowest.

37



Table 20

SERVICES BY PARISH FOR YOUTH

Never

Guidance
counseling 30%

Organized
sports 42%

Leadership

training 45%

Parish Youth
Center 48%

Camping
opportunities 62%

Job opportuni-
ties for

disadvantaged 68%

Very

little Moderately Frequently

22% 22% 11%

12% 11% 10%

26% 12% 7%

11% 10% 10%

15% 9% 4%

17% 5% 3%

Very

Frequently N

15% = 100% (N = 840)

24% = 100% (N =910)

9% = 100% (N = 893)

20% = 100% (N = 876)

9% = 100% (N = 888)

6% = 100% (N = 884)

Table 21 shows in the Never column that approximately one-
third of the parishes never offer youth para-liturgies, prayer serv-

ices, or retreats. Almost one-fourth never offer special eucharistic
celebrations or penance services for youth. Scripture study groups
rank lowest of all as a parish service to young people. On the
other hand, Table 21 shows that 60% of the parishes offer youth
retreats once every six months or once a year.

Table 21

FREQUENCY OF PARISH SERVICES FOR YOUTH

Never

Once or

more a

month

Once

every 2

months

Once

every 6

months

Once a

year N

Eucharistic

celebration 23% 33% 10% 22% 12% = 100% (N = 890)
Para liturgical

celebration 32% 19% 16% 23% 9% = 100% (N = 752)
Prayer service 42% 28% 10% 13% 7% = 100% (N = 782)
Scripture

study group 76% 18% 1% 3% 2% = 100% (N = 864)
Penance
service 23% 11% 8% 39% 19% = 100% (N = 841)
Retreats 34% 2% 3% 14% 46% = 100% (N = 805)

38



Table 22 reflects in the Frequently and Very Frequently col-

umns that youth are most involved as catechetical aides and in
providing music for liturgies. A large number of parishes also re-

port that young people are frequently involved as catechists and

are a part of the parish council.

Table 22

YOUTH SERVICES IN THE PARISH

Very Fre- Very

Never little Moderately quently Frequently N

Parish Council 46% 10% 9% 7% 27% = 100% (N = 856)
Catechists 25% 23% 16% 11% 24% = 100% (N = 863)
Catechist aide 16% 22% 18% 15% 29% = 100% (N = 885)
Community
services 25% 26% 22% 13% 13% = 100% (N = 870)
Action for

justice 58% 21% 8% 3% 10% = 100% (N = 885)
Musicians for

liturgy 15% 26% 15% 13% 30% = 100% (N = 945)
Extraordinary

ministers for

Eucharist 74% 2% 6% 4% 9% = 100% (N = 875)

Questions Raised By the Data On
Family Ministry and Adult Education,

Ministry to the Handcapped,
Youth Ministry

Where Does the DRE Fit In With All These Ministries?

In conversations with DREs a topic that constantly arose
was the proliferation of ministries. As one DRE remarks, “We
now have family and youth ministry, the permanent diaconate,
ministries to the dying, the sick, aged, etc. We are beginning to
overlap and become confused about who is supposed to do what.”

Another DRE said that when she first heard of youth ministry
and what it involved, she was actually frightened by it. Most
frightening to her was the thought that social contact was being
emphasized at the expense of learning one’s religion. Not until
she herself experienced some of the working principles of youth
ministry did she realize its goals and potential.

39



In light of these conversations certain basic questions must
be raised.

• When a comparatively new ministry is generated, do dioceses
and parishes pull together those who will be responsible for
its success or failure and find out how the ministry is per-
ceived? What perception do DREs have when they hear of
ministries such as family or youth ministry? As was discussed
in an earler secton of this report, are DREs clear about their
role and expectations?

• Is an effort made on the diocesan level to contextualize a
new ministry? Are DREs made aware of the historical back-
ground: when the ministry started: how it was started; and
by whom? Is an effort made to see how a new ministry differs
from others; what new needs it meets; what hope it en-
genders? Before educating the grassroots level, do DREs
have a firm grasp of the ministry? In addition to reading and
hearing about a ministry, are there opportunities to experi-

ence it?

Where Does Family Ministry Exist?

A director of family ministry was asked in an interview what
he thought about the very low percentage of parishes reporting

that they had family ministry. He was very quick to point out that,
even though ministering to the family is as old as the history of

man, recognizing it as having its own unique identity is recent.
He also pointed out that it is only within the last few years that
divorced or separated persons have been even considered as

persons who need the services of ministry.

He then went on to state that family ministry at the moment
exists more on the diocesan level and that the statistics were
actually encouraging since they indicate that it is beginning to

sift down into the parishes.

When one reviews recent studies such as those by Urie
Bronfenbrenner or reads the recent Carnegie study All Our Chil-
dren and the National Catechetical Directory

,
no doubt is left

about the need for family ministry. Personnel must be found and
materials produced that respond to the need. In light of the fact,
however, that approximately one-half of the nation’s parishes will
not or cannot budget a salary for DREs and that, after almost 10
years, half of the nation’s DREs report they have no role descrip-
tion, many questions are raised about the future survival of family
ministry.

40



• Is family ministry envisioned as an ad hoc function respond-

ing to a momentary surge in family awareness? Or does it see

itself as a ministry which must establsh recognition, budgets,

and a clear definition of how it distinctly differs from other

ministries?

• Should family ministry have its own separate identity or be

part of the catechetical program? What are the advantages of

separate identity; of being a part of the catechetical program?

• Since the constituency of family ministry flows into every

other ministerial constituency, are provisions being made so

that excessive demands are not made on the time of these
constituencies?

I Could Have Told You That

When the data on adult education were reviewed by one
diocesan director of catechetics, his reaction to the statistic that

81% of the nation’s parishes have no programs for singles was,
“You didn’t need a survey to find that out. I could have told you

that. Any DRE knows it.”

