Facility Needs Assessment for SeekersChapel

CHAPTER ONE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this research project is to provide information to assist the building

committee of Seekers Chapel church in developing the criteria for a new facility. The

needs assessment will consider long term growth, the congregation’s financial awareness,

and determining the facility requirements that best match the church vision and

congregation interest.

Setting of the Problem

Seekers Chapel is a church that is moving into its twelfth year of ministry. The

church has a congregation size of approximately two hundred parishioners. The church

has three pastors, two full time staff positions and a music pastor. The church uses

volunteer assistance for limited secretarial needs. The church has a three person board of

directors that serve for three years. The pastoral staff have been together since the

beginning of the church. There is a core group of families that have attended the church

since its inception. The congregation is a varied mix of all ages yet there are

approximately 64 children from infants to ninth grade.

The church has a hierarchy with the senior pastor being the decision maker for the

congregation needs and a board that consults the pastor on issues of finance and long

term goals. There are two additional pastors on staff one full time and the other part time.

The Senior pastor handles the Christian Education (CE) department operations with a

volunteer CE Coordinator who primarily runs the CE with general guidance and input

from the senior pastor. The senior pastor prepares and preaches for all the adult services

1

held through the week. The senior pastor is also the main counseling pastor and crisis

visitation person. The church has a strong usher program that assists the pastor in many

social congregational functions in the services. The full-time associate pastor is the youth

ministry’s pastor and arranges all the ministry activities for youth out side of the Sunday

School setting. This pastor also fills in for the senior pastor on all of his pastoral duties if

the senior pastor is unavailable to meet a congregational need. The third associate pastor

is the music pastor. The music pastor handles all the worship and special music in the

services. The music pastor has a choir that performs during Sunday morning services and

performs holiday musicals. The pastoral staff and their spouses also oversee adult social

activities for the congregation members. The church informal structure deals with the

volunteer services provided by the congregational members. There is the cleaning and

maintenance crew, the Sunday School teachers, the choir members, the church

secretarial assistants, ushers, and ministry lay leaders. The individual groups are under

the supervision of one of the three pastors and adhere to strict guidelines and operational

parameters. The informal influences are evident regarding the groups needs and weighed

against the church’s vision and ministry. The church has a strong desire for Christian

education and providing an environment that attracts families back into relationship with

Jesus Christ. The church is a non denominational evangelical based church that was an

out growth of Melodyland church in Anaheim. The church has a strong youth ministry,

Sunday School program and music program.

The Sunday School program works with youth up to the eighth grade due to limited

classroom space. The Sunday School class’s student arrangement is in two year age

2

groups. There are no single age groups due to the facility limitations. The church is

currently leasing space in a multiple building industrial business complex. The church is

currently on a three year extension of the lease. Currently there remains approximately

two years on the extension.

History and Background of the Problem

The church congregation has remained small in number during its almost twelve years

of existence. The original facilities that the church used for its meetings were limiting the

size of the congregation. The church originally met in hotel meeting rooms and each

week would move from one room to another depending on room availability. This

instability was a dilemma for visitors of the church and the facilities really limited the

church’s programs. The church remained in the hotel setting until it could afford to lease

space and the city approved the church moving into a commercial business area. The

church leadership had previous involvement with a church that’s primary focus was in

church growth. Seekers’ leadership interest has not been in building large congregations

but building a church community that would serve God’s vision for this His church. The

congregation size has a strong family type atmosphere with a close personal involvement.

This atmosphere causes people to have to deal with their differences and accept each

other in love. Larger churches make it easy for members to sit somewhere else in the

building or go to a different service instead of dealing with issues. The atmosphere has

kept the church from growing fast, though it has grown steadily over the years as the

facilities have grown. The congregation has grown to the facility’s capacity with each

move of the church.

3

The type of congregation demographics of younger age members has limited the

income that the church generates off gifts and tithes. The pastor limits the preaching

about financial tithing and to emphasize giving as an expression of worship to God and a

personal commitment to God. The church has never done special promotion offerings or

specialty fund raising programs in order to gain a larger financial base. The church

leadership believes as God moves in the direction the church is to go that He will provide

the finances necessary for His Church to operate.

People in the congregation have at times become apathetic about the church future or

become content with the current church facility due to familiarity. It can be difficult to

always have the complete congregation see and live a vision for the future. Fighting

apathy is always a challenge and this is the current challenge facing the church leadership

now to ignite enthusiasm, faith, and hope regarding the vision God has for Seekers

Chapel.