In several interviews with persons who are single it was
common to hear them express the feeling that they are always
“left out.”

With the number of single persons growing, it might be
asked whether parish DREs have made a special effort to identify
them. In appealing for co-workers in catechetics has the single

person been considered a rich resource?

The Forgotten Malady That Most Do Not Want To Remember

It is usually not until we personally experience a physical or
emotional handicap that we realize the number of other persons
who have lived their lives with a handicap.

In light of the statistics showing that many parishes report
they do not have services for the handicapped, it must be asked
whether these persons are ever considered on a catechetical
agenda. Is there an awareness of who in the parish is handi-
capped? If the parish itself is not equipped to help the handi-
capped, is a referral system available?

Are We Making Contact With Our Young?

When the three tables on youth ministry were reviewed, a

41



new insight arose on how to interpret the first table. Table 20,
entitled Services By Parish For Youth

,

was seen as probing the
pre-evangelization stage that leads to catechesis. Put another way,

the questions are asking whether parishes are taking advantage

of certain contact opportunities with youth. Several other inter-

esting questions arise out of this question.

• How do parishes perceive their catechetical contact with
youth? Is that contact primarily to be made at parish liturgies
and/or in a catechetical context?

• If, as the statistics in Table 20 reflect, parishes are not
offering contact points outside a catechetical setting, is it

because they do not see this as a pre-evangelization stage

to catechesis? Or, as one interviewee suggested, is it that

just as counselling and guidance should be given to youth
to help them adjust, so, too, adults working with youth need
assistance in order to overcome their natural fears about
dealing with youth?

• Do parishes that serve youth treat ministry for youth, to
youth, and by youth not as three separate entities, but rather
as one composite to catechize youth?

42



PART III

THE SUPPORT SYSTEMS OF
PARISH CATECHETICAL PROGRAMS

Parent and Priest Participation
Support on the Elementary Level

Evaluation of Youth Ministry

Support from Colleges

Parish Libraries

Certification Programs
Diocesan and Catholic School Support

The final division of the Inventory is concerned with the
personal, structural, and financial supports which enable parish

catechetical programs to operate more efficiently and effectively.
The questions in this section examine the amount of participant
involvement in catechetical programs on the part of the parents
and the priests of the parish. Also surveyed are the spiritual and
educational resources available to those who staff a program.
Finally, the budgets upon which programs depend are reviewed.

Table 23 reflects that programs for eucharistic preparation
tend to have the highest percentage of parent participation.

Parents seem to become less involved as their children become
older and receive additional sacraments.

43



Table 23

PARENT PARTICIPATION IN SACRAMENTAL PREPARATION
Percentage of

Parents 0%
Participating: Participate 1-20% 21-50% 51-75% 76-100% N

Parishes

Reporting
Preparation For:

the sacrament
of Eucharist 29% 7% 9% 12% 43% = 100% (N = 876)
the sacrament
of Recon-
ciliation 36% 6% 11% 12% 35% = 100% (N = 889)
the sacrament
of Confirmation 42% 8% 8% 9% 33% = 100% (N = 913)

Under the Frequently to Very Frequently columns, Table 24
shows that better than half the priests in the country are reported
to be frequently involved with activities that support parish cate-

chetical programs. Looking at the Never and Very Little columns
of the table, one sees that between a fourth or a third of the
priests never or almost never are part of certain basic catechetical

functions.

Table 24

PRIEST'S INVOLVEMENT IN CATECHETICAL FUNCTIONS

Never Very Little

Mod-

erate Frequently

Very

Frequently N

Help in Adult
Ed. 8% 16% 18% 20% 37% = 100% (N = 938)
Help in Family
Ed. 14% 17% 25% 12% 31% = 100% (N = 894)
Student
Liturgies 9% 21% 17% 16% 36% = 100% (N = 877)
Teach Religion 23% 14% 11% 9% 43% = 100% (N = 977)
Visit Classes 8% 17% 17% 13% 45% = 100% (N = 957)
Participate in

Social Events

Related to

prog. 12% 14% 16% 17% 41% = 100% (N = 976)
Help teachers
with teaching 16% 17% 20% 20% 26% = 100% (N = 959)
Help in proj-
ects that per-

tain to

catechetics 15% 13% 16% 22% 33% = 100% (N = 979)
44



Table 25 reviews services that create a bond of collaboration

and provide spiritual reinforcement for teachers and parents

working on the primary level. The table reflects that parent-
teacher meetings followed by spiritual days of renewal for teachers

and students are not present in more than a third of parish cate-
chetical programs. On the other hand, the table shows that over
50% of the parishes report that their teaching staffs meet month-
ly to evaluate their teaching progress, and more than one-fourth
of the parishes have in-service training on a monthly basis.

Table 25

COMPLEMENTARY SERVICES TO CATECHETICAL PROGRAMS
ON THE PRIMARY LEVEL

Never

Once

or more

a month

Once

every 2

months

Once

every 6

months

Once a

Year N

How often does
teaching staff

meet to evalu-
ate teaching? 5% 58% 18% 15% 4% = 100% (N = 999)
. . is in-service

training held? 16% 28% 13% 27% 16% = 100% (N = 925)
. . are parent-

teacher meet-
ings held? 42% 6% 5% 27% 19% = 100% (N = 963)
. . are days of
spiritual re-

newal for
students? 37% 10% 3% 19% 30% = 100% (N = 952)
. . are days of
spiritual re-

newal for
teachers? 35% 3% 3% 23% 35% = 100% (N = 831)
. . do catechists
get together to

socialize? 14% 15% 8% 30% 24% = 100% (N = 870)

On the elementary level almost two-fifths of the parishes
report employing teachers who presently are not certified by the
diocese. See Table 26.