The church began out of a small college Bible study and eventually moved into

leasing hotel banquet facilities for the Sunday morning meetings. The church remained in

this setting for the first five years. For three of the last five years in the hotel banquet

rooms the church board and pastoral staff negotiated with city planners to finally allow

the church to move into a Fullerton business complex. The church initially had a five

year lease that was negotiated at the term end to extend the lease three years. The church

currently has approximately two years remaining on the existing lease.

The current facility limits the church vision, size of the congregation, and expansion

of programs. The city restricted the hours the facility can have full use due to the

4

surrounding business needs. The church functions that are after hours pose no conflicts

yet this restricts the church to very limited day time ministry activities. The facility

provides no outside grass play area and there is no public park in the immediate area to

use for outdoor functions. The church has a large population of young people that have

grown up with the church. This has created a population explosion of children with the

oldest medium age of second generation being now in ninth grade. The church is

composed all age groups with varied financial backgrounds yet the church’s primary age

group is younger families starting families and establishing their careers. This youth

emphasis has been from the beginning of the church and has an impact on the income

level of the church. The church functions on a tight budget but has built up a building

reserve fund for the future facility.

The facility has certain zoning restrictions that were provisions the city of Fullerton

had conditioned to allow the church to move into the business complex. The church must

operate primarily during after hours of business to accommodate the business customer

parking needs. This limits the church from providing daytime ministry services to the

congregation. The facility also will not allow for kitchen areas in the building that limits

the church fellowship activities. The building has very limited grass areas landscaped for

aesthetic purposes not for recreational activities for the children. The complex is not

close to any public park facility to alleviate this problem. The church pays over six

thousand dollars a month in rent for the current facility. The church leadership has

concerns regarding the terms and cost of the new lease could change upon renewal. The

5

maintenance of the building has been a problem since leasing the facility. The roof has

never stopped leaking since we have been there six years.

Seekers Chapel needs to determine the type of facility that will suit the future of the

congregation and ministry needs. Seekers Chapel needs to evaluate whether to use

another business complex facility, an available education facility or to build a facility.

Seekers Chapel needs to clearly understand its needs and desires to minimize erroneous

cost and gain a facility that maximizes the congregation’s financial ability of Seekers

Chapel.

Scope of the Project

Seekers Chapel has matured as a church in congregation size and ministry activities so

that the current facility it is using will no longer serve the church needs. The City of

Fullerton has conditional use restrictions of operation for the church due to the church

location residing in a business complex serving other business’s during the day. The City

of Fullerton has limited the day time activities to minor events and primary use of the

facility is to be after normal business hours. The Church needs to relocate to an area that

has no conditional use restrictions for operations. A research objective is to collect data

to assist the building committee in evaluating relocation options and determine which

options best meet the churches needs. The research will not make recommendations for

the building committee but provide the data for the building committee to develop a plan

to effectively assess and meet the needs of the Seekers Chapel congregation. The church

has been renting the current facility for six years spending over six thousand dollars a

month and not getting any long term investment benefit for the expenditure. The research

6

is to provide information for the building committee to determine which options will

enable the church to more effectively spend money for a facility. The desire of the

pastoral staff and church leaders is to pursue a permanent facility for the church to

provide ministry outreach and have a long term investment. The research objective is to

assist the building committee in with information to determining facility options that will

provide the physical surroundings to assist the church in its ministry objectives. The

research will not recommend to the building committee what facility will best meet

Seekers Chapel’s needs. The church has two years to choose whether to move or to

extend the lease remaining in the current facility.

The congregation is predominately young families continuing to grow. The youth

population of the church continues to grow and the current facility classroom space is

inadequate to provide adequate Sunday School and youth activities. The current facility

provides no outside play area for children or group activities. The research will assist in

finding out the church’s desires to have a facility that allows recreational activities and a

facility that promotes social interaction that the current facility cannot provide. The

research will provide congregational insight for the building committee to narrow facility

options in order to be sure that the church has options for Christian education in the

future. The current sanctuary size is very limiting and therefore has impacted the growth

of the overall congregation size. The interior of the church sanctuary has decor to provide

a worship atmosphere but the facility structure has many limiting factors that prohibit

really decorating the sanctuary. The researcher hopes that the information gained from

literature and in the survey of the congregation will assist the building committee in

7

planning for a facility that will be conducive for public worship and meetings. The

current facility location is in the back area of a tilt up business complex and has little

resemblance of a church. It is difficult for new people to find and creates a skepticism in

those who visit the church for the first time. The research will provide the building

committee insight to look for focus on facilities that have a high visibility for the

community and also provide an atheistic resemblance of a church facility. The research

will not dictate or specify any particular sight that Seekers Chapel should consider for the

planned relocation. The research material is to assist the building committee by providing

directional guidance in these areas based from the literature the researcher collects and

the responses from the data collected by the researcher.