45



Table 26

PERCENTAGE OF CERTIFIED TEACHERS ON THE PRIMARY LEVEL

0% teachers
are certified

1-20%

certified

21-50%

certified

51-75%

certified

76-100%

certified

Percentage of

Parishes 39% 30% 16% 7% 7% = 100%

In youth ministry it is found that only 16% of the parish
catechetical programs evaluate this particular form of ministry.

Table 27 shows that almost two-thirds of the parishes do not
have a college or university nearby providing catechetical courses.

The table also shows that better than half of the parishes have
no parish library. In the same table, four-fifths of the parishes
report having a certification program for their catechists within
the area of the parish.

Table 27

CATECHETICAL SUPPORT FROM HIGHER EDUCATION, PARISH
LIBRARIES & CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS

Yes N

Higher Education Support 39% (N = 885)
Parish Library 47% (N = 868)
Certification Programs 80% (N = 895)

With the exception of video equipment, most
programs have educational hardware. See Table 28.

catechetical

Table 28

EDUCATIONAL HARDWARE

Yes N

Slide projectors 88% (N =912)

Movie Projectors 86% (N = 915)
Overhead Projectors 63% (N = 887)
Tape Recorders 88% (N = 889)
Record Players 95% (N = 889)
Video Equipment 9% (N = 886)

46



When DREs were asked, “Is there a catechetical budget for
the parish catechetical program(s)?" 67% of those responding
said they did have a budget. Of the DREs who responded to the
question, “Is there a Catholic School within the parish you serve?”

51% replied “yes."

Table 29 reflects that parishes with a Catholic school do not

differ very significantly from parishes without one when it comes

to budgeting for catechetical programs.

Table 29

THE COMPARISON OF PARISHES WITH OR WITHOUT A CATHOLIC
SCHOOL AND WHETHER THERE IS A CATECHETICAL BUDGET

Have Catholic

School

No Catholic

School

Parish Has
Catechetical Budget 54%

No Catechetical Budget 47%

46% =100% (N = 567)
53% = 100% (N =289)

Table 30 depicts the percentage of parishes with a catechet-
ical budget, by location.

Table 30

THE LOCATION OF PARISHES WHICH HAVE A
PARISH CATECHETICAL BUDGET

Have Catechetical Budget N

Large Major City 60% (N = 57)
Major City 72% (N = 132)
Suburb 69% (N = 157)
Small City 71% (N = 274)
Rural Area 56% (N =221)

Asked to “list and rank the four most important services
that the diocesan office provides for the parish you serve," re-

spondents gave first place—far outranking the other three—to
providing training

,
certification programs, workshops and en-

richment days. Next in the order of ranking were those services
which provide audio visuals, educational materials, and resource
books. Encouragement, counselling, and visits ranked third.
Newsletters, calendar schedules, and lists of current books ranked
fourth.

47



When the DREs reporting that their parishes had Catholic
schools were asked to describe the types of services they receive
from the schools, the most frequently mentioned were co-planned
programs for sacramental preparation, para-liturgies, days of
recollection, and prayer groups.

Questions Raised by the Data On
Priests Participation

Complementary Services to Catechetical Programs

Certification

Budgets

Priests Participation

In interviews with DREs and Diocesan Directors of Catechetics
it was not uncommon to hear them speak about “those” pastors
who give little or no support to catechetical programs. Nor was
it uncommon to hear pastors speak about “those” DREs and
“their” wild ideas. It seems that each side was suspicious of the
other and that there was a wide gulf between them. In light of the
statistic that close to a third of the priests never or almost never

are part of certain basic catechetical functions, one DRE raised
the following question:

• Would it be possible for a diocesan or parish policy to require
that periodically a DRE would spend a day with the parish
priest as he performs his services to the parish? On the
other side of the spectrum, could this same policy apply to
priests, who would be required to spend an equal period of
time with the DRE as he or she provides catechetical
services?

• As the DRE who suggested this idea remarked, “If priests
and DREs experienced each other’s work, it might put a stop
to their second-guessing each other, create more collegiality,
and perhaps involve those priests who feel insecure with the
ever-changing functions of catechetical programs.”

In light of the above suggestions and questions it must be
asked whether dioceses are developing models, similar to the one
mentioned here, that put non-priest DREs into a working relation-
ship with the parish priests. How many diocesan meetings are so
structured—like the marriage encounter, for example—to create
open understanding between persons who need one another but
who might be taking one another for granted?

48



Complementary Services To Catechetical Programs

Given the fact that 42% of the parishes have no teacher-
parent meetings and another 16% have them only once a year for
the primary level, it might be asked whether in-service .training

courses should consider counselling teachers on the merits and

processes of parent-teacher meetings. Studies might be under-

taken to determine whether increasing parent-teacher relation-

ships have an influence on student discipline, tardiness, and
absenteeism.

In light of Table 25, which shows a high percentage of parishes
that never have days of spiritual renewal for teachers or students,

it must be asked whether diocesan offices make a conscious effort
to establish a satisfactory balance between the educational and
spiritual aspects of catechetics. Diocesan offices might also re-

search whether there is a correlation between faculty stability,

satisfaction, and the amount of spiritual support faculty and staff
receive.

Certification

When certification of catechists was discussed with DREs,
several basic questions were raised:

• Do diocesan offices build into these programs feed-back sys-
tems which monitor what types of persons attend, the dis-
tances they travel, their satisfaction with the content and
process, and the reason for attending?

• Are provisions made to overcome travel inconveniences, solve
babysitting problems, and avoid overtaxing the time of those
who attend?

• Are various levels of achievement built into the programs of
certification, so that a teacher attending has a feeling of

making continuous progress?

• Are dioceses looking into the possibility of putting certifica-

tion programs on videotapes and using this medium as a
possible means of overcoming problems of travel and time
involved in taking courses for certification?