The research will give the building committee data to assist the building committee in

identifying the positive and negative attributes of facility options is available. The

research will not establish the guidelines the financial management of the building

committee. The research will provide the building committee with literature that will

promote creative thinking for facility options. The research will not make any

recommendations for the building committee regarding any types of facility options.

Importance and Significance of the Project

The information in the research will help the building committee of Seekers Chapel

develop a strategic plan for initiating the relocation of Seekers Chapel. The data collected

in the research will provide the information to better determine the needs of the

congregation and help the building committee to prioritize areas of focus. The research

information will help the building committee in developing Seekers Chapel Building

8

criteria for evaluating different types of facilities available with their benefits and

limitations. The information will help to promote the future of Seekers Chapel’s

ministry. The research data will provide information from the congregation and literature

to assess Seekers Chapel’s building needs for planning. The Building Committee can use

this information to minimize common errors that occur in church construction and that

can create additional cost. The information gathered will assist the church leadership in

determining the best type of facility for the congregation. The researcher desires the

research to minimize the stress typically experienced during a church construction project

by providing information to help the committee in developing a clear strategic plan. The

church leadership needs this information to better assess the congregation's interest and

project awareness for developing parishioner participation and the time table needed to

move the church. The current facility limits the potential that Seekers Chapel ministry

could have with its congregation and community. The research will assist Seekers Chapel

to better assess facilities and will begin the process of pursuing a facility that will allow

the ministry to expand to meet the congregation’s needs. A new facility will provide

more adequate rooms and recreational areas to provide an atmosphere that promotes

family interaction and deepens their relationship with God.

The research will provide information to improve staff offices in a new facility. The

choir and other groups of the church will have areas that they can specifically designate

for storing their things and having regular meetings. The children will have areas to play.

All the youth will have rooms to meet in for Sunday School. The community will have

another resource to look to for counseling and recreational activities to assist in

9

eliminating youth problems. The neighborhood will have an area close by that they can

go to and worship God. The whole church ultimately will benefit in knowing that the

church has a permanent place that it can consider home.

CHAPTER TWO

10

LITERATURE REWIEW

“Our challenge is to respond to the call of Christ in faith,going beyond what we can see with our own eyes

to let God lead usto greater glory in the ministry of His church”

(Dupray, 1992 p.10)

Introduction Preparing a church for the future involves many details. Consideration for the future

of Seekers Chapel location must happen in the next two years. The church has a need to

consider finding a new facility. The research goal is to provide the ground work for the

church to begin the relocation process. The literature includes terminology for the sake of

this review that will ask the reader to interchange “building”, for “relocation or new

facility”. The literature used will mention building but the substitution is acceptable

because the process to determine to build is the same planning process to perform a

relocation. Seekers Chapel will determine its options, whether to build or move into

existing facilities, after completing the preplanning of relocation. The researcher will

present the motivation for a church to relocate and the need for a church to plan. The

importance of forming a building committee establishes a starting point of criteria for the

committee to evaluate: future mission, facility use, congregation needs, people/ space

ratios, and finance.

This literature review is to minimize Seekers Chapel from “ Churches make many

mistakes when they decide to relocate or expand.” (Clark,1995,pb1,2p,1c.) The literature

maintains a constant question during the process of relocation, “What are we saying

11

about ourselves and the Lord we serve by the way the building is designed.” (Wilkensen,

1984)

Motivation

“ God is still more interested in persons than buildings. It seems that because buildings are tangible, the church, can become so caught up in the romance of the cause that they tend to place more emphasis upon the structure as a location where God is than on it as a tool to help them draw closer to God themselves... God is not nearly as interested in building as we are, and the building we contemplate need to help us worship God more meaningfully.” (Kelly, 1984, p.23)

This is the stepping stone to maintain the proper focus of this task.

“ Effective long-range planning builds on a God-given hope that is prayerful and powerful. In prayerful ways- open to God’s power-the long-range planning genuinely prays, “What is God calling us to do- as His people?” And, though our vision may focus on the coming five to seven years, our eyes look even beyond these time horizons to all that God is preparing for us in the future yet to come.”(Callahan, 1983, p.XX)

Prayer throughout this endeavor must be a constant to provide the wisdom for direction

that will lead Seekers Chapel into the future God has envisioned for the congregation.

“The question must be asked “Why is this building needed?” Then, determination of

other possible alternatives available to the builders can be made “To make this

determination it is necessary to define the needs of the situation, and this definition must

be completed in an objective and systematic method” (Mcgarvan, 1974, p.14) Bowman

and Hall (1987, p.104), state “A church should not build when a better alternative is

available” To realize the best options available “ The recommendation to relocate should

describe both the advantages and disadvantages of this alternative. A comparative list of

advantages and disadvantages of other alternatives considered should also be included”

12

(Sillis, 1989, p.31) “ Whenever the church seeks alternatives to building prematurely,

however. “People ministry” can continue uninterrupted, and growth continues. Later,

when growth requires still more space, a well-planned building that will be fully utilized

can be built without interfering with the work of the church.” (Bowman & Hall, 1987,

p.103) Seekers Chapel has a legitimate need to relocate to a new facility. Three

motivations for Seekers Chapel indicate a legitimate need to relocate.

· The limitations of the existing facility due to the City of Fullerton’s conditional use permit.

· The people and space ratios lacking in the current facility. · The facilities limited social capacity for recreation. The current

facility restricts adding a kitchen or grass play areas into the current location.

Need for Planning

Dallas real estate broker Danny Muzyka, “It takes churches a long time to make

decisions, because often a committee is involved. The congregation often does not

understand the reality of expenses and process of purchasing property... it may take you a

year or 18 months to have a closing.” ( Clark, 1995, p.B1,2p,1c.)Planning and decision

making is vital for Seekers Chapel to expedite the process of relocation. Proper

preplanning and evaluation will assist in minimizing the time necessary to relocate. “Our

staff and board look at various factors which affect the life and growth of the church-

factors such as congregational ownership of the program, program planning, adequacy

and longevity of leadership, site planning and improvements.” (Dupray, 1996, s.5)

“ The strategic questions for successful long range planning are:

13

· What are our present foundational strengths, given from God?· How can these strengths be added to serve God’s mission more

effectively?· Which foundational strengths can be added, that we might more

successfully serve God’ mission?”(Callahan,1983, P.XVI)

An important question that the researcher has considered “This organization is being

run as if its objective were...?” The researcher found supporting literature that

emphasized the importance of considering this question. Quoting Possibilities in

Relocation regarding evaluation “Taking time to assess the congregation in terms of it’s

mission, it’s structure as the way of achieving it’s mission, it’s activities in the

performance of the mission, and it’s human and financial resources in mission allocation

is essential if that congregation expects to keep up with the need opportunity around it.”

This evaluation helps to shape the direction of the church and assist in developing long

range vision. “ Finding answers to such questions as these enable the congregation to

know where its major program emphasis needs to be placed.” (Sillis, 1989, P.11-12)

This then provides for the church to then focus on questions for the church building

criteria.

The researcher found the summation of planning ideal in Church Building and

Expansion “There is no substitute for time to do proper planning.”( Wilkenson,1984, p.7)

The time required to plan and prepare may seem frustrating due to lack of progress. The

planning is the “grease” that allows the relocation to move freely and smoothly during

the phases of relocation. “It is impossible to over emphasize the requirement that a

church understands its needs before it builds. The creation of a thoughtful building

14

program is one of the most essential processes. Without it no architect, minister, or

building committee can collaborate to produce an effective solution.” (Conover, 1948,

p.14) The dedication of Seekers Chapel to proper planning is critical to ensure that

minimal expenses are spent on delays that could occur due to failing to investigate

options prior to beginning the relocation.

Committee Formation

The dedication of this group of people is the backbone that makes the relocation of

Seekers Chapel a success. “ Anyone who is to serve on a building committee must be

first of all willing to learn. They must be ready to examine openly and honestly all

ideas.” (Kelly,1984, p.70) Seekers Chapel building committee needs to utilize the

members of the congregation that have expertise and talent in a variety of areas. “The

building committee should be made up of people with demonstrated expertise in fields

such as law, finance, real estate construction or the like.” (Wilkenson, 1984, )

“With the massive changes in our society, we need to be very careful about buildings which are not suited for adaptation with reasonable cost. Therefore, the most important task of the committee is to gather all the available facts so that trends can be determined....The committee will probably not be able to obtain an unlimited amount of data. Some data will certainly be more important than other. It will be useful if the committee works on this under three broad headings: (1) The present program now being operated, (2) The need of the outside community which the congregation wishes to reach, and (3) The kind of ministry which it believes it should be doing. Anyone or all of these may be found different from the present concept.” (Kelly, p.77-78)