The Old Problem of Money

With exactly one-third of the parishes of the nation reporting

they have no budget for catechetical programs, it must be asked:

• Whether this is a reflection of an attitude of neglect, or

49



whether these parishes have so designed their programs that
they are self-sustaining and need no parish budgets?

• Whether dioceses have identified the various budget models
that are utilized to sustain a parish catechetical program?

• Whether diocesan offices help parishes design budgets and,
in the process, use this time as an opportunity also to edu-

cate a parish DRE to the close relationship between budget-
ing, programming, and planning.

• Whether budgeting is considered to involve not just a right to
funds but also an obligation to make better use of resources
already available?

50



SUMMARY

In summary we shall consider questions that pertain to the
identity of the DRE, the catechetical ministries within the parish
he or she serves, and the support systems that enable DREs and
catechetical ministries to operate.

THE DRE

1. Directors and coordinators of parish catechetical programs

that are not within the Catholic schools

Three major groups of DREs emerge. They are lay persons,
sisters and priests. Lay persons outnumber sisters and priests as
the predominant group responsible for catechetics in the parish,

with a 35% representation. Sisters are the next highest group,
with 29%, and priests follow, with a 28% representation. Reli-
gious brothers make up 7%, while permanent deacons and sem-
inarians both have a 0.5% representation.

The predominant racial and ethnic background of the DRE is
white-Caucasian-American. Hispanics, Blacks, Native Americans,

and Orientals combined represent only 15% of the DRE popula-
tion.

2. The educational background of the DRE

Forty-eight percent of the DREs who are lay persons have a
college degree, whereas 91% of the sisters and 97% of the
priests report having completed four years of college. The pre-
dominant major for undergraduate degrees is in liberal arts.

Thirty-four percent of the lay DREs, 68% of the sisters, and
51% of the priests have graduate degrees. The predominant grad-
uate degree is a master of arts or science.

Workshops far outnumber undergraduate or graduate courses
as the means for updating the education of a DRE in the last two
years.

51



Better than 50% of the DREs report reading religious educa-
tion and theological articles on a frequent or very frequent basis.

3. Responsibilities of a DRE

Over four-fifths of the DREs say they are responsible for coor-
dinating grades 1 through 8. Two-thirds also report they are

responsible for grades 9 through 12. A very small percentage
report they have responsibility for catechetics within the Catholic

school system.
c

In addition to coordinating catechetics on the primary and

secondary level, 64% of the DREs say they coordinate sacra-
mental preparation programs, 46% coordinate adult education,
and 22% are responsible for family ministry.

When DREs were asked whether they direct catechetical pro-
grams in more than one parish at the same time, only 13% replied
they did.

Forty-four percent of the DREs report they expend 1 to 10
hours each week preparing and planning catechetical programs.
Another 22% say they spend between 11 and 30 hours, 15%
spend between 31 and 40 hours, and 19% work at this more than
41 hours per week.

When asked whether there was a job description for their
position, 51% of the DREs said yes.

Planning curricula and catechetical programs are ranked as
the most time-consuming tasks a DRE undertakes. Teaching reli-
gion, providing catechetical materials, and coordinating in-service
training ranked equally as the second most time-consuming task.

Thirty-nine percent of the DREs report they have another co-
ordinator or director who helps them in administering catechetical
programs.

4. Years in the same parish

More than half of the DREs say they have been in the same
parish for three or more years. It should be noted, however, that
those who report being in a parish six or more years tend to be
priests who have taken on the role of DRE.

5. Salary

Fifty-one percent of the DREs report they receive a salary.
Eighty percent of these DREs earn $500 or less per month.

52



Another 13% earn between $501 and $990, and 7% earn a
monthly salary of $991 or more.

Sisters are predominant among DREs receiving a salary.

CATECHETICAL MINISTRIES

1. Family Ministry

It would seem that family ministry has not yet sifted down to
the parish level. Almost three-fourths of the parishes never have

programs which address the needs of the divorced or separated;

natural family planning or family living and sex education. Better

than 55% of the parishes likewise report never having parenthood
education or marriage and family enrichment programs. Marriage
preparation is the only family ministry offered somewhat fre-
quently on the parish level.

2. Adult Education

Over 50% of the parishes report they have prayer groups
which meet once or more a month. Approximately one-half of the
parishes offer discussion groups and catechumenate and post-
baptismal catechumenate once every two months or more often.

Eighty-one percent of the parishes report they never have pro-

grams for singles.

3. Handicapped persons

Better than two-fifths of the parishes say they provide special

help for slow learners or the mentally handicapped and to per-
sons with learning disabilities.

Approximately a fourth of the parishes also provide services to
the emotionally disturbed or socially maladjusted.

Only 14% of the parishes say they provide help for the blind
and deaf.

Special liturgies are provided by little more than one-tenth of
the parishes. Approximately one-fifth of the parishes provide spe-
cial aids, and better than two-fifths have made some effort to elim-
inate physical barriers to the handicapped.

4. Number of catechetical classes each school year

On the primary level, 15% of the parishes say they have
between 1 and 20 classes a year. Another 60% say they provide

53



between 21 and 30 classes, and the remaining 25% of the par-
ishes report they conduct more than 31 classes per year.

The number of classes offered for youth drops considerably
at the secondary level. Only between 12% and 15% of the par-
ishes report they offer more than 31 classes a year, whereas an
average of 40% offer between 21 and 30 classes, and another
45% offer between 10 and 20 classes per year.

On the primary level classes are held predominantly in Catho-
lic school classrooms. On the secondary level the parish hall is
most frequently cited as the place where catechetical instruction
is conducted.

5. Youth Ministry

Of those services which are frequently provided for youth, the

opportunity for organized sports ranks first, the use of a youth

center ranks a close second, and counselling is third.