The committee must dig into the basics of what Seekers Chapel is as a church and

what God has envisioned for its future. “ The average committee has the capacity to see

the needs of the church as they face them today. Few can see the impact of future growth

15

and the effect of unknown future leadership. The great puzzle to most building

committee members is what to do first and what sequence the various phases of church

planning should flow.”(Conover, 1948, p.14) Through the entire relocation process the

building committee of Seekers Chapel needs to remember that many situations will occur

that the committee could not foresee. “The committee should always remember that the

most unexpected things can arise in a building project.” (Wilkenson, 1984) The desired

goal of the committee is what Steve Thulson of First Church in Salina, Kansas said, “ ..a

highly trusted building committee. They were people with vision, not just ones who

knew architects and a good sense of colors. They were committed to the overall mission

and didn’t over estimate the value of a building.”(Wood, Nissen, Carlson, Thulson, 1985,

p.126-136)

Evaluation

The evaluations that a building committee must focus on in the planning prior to

relocation are:

· The current use of the existing facility.· The needs of the congregation.· The number of people and ratio to space required.· The types of facility options available.· The financial influences of relocation.

Seekers Chapel must evaluate the strengths as a ministry and be sure that the future

building will accentuate these strengths and future potential strengths that associate with

the current ones.“ Effective, successful congregations claim their present fondational

strengths, expand these strengths in decisive ways, and add new foundational strengths

16

that contribute to shaping the future and destiny of the congregation. The three most

strategic decisions in long range planning are found in the key words-Claim, expand, and

add.” (Callahan,1983,p.xv-xvi)

“Evaluating church facilities as related to the purpose of the church, its programs, and

the changing characteristics of community, can help a congregation engage in

meaningful dialogue on the use and meaning of space for the religious activities.” (Sillis,

1989, p. 13) Reviewing the existing activities and the use of space for those activities is

also important in determining the facility requirements. In A Manual for Ministers

“When considering functional activities in the congregation a list should be made of all

the present activities which are going on in a particular place... This space needs to be

considered in the broad aspects of its relationship to other spaces and their use.”

(Kelly,1984,p.78) Certain areas are multi-use shared space use due to the different times

the activities happen. Evaluation must determine if theses activities will continue to share

the same space in a new facility or if the activity needs to have its own location. Choir

practice is an example of shared space activity use. The choir uses the sanctuary on an

evening when there are no services. The question to consider for the future is “Will the

church have expanded services on all evenings?” and “Will the choir need to use a

fellowship hall area?”

Seekers Chapel’s evaluation of congregational needs must focus on areas that the

current facility fails to meet the need of the current congregation. The inability to have

extended use of the current facility during business hours prevents the church from

possibly providing day care to children. The facility lacks many other amenities that

17

would prevent the church from providing a preschool service, yet these are areas that the

building committee will need to evaluate as considerations for the new facility.

Consideration will need to account for future growth of the congregation and the building

committee should purchase A Comprehensive Guide To Church Construction (Miller,

1995) for the ratios regarding space allocation for different age groups. Formulas and

charts to provide adequate parking and landscaping that includes recreational activity

areas.

The Seekers Chapel building committee needs to evaluate the potential facilities site

for these qualifying questions.

“Does the site achieve at least 80 percent of the goals established for the new location? Must we give up any goals we considered “essential” when we determined to relocate? Is the site accessible to a major thoroughfare? Is the site reasonably located to serve a majority of the present membership while offering opportunities for people in the new community? What are the long range projections of the municipal authorities concerning residential, business, or industrial development of the area around the site? How will such development affect the ministry and the growth of the congregation? Will facilities constructed on this site be visible from several angles? How far is the site from the nearest school and/or shopping center? How far is it from the nearest hospital? Is the site accessible by public transportation? (Sillis, 1989, p36)

These are a few of the evaluating questions that the building committee of Seekers

Chapel will need to consider in the site location. Investigation of previous use should be

made to determine if there is potential for any environmental hazards associated with the

new location is important. To paraphrase Rolfs, current laws include the new owner to

participate in clean up cost of any hazardous materials. Previous use of the facility being

purchased and facilities adjacent to the property need thorough investigation. The age of

18

the facility needs to be considered due to asbestos being used up to the 1980’s in

commercial and industrial facilities. (Rolfs, 1995)