Providing job opportunities for disadvantaged youth, oppor-

tunities for camping, and leadership training are the least fre-
quently offered at the parish level.

Approximately three-fourths of the parishes report never hav-

ing scripture study groups. One-third of the parishes never have

para-liturgies or retreats, and one-fourth never have eucharistic
celebrations or penance services.

The parishes that offer retreats to youth most frequently have
them only once a year. When penance services are offered, they
are typically conducted once every semester, whereas eucharistic

celebrations, para-liturgies, and prayer services tend to be cele-
brated on a monthly basis.

When the various services that youth provide for the parish
are compared, it is found that on a frequent to very frequent

basis youth are most involved in being catechetical aids to cate-
chists and in providing music for parish liturgies. Better than
one-third of the parishes also report that youth serve their par-

ishes as catechists and as members of the parish council.

54



SUPPORT FOR CATECHETICAL PROGRAMS

1. Parental involvement in sacramental preparation programs

Programs for eucharistic preparation have the highest per-

centage of parent participation, with 43% of the parishes report-
ing they have from 76% to 100% parental involvement. Another
29% of the parishes report no parental involvement in such a
program.

Parents become less involved in programs that prepare their
children for the sacraments of Reconciliation and Confirmation.

2. Involvement by priests

More than 50% of the priests frequently or very frequently
become involved in adult education, family ministry, student litur-
gies, teaching religion, visiting religion classes, partaking in so-

cial events pertinent to catechetics, helping teachers with their

teaching, and helping to plan catechetical programs.

On the other hand, another third to a fourth of the priests
never or almost never become involved in such functions.

3. Support of teachers on the primary level

Seventy-six percent of the DREs report that once every two
months or more often teaching staffs meet to evaluate their
teaching. Only 5% of the DREs report they never have these eval-
uation sessions.

Better than two-fifths of the parishes say that once every two
months or more often in-service training sessions are conducted.
Sixteen percent of the parishes report they never have such ses-

sions.

Almost half the parishes report they have parent-teacher
meetings once every six months or once a year, whereas two-fifths

55



of the parishes report they never have them.

Better than half of the parishes say there are spiritual renewal

days for teaching staff every six months or once a year. Another
35% say they never have them.

4. Certified teachers

Thirty-nine percent of the parishes report they have no certi-

fied teachers teaching on the primary level. Another 30% of the
parishes say from 1% to 20% of their teachers are certified. Six-
teen percent say 21% to 50% are certified, and 14% report from
51% to 100% certified.

5. Teaching resources

Almost one-half the parishes report they have a parish library,

and better than 30% of them report a certification program within
the location of the parish.

Most parishes supply their catechists with audio-visual teach-

ing aids.

6. Budget

Sixty-seven percent of the parishes say they have a catecheti-

cal budget. The location of the parish and whether it does or does

not have a Catholic school seems to have no effect on whether

there is a budget.

56



CONCLUSION

In his 1964 encyclical Ecclesiam Suam Pope Paul VI, urging
renewal in the Church, wrote:

The Church in this moment must reflect on herself to
find strength in the knowledge of her place in the divine plan;

to find again greater light, new energy and fuller joy in the

fulfillment of her own mission.4

The Inventory is an effort to generate reflection necessary to
renewal in the field of catechetics. Three categories were con-

structed to help focus reflection on catechetics in this country.

The first category gave a picture of the person and the adminis-
trative functions that compose the office of DRE. The second cate-
gory measured the existence and frequency of the various cate-
chetical ministries in parishes. The last category is composed of
questions which measured support systems that enable catecheti-
cal programs to succeed.

Since the Inventory is the first attempt ever to draw a national
portrait, projections cannot be made at this time. It is hoped the
value of the Inventory will cause deeper reflection on the present
status of catechetics; that the data will encourage those in dio-
cesan offices and parishes to raise further questions pertaining to
their particular situations; and that these same persons will be
inspired to generate additional research, so that a more perfect
understanding of catechetics can be developed and a consequent
renewal achieved.

4 Paths of the Church (Paul VI, 1964): Paths of the Church (Ecclesiam

Suam), Encyclical letter of Pope Paul VI, August 6, 1964.

57





UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
Department of Education
1312 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 659-6685

Office of Research, Policy and Program Development

Dear Colleague:

This questionnaire which is entitled "A National Inventory of Parish

Catechetical Programs" has been designed by the Office of Research, Policy

and Program Development of the USCC, and the Boys Town Research Center at

Catholic University in consultation with over 100 diocesan and university/

college religious educators throughout the country.

The purpose of the questionnaire is to inventory the national range

of functions that are involved in parish catechetical programs. Likewise,

its purpose is to draw a profile of the director/coordinator who is

responsible for these functions.

Such information will be very valuable for several reasons:

- It will give a better understanding of the range of responsi-

bilities that a director/coordinator of a parish catechetical

program must shoulder.

- It will surface those functions in catechetical programs that

are predominant and those which receive less attention.

- It will give graduate schools that are responsible for

training directors/coordinators a better understanding on how

to better prepare these persons for their role.

- It will act as an indicator on how the National Catechetical

Directory should be implemented.

- Finally, it will lead to more indepth research and the con-

sequent professionalism that is engendered by it.

Since it is not economical to inventory all 22,466 parishes and

missions, we have taken a random sample of every tenth parish in the U.S.A.

The time and effort you give to respond to this survey is deeply appreciated.

Over a year has gone into preparing this study. If through a

cooperative effort we can study where we are now in catechesis in relation

to where we want to go for the future, I believe such a venture cannot but

lead to greater fulfillment in the work of catechetics we serve.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours.