The new facility should have multi-use flexibility, “Try to make your facility as

versatile as possible. Think how a facility can be used in more than one way. A facility

which is able to serve multiple functions will in the long run service your church better

than one which is inflexible and unable to grow with your changing needs” (Miller,

1995, p.11) Paraphrasing Buchan, one church had a muti-purpose building that the

sanctuary could be a gymnasium, the interior amenities for the gym apparatus were

unobtrusive and designed to blend in. The congregation at first was apprehensive until

the first meeting when the amenities went virtually unnoticed. “Multi-use buildings are

generally very energy efficient and very economical to maintain.” (Buchan, 1995, p.78-

79) The Building Committee needs to remain open minded to all the alternatives that

buildings have. Main Place Christian Fellowship of Garden Grove, California, is moving

into an abandoned car lot facility (Hicks, 1996, p. B1) The previously mentioned public

school lease in Westminster, California, is another creative use of facilities. Looking for

facilities next to public parks eliminate the need for land use for recreational needs.

These types of creative ideas need brainstorming by the Seekers Chapel building

committee.

Financing is a creative area that the building committee of Seekers Chapel will need

to evaluate. There are a variety of creative means to enter into a new facility. Several

creative options are lease options to buy, owner carry back financing, and continue to

lease another facility until there is sufficient building funds saved to build. Modular

19

buildings can be an option to use as temporary facilities if zoning permits. These are all

viable options that the building committee will need to further research and present to the

board of directors and pastoral staff of Seekers Chapel.

The Seekers Chapel building committee must keep in perspective the overall financial

burden of the building expenses on the church. “A church should not build when the

building would increase the risk of bondage..The ability to repay any form of debt

incurred should not depend on the possibility of new growth.” (Bowman & Hall, 1987,

p.103) There are ratio factors that can assist the committee in determining the church

financial capacity for a new location. “When 50 percent or more of the budget goes into

the mortgage payment, interest, utilities and maintenance, the church becomes servant to

its building.” (Belknap, 1978, p.27)

Conclusion

This literature review is to assist the Seekers Chapel building committee in how to

proceed in the preplanning and evaluation of the requirement Seekers Chapel has for a

facility. This information can begin the process and provide a basis to minimize the

struggles that can be associated with relocation. The building committee will have the

opportunity to develop more concise questions as the relocation process is underway and

use the resources that are available in the literature to guide them into a new facility.

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH STRATEGY AND DATA COLLECTION PLAN

Summary of Chapter One and Two

20


committee of Seekers Chapel Church in developing the criteria for a new facility. The

data will create the outline for the facility needs of the congregation of Seekers Chapel

Church. The needs assessment will provide the information for ministry focus, facility

amenities for congregational needs, facility size and basis for construction budgets.

Seekers Chapel is moving into its twelfth year of ministry and the congregational

needs have out grown the existing facility. Seekers Chapel currently leases their facility.

The cost for the facility and current city conditional use of the facility prevents the

church from fully ministering to its current capacity. The congregation has a large youth

population that has capacity use of the Christian Education (CE) facilities for Sunday

School education.

The literature reviewed confirmed that Seekers Chapel is a church ready to relocate

into a facility that they own and have the flexibility to expand. The literature pointed out

specific areas of consideration for the building committee to be sure to address. The

literature emphasis on planning states planning is vital in order to identify potential

difficulties of relocation and ensure that a minimal amount of difficulties occur during

the actual relocation. The literature confirmed that the motivation for Seekers Chapel to

relocate is in the proper perspective. The literature review provides insight to assist in

selecting the building committee. The literature provided areas for the building

committee to evaluate and determine the complete needs associated with this project and

to develop a plan of initiation.

Research Strategy

21

Statement of objectives. The purpose of the data collection is to expand the building

committee’s knowledge of the criteria needed to plan a church building project. The

major objective of this data collection is to gain information from the congregation

regarding their expectations for a new building and evaluation of our existing facility.

Evaluating this information will measure the responses of all the surveys gaining a

comparison specifically for the Seekers Chapel building relocation program.

The remaining objective is to gain data from the congregation regarding their

impressions of the comprehensiveness a building program entails. The information

gained will provide an idea of what new facility requirements should include and help

determine how prepared the congregation is for a building program. This information

will assist in developing an integrated solution for the building committee to develop

Seekers Chapels building program. The surveys will provide both qualitative and

weighted quantitative information that will show frequency distribution of critical areas

in church building and relocation

Research model selection. This research project is a needs assessment for the building

committee for the relocation of Seekers Chapel church. This method of research data

collection chosen is to provide recommendations to building committee of Seekers

Chapel church. This data will provide the committee with the necessary information to

develop a plan to begin the relocation of Seekers Chapel church. This model will gather

data and provide the greatest amount of information with a minimal amount of resources

needed. The model could have limitations due to the congregation small groups having a

group think type response. The congregation may not all be present during the Sunday

22

distribution occurs. The potential of collaboration increases when the respondent has to

complete the survey at home after the majority of the congregation filled out the survey.

The self survey might be a limitation due to the congregation being unfamiliar with

building projects. The values of the data may contradict due to respondent opinions from

the different section areas in the survey. The different sections have some repetitiveness

and participants may feel it unnecessary to respond in later sections. The data collection

instrument will require a forced response. The limitations could be a bias response due

to limited choices to answer the questions. The instrument will provide comments for

each section of question if the respondent desires to qualify the forced responses. The

researcher's intention is to minimize bias due to limited choices and balance the results of

the data.

Response time could be a factor in this data collection process. The data collection

will require clear direction to the sample population to ensure ideal response time.

Description of Intervention

The policy recommendation will provide information for the Seekers Chapel building

committee to begin the intervention for proceeding in relocating Seekers Chapel. The

data will provide information to assist the committee in directional planning to reduce

potential cost impacts to the church. The survey will provide the committee with

information from the congregation’s desires for a new location.

History and background. The congregation of Seekers Chapel is a church that has a

variety of talents. The building committee will be a volunteer group of individuals with

background familiar with many aspects needed to relocate the church. The difficulty of

23

such an undertaking is that projects of this nature usually have a full time staff of three to

five people working forty hours a week. The most difficult aspect is communication and

being sure the questions asked promote responses that provide clear direction for the

Seekers Chapel building committee. The survey completion has a minimal amount of

time so not to hold up any aspect of the time schedule for the project. The church has a

number of people that are actively participating in many capacities of the church

operations. The pastoral staff and the church board will determine the people to be on the

building committee. The data the researcher will collect will assist the building

committee in reviewing Seekers Chapel parishioner expectations. This information will

allow the committee to effectively develop a building program that will incorporate the

congregation’s interest, desires and needs. The data collected will help determine the

facility size and use requirements. This data will assist the building committee in

developing a plan to prepare and plan attempting to address facility difficulties and

reduce the cost of the project.

Resources needed. The researcher will need the support of Pastor Bob Barnett for

performing the survey during the Sunday morning services. The researcher will need to

use a computer to develop the survey instrument and track the results for comparison

analysis. The researcher will purchase computer program SPSS and manuals to use for

analyzing the information gained from the survey. The researcher will use a copy

machine to duplicate the instruments. The researcher will make 300 surveys to insure no

attendee is without the opportunity to participate in the survey. The researcher will need

24

to have available extra pens for the congregation in order to assist those with out a

writing instrument.

Procedures for implementation. Development of the survey will use input from

Seekers Chapel’s Pastor Bob Barnett who will review the survey prior to the survey

being pretested. The survey will need to be tested by two members of the congregation.

The researcher will fax copies of the survey to Joe Miller of New Church Construction

for review and input. The survey will be computer generated at the researcher's office.

The researcher will provide an absentee survey the Sunday prior to the actual survey

for those who will not be attending Church the Sunday of the survey. The absentee

surveys must be returned by mail or in person by the Sunday following the Sunday

planned for the survey. The researcher will pass out the surveys to the attendees of the

8:30 service and will place the surveys on the chairs of the 10:30 service . The survey

distribution will happen at the close of the service and use the usher staff to assist in

collecting the survey. The surveys will all be stamped with a received date and a

confirmation stamp stating “entered” to indicate the information is in the computer. All

instruments received will have numbers assigned to them and be entered into SPSS

statistical software. The researcher intends for the survey elapse time to be 21 days. The

researcher will compile the information into SPSS allowing the researcher to sort the

information to develop the results and chart results in a graphical display. The researcher

will compile the information received and the results tallied for proper statistical

analysis.

25

Impact on the system. The results of the data will enable the members of the building

committee to focus on specific areas that will need their attention. This information will

allow the building committee to establish an action plan for the Seekers Chapel

relocation. This information is to assist the building committee in setting the plan for

Seekers Chapels relocation. The data will help establish guidelines and promote thought

into areas the committee may not have considered. This survey will provide the building

committee with information the congregation desires and enable the building committee

to establish building design, and relocation criteria.