(Rev.) Eugene F. Hemrick
Coordinator, Office of Research,

Policy and Program Development

Please return the completed questionnaire to:

Rev. Eugene Hemrick
Office of Research, Policy and

Program Development, USCC
1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

59



NATIONAL INVENTORY OF PARISH CATECHETICAL PROGRAMS

INSTRUCTIONS

RANGE OF SURVEY

This questionnaire is intended to survey catechetical programs
which are not within the Catholic Parochial School System.
These programs sometimes are called CCD programs.

PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR ANSWERING SURVEY

The questionnaire is to be filled out by the person most
responsible for directing/coordinating parish catechetical
programs which are not within the Catholic Parochial School
Sys tern

.

If your parish has more than one such person please designate
the individual who is involved in the most tasks and decisions
your parish catechetical program demands.

THE MANNER OF RESPONDING

Please check the bracket, circle the number or fill in the
blank space.

60



NATIONAL INVENTORY OF PARISH CATECHETICAL PROGRAMS

OFFICE OF RESEARCH, POLICY AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
1312 MASSACHUSETTS AVE. N.W.

WASHINGTON, D C. 20005

THE MANNER OF RESPONDING
PLEASE CHECK THE BRACKET, CIRCLE THE NUMBER OR
FILL IN THE BLANK SPACE IN MAKING YOUR RESPONSE

I. QUESTIONS 1-21 PERTAIN TO THE PROFILE OF THE COORDINATOR/DIRECTOR OF CATECHETICS

1. What is your formal title in regard to catechetics? e.g. coordinator, director, etc.

2. Please indicate your sex:

[ ] Male [ ] Female

3. Your age:

[ ] 21-25 [ ] 41-45

[ ] 26-30 [ ] 46-50

[ ] 31-35 [ ] 51-55

[ ] 36-40 [ ] 56-60 +

4. (PLEASE CHECK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING BRACKETS AND FILL IN THE BLANK)

a. [ ] I receive a salary for services
If you receive a salary please indicate how much you receive

$ for how many months months.

b. [ ] I volunteer services but receive some financial benefits
If you receive financial benefits please indicate how much you receive
$ for how many months months.

c. [ ] I completely volunteer services without any financial benefits

5. Are you :

[ ] A lay person [ ] Permanent Deacon
[ ] Religious Brother [ ] Seminarian

[ ] Religious Sister [ ] Priest

If your are a priest, are you:

[ ] A Pastor

] An Associate Pastor

[ ] An Assistant Pastor

[ ] A Diocesan Priest not
assigned to a particular parish

[ ] A Religious Priest

6. Do you direct catechetical programs in more than one parish at the same time?

[ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, how many parishes are served at the same time?

[ ] 2 [ ] 4

[ ] 3 [ ] 5 +

61



7.

For how many years have you had the position of coordinator/director
of catechetics in this particular parish ?

[ ] 1 year

[ ] 2 years

[ ] 3 years

[ ] 4 years

[ ] 5 years

[ ] 6 years +

8.

Which of the following religious education divisions do you personally coordinate/
direct?
(CHECK MORE THAN ONE WHERE NECESSARY)

’

] Adult education
’

] Family education
’

] Sacramental preparation for parents
’

] Adolescents (grs. 9-12) CCD Parish Program
’

] Early adolescents (grs. 7-8) CCD

] ] Children (intermediate level )CCD
‘

] Children (primary) CCD

[ ] Young children (pre-school) CCD

] Adolescents(grs 9-12) Cath. Sch.
’

] Early adol . (grs .7-8 ) Cath. Sch.
’

] Children(intermediate)Cath. Sch.
’

] Children(primary) Cath. Sch.

|
] Young child. (pre-sch) Cath. Sch.

’

] Other catechetical programs
Specify

9.

Have you been a coordinator/director for catechetical programs in parishes
other than the one in which you presently serve?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

If you answered yes to question 9,
a coordinator/director?

in how many other parishes have you been

[]\ ut
[ ] 3 [ ] 6 +

Is there a defined job description for your position?

[ 1 Yes [ ] No

If yes, who was primarily responsible for composing your role description?
(CHECK MORE THAN ONE IF NECESSARY)

[ ] Pastor [ ] Diocesan Office

[ ] Associate/Assistant Pastor [ ] Other

[ ] Parish Board

[ ] Yourself
Please specify

13. Are there other coordinators/directors of catechetical programs within the
parish you serve?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

14. If you answered yes to question 13, please indicate the positions they hold:

b. d. f.

15. How many hours per week are spent in preparing for and working with catechetical
programs under your coordination/direction?

hrs. per week.

62



16. Please indicate your educational background:

(PLEASE ANSWER a) ,b) and c)

a) High school (date completed)

b) Col 1 ege (write none if none)

number of years

major of BA/BS
Major Degree(s)

c) Graduate work (write none if none)

degree(s) —

17 About how often do you attend the following
meetings?

(USING THE CODE BELOW, CHECK THE BRACKET THAT INDICATES
YOUR RESPONSE)

1 = Never 5 = Once every two
months

2 Once a week 6 = Once a semester

3 = Every two weeks 7 = Once a year

4 = Once a month

a) Diocesan meetings for directors

of religious education (DRE)

b) Inter diocesan/regional meetings

c) Inter parish meetings

[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ]
5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

[]1[]2[]3[]4[]5[]6[]7
[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ]

5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

18. To what extent do you read the following
journals/articles.

(PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER WHICH APPROXIMATES THE
FREQUENCY OF TIME YOU

ALLOT THE FOLLOWING READING)

a) Religious education journals/articles

b) Theology journals/articles

c) Educational journals/articles

d) Other journals/articles that are

related to your role as DRE

(Specify)

NeverT
1

1

3 4

3 4

3 4

8

Very Often

9

123456789
19. Please rank the five most time consuming tasks

listed here that

you undertake as coordinator/directori

a) Planning curricula and programs

b) Planning budgets

c) Handling discipline problems

d) Teaching religion classes

e) Coordinating in-service teacher

training
f) Providing materials/equipment

g) Coordinating staff meetings

h) Doing secretarial work

1)

Evaluating individual teachers

j) Evaluating overall program

k) Counseling teachers

l) Coordinating adult education

m) Coordinating family education

n) Evaluating text books

o) Recruiting teachers

p) Other, specify

First in time consumption

Second in time consumption

Third in time consumption

Fourth in time consumption

Fifth in time consumption

63



20.

What percentage (%) of your racial background is:

a) Caucasian %

b) Black/Negro %

c) Hispanic %

e) Native American/Indian %

f) Oriental %

should total 100 %

21.

What educational experience have you had in the following areas
within the last two years ?
(USING THE CODE BELOW CHECK THE NUMBER THAT INDICATES YOUR ANSWER)
1 = No course work 3 = Undergraduate work
2 = Workshops/lectures 4 = Graduate work

a) Theology
b) Educational methodology
c) Administration
d) Guidance/counseling
e) Religious education
f) Other, specify

[ ] 1 ] 2 [ ] 3

[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3

[ ] 1 ] 2 [ ] 3

[]
1

1 EHE]
3

3

[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4

- II. THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS PERTAIN TO THE PROFILE OF THE PARISH
AND ITS CATECHETICAL PROGRAMS

22. How many priests are assigned to the parish(s) you serve?

23. How many families are in the parish(s) you serve?

24. What percentage of the parish you serve is:

a) Caucasian %
b) Black/Negro %
c) Spanish surnamed American %
d) Native American (Indian) %
e) Oriental %

should total 100 %

25.

Please estimate the percentage (%) of families which have incomes:

a) Below $4,000 %
b) Between $4,001-$8,000 %
c) Between $8,001 -$1 5,000 %
d) Between $1 5,001-$20,000 %
e) $20,001 + %

should total 100 %

26.

Please estimate the percentage of families in the parish that turn over
every three (3) years.

% of families
every three years.

64



27. Please indicate where the geographic location of the parish(s) you

serve is located.

a) [ ] Within a high major city, i.e., within a city or twin cities

where the population is over one million (1,000,000)

b) [ ] Within a major city, ie., within a city or twin cities where the

population is between a million and 50,000.

c) [ ] Within a major city suburb , i.e., with a suburb that is
functionally bound to a major city.

d) [ ] Within a small city , i.e., in a small city where the population is

under 50,000 but over 2,500.

e) [ ] Within a small town/rural area in which the population is 2,500
or under.

28. In questions 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 how were the statistics derived?

[ ] Statistics from census

[ ] Estimated guess

[ ] Other means, please specify

29. About how often do the parish priest(s) offer the following services to

those persons involved in catechetics outside the Catholic School?

a) Help in adult education
b) Help in family education
c) Provide student liturgies
d) Teach regular religion classes
e) Visit religion classes
f) Participate in social activities

that relate to catechetical program

g) Help catechists in their task of
teaching

h) Help in planning of projects
that pertain to catechesis

Never—

r

Very Often
9

9

9

9

9

123456789
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

30. Please list and rank the four (4) most important services that the Diocesan Office
provides for the parish you serve. Rank in order of importance with No.l being most
important)

2 .

3.

4.

31. To what extent are the following adult learning programs offered by the parish?

(USING THE FOLLOWING CODE, CHECK THE NUMBER THAT INDICATES YOUR ANSWER)

1 = Never 4 = Once a month 7 = Once a year

2 Once a week 5 = Once every 2 months

3 = Once every two (2) weeks 6 = Once a semester

a) Discussion groups
b) Lecture series

c) Leadership skills development
d) Parish retreats/missions
e) Catechumenate and post

baptismal catechesis
f) Programs for senior

citizens

g) Prayer groups

h) Programs for singles
i) Other, Specify

[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

c ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ J 6
f

] 7

[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ J 6 [ J
7

65



32. To what extent are the following family education programs offered
(USE SAME CODE AS FOR QUESTION 31)

by the parish?

a) Parish marriage preparation
b) Parenthood education, e.g.,

early parenting, parent
effectiveness

c) Ministry to divorced/separated
d) Marriage and family enrichment
e) Natural family planning
f) Family living and sex

education

g) Other, specify

[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

[ ]

1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ]

1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ]

1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ]

1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ]

1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4

[ ] 5 [ ] 6 [: ] 7

[ ] 5 [ ] 6 [: ] 7

[ ] 5 [ ] 6 [: ] 7

[ ] 5 [ ] 6 [: ] 7

[ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

33. Approximately what percentage (%) of adult parishioners participate in adult education
each year?

%

34. Approximately what percentage (%) of parish families participate in family education
each year?

%

35.

Is there a Pre-school program of religion for children during the year?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

36.

Are there special education programs in your area (not necessarily catechesis)
for any of the following:
(USING THE FOLLOWING CODE, PLEASE CHECK THE NUMBER THAT INDICATES YOUR ANSWER)
1 = None exists 4 = Given by a private institution
2 = Given by the parish 5 = Given by another other than the parish,
3 = Given by a public institution public or private institution

a) Pre-school developmental ly delayed?

b) School age handicapped, slow learner,
or mentally handicapped?

c) Young adult to midlife (e.g. sheltered
workshops, recreational facilities,
group homes)?

d) Elderly handicapped (e.g. geratric
clinics, senior centers, meals on
wheels)?

[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5

[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5

[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5

[ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5

37.

Does the parish provide special help in catechesis to children, adolescents and
adults who:

a) Are slow learners or mentally handicapped?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

b) Have learning disabilities?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

c) Are emotionally disturbed or are socially maladjusted

[ ] Yes [ ] No
d) Are blind or partially seeing

[ ] Yes [ ] No

e) Are deaf or hard of hearing

[ ] Yes [ ] No

66



38. Are handicapped parishioners provided for in any of the
following ways?

a) Adapted liturgies for handicapped children?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

b) Elimination of architectural barriers for those with physical handicaps?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

c) Provision of special aids for those with sensory handicaps

(e.g., hearing aids or interpreters for the deaf)?