Feasibility. The information will benefit the building committee if the survey

instrument appropriately addresses specific areas that will provide the building

committee guidance in planning for Seekers Chapel’s future facility. The researcher’s

main goal is to properly develop the survey instrument with outside input to assure that

the information is pertinent to the relocation of Seekers Chapel. The literature review

provided the researcher with examples of survey instrument used by the authors that will

assist the researcher in developing of the instrument for Seekers Chapel. The researcher

is confident the development of a comprehensive and beneficial survey instrument for

Seekers Chapel will occur. The survey being performed during the Sunday service will

provide the researcher with the broadest ability to reach the majority of the parishioners

of Seekers Chapel. Using the service instead of mailing the survey will ensure a greater

response.

Data Collection Plan

26

Research design. The research plan for the building committee will survey the church

congregation. This research will be a one shot design to gather information using the

survey as the exposure to the congregation. The building committee could perform a

posttest survey of the congregation after the project is complete. The nature of the

research and the information to be gathered does not provide the researcher with setting

up a random sample and putting together an experimental and control group to compare

results. The comparison of the congregation's responses will provide insight on how to

plan the Seekers Chapel building program.

Sample population. Distribution of the congregational survey will be during the

Sunday morning services and will survey approximately 100 to 150 adults. The

researcher will divide the survey distribution into two sample populations. The researcher

will set the surveys on the chairs for the general congregation. The researcher will color

code the different groups of surveys. The researcher will hand numbered surveys to

individual’s that are in a leadership (servant) capacity at Seekers Chapel. The surveys

that are set on the chairs will be numbered after they are collected.

Data procurement process. The researcher will distribute the survey to the

congregation on a Sunday morning December 22, 1996 during the last 15 minutes of

both church services. The researcher will distribute surveys to the volunteers working in

the Sunday school classrooms. The participants will complete the survey and hand the

survey to the researcher and ushers as they leave. Parishioners desiring not to complete

the survey during the service may return the survey by Sunday December 29,1996 to the

researcher or the pastoral staff. Pastor Bob Barnnett will announce to the parishioners in

27

advance starting December 8, 1996 of the church survey regarding the building program

will occur. Pastor Bob will announce to people not unable to attend service on December

22, 1996 an absentee survey is available December 15, 1996. Pastor Bob will assume the

responsibility of informing, introducing and encouraging the congregation to participate

in responding to the survey.

Development of survey instrument. Joe Miller church construction consultant, Pastor

Bob Barnett Seekers Chapel, and Dr. David Baker reviewed development of the survey

instrument. Pastor Ken Wilson and Linda Cron Christian Education Director will pretest

the survey. The survey construction will include 94 questions with fixed responses with a

scale of 1 to 5 and allow the participant a place for conditional comments for each

section of questions. The comments area will add insight into the feelings or insights the

participant might have that may inspire additional consideration.

The researcher allowed areas for comment for some individual questions and for each

main section. This provided the participant the ability to expound on the forced choice

responses if they desired. Questions 37 and 38 in the survey had either a forced choice

response or a comment in response to the options provided. This enabled the participants

that had little knowledge or a desire to state an option not provided.

The surveys will be divided into 5 categories. Category 1 is absentee surveys; these

surveys are color coded in the survey number box number 4 with yellow highlight

marker. The absentee survey was given to congregation members on Sunday, December

15, 1996 who would not be able to attend church on December 22,1996. The researcher

individually numbered the surveys and requested the absentee surveys be returned to the

28

church by December 29,1996. Category 2 is 8:30 service surveys; these surveys are

color coded in the survey number box number 1 with blue highlight marker. Category 3

is 10:30 service surveys; these surveys are color coded in the survey number box number

2 with orange highlight marker. Category 4 is servant surveys; these surveys are color

coded in the survey number box number 3 with green highlight marker. These people are

very actively involved in administrative functions of the services or church activities.

Category 5 is test surveys; these surveys are color coded in the survey number box

number 5 with pink highlight marker. These test surveys were taken by the associate

pastor Ken Wilson and the Christian Education director Linda Cron. The researcher

tested the survey three weeks prior to the actual absentee survey.

Precautions. Survey design is important since this research is being performed in a

one shot opportunity. Coverage of the research objectives must occur in the question in

the survey instrument. All the parishioners attending will participate providing a cross

section of age, sex, marital status and reasons they attend the church. The survey

instrument has demographics for distance traveled to church, employment, membership

status, attendance