[ J Yes [ ] No

39. In preparing children for the Eucharist are parents required to
participate in the preparation of their children?

[ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, what percentage^) of parents actually participate?

%

40.

In preparing children for the sacrament of Reconciliation are parents
required to participate in the preparation of their children?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, what percentage^) of parents actually participate?

%

41.

In preparing young people for the sacrament of Confirmation is there a program
especially designed to involve the parents with the preparation?

[ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, what percentage (%) actually participate?

%

N.B. QUESTIONS 42 TO 47 REFER ONLY TO THE ELEMENTARY LEVEL (GRADES 1-8)

Please estimate as close as possible the statistics requested in the boxes below.

42. No. of Average length Estimated no. of
children No. of of each children who
attending classes class Place where never attend

Gr. Level classes per yr. session classes held formal religion classes

Pre-School

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

67



43.

In estimating the number of children who never attend formal religion
classes how were these statistics derived?

[ ] Statistics from census

[ ] Estimated guess

[ ] Other means, please specify

44. Please give the number of:
a) Paid catechists on the elementary level

b) Volunteer catechists on the elementary level

c) Clerical staff

d) Librarians

45. Is there a certification program offered for catechists in your area?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, approximately what percentage(%) of catechists (Grs.1-8) are

a) Certified as catechists? %

b) Working for certification %

c) Have no certification and
are not working for it? %

46. Does the diocesan office require certification for catechists?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

47

.

(USING THE CODE BELOW PLEASE CHECK THE NUMBER THAT INDICATES YOUR ANSWER)
1 = Never 5 = Once every 2 months
2 = Once a week 6 = Once a semester
3 = Once every 2 weeks 7 = Once a year
4 = Once a month

a) About how often does the
teaching staff meet to
evaluate matters pertaining
to teaching? [ ]

b) ..are in-service training
courses held for teaching
staff? [ ]

c) ...do catechists and parents
meet to discuss student's
progress? [ ]

d) ...are days of spiritual
renewal for students? [ ]

e) ...are days of spiritual
renewal for catechists? [ ]

f) ...are catechists provided
the opportunity to get
together just to socialize? [ ]

g) ...do students partake in
liturgies, e.g., lectors? [ ]

1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

1 [ 1 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7

68



N.B. QUESTIONS 48-54 REFER ONLY TO THE SECONDARY LEVEL AND YOUTH MINISTRY

48. Which of the following services does the parish provide for youth?

a) Guidance counseling
Never—

r

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Very
frequently

b) Organized sports i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
c) Leadership training i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
d) Parish youth center i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
e) Camping opportunities i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
f) Job opportunities for

disadvantaged youth i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

49. How often are youth involved

a) Parish council

in the fol

Never
1 2

lowing ministries?

3 4 5 6 7 8

Very
frequently

b) Catechists 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
c) Catechist aid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
d) Community services, e.g.

helping shut-ins 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
e) Action for justice, e.g.

getting petitions for
better housing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

f) Musicians for liturgy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

g) Extraordinary ministers
for the Eucharist 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

h) Other, specify

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

50.

Please estimate as close as possible the statistics requested in the boxes below.

Number of Number of Number of youth
youth attending meetings Place where never attending

Gr. Level religion programs year meetings are held religion programs

9

10

11

12

51.

In estimating the number of youth who never attend formal religion
programs how were these statistics derived?

[ ] Statistics from census

[ ] Estimated guess

[ ] Other means, please specify

52.

Does your parish catechetical program have peer ministry? e.g., youth helping
youth in studies, drug problems, etc.

[ ] Yes [ ] No

53.

Are programs for youth catechesis evaluated by the parish rel igious education
coordinator/director?

[ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, how frequently are the programs evaluated each year? x per year

69



54. (USING THE FOLLOWING CODE PLEASE CHECK THE NUMBER THAT INDICATES YOUR ANSWER)
1 = Never 5 = Once every 2 months
2 = Once a week 6 = Once a semester
3 = Once every two weeks 7 = Once a year
4 = Once a month

How frequently do youth have their own:

a) Eucharistic celebration
b) Para-liturgical celebration
c) Prayer service
d) Scripture study group

(Outside of formal class)
e) Penance service
f) Retreats

55. Is there a college/university in the area of the parish that provides courses in
religious education for catechists?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

56. Is there a parish library?

[ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, how many volumes does it have

What percentage (%) of teachers use it?

57.

Is there a catechetical budget for the parish catechetical program(s)?

[ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, how much of the total parish budget is alloted for parish catechetical
programs?

%

58.

How many of the following items are available to the catechist in the parish program?

a) Slide projector
b) Movie projector
c) Overhead projector
d) Tape recorder
e) Record player
f) Videotape machine

59.

Is there a Catholic School within the parish you serve?

[ ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, please describe your relation to it in terms of the types of services you
receive and the types of joint religion projects you mutually participate in.
(If none, please write none)

[ ] 1 [ ]

[ ] 1 [ ]

[ ] 1 [ ]

[ ] 1 [

ejie

[ ] 3 [ ] 4 |

[ ] 3 [ ] 4 |

[ ] 3 [ ] 4 |

[ ] 5 [ ] 6 [

[ ] 5 [ ] 6 [

[ ] 5 [ ] 6 [

[ ] 3 [ ] 4 |

E ! il

[ ] 5 [ ] 6

E]s :

] 7

] 7

] 7

] 7

] 7

] 7

60.

Please list the parish boards, councils, commissions, etc. that function in the parish

THANK YOU

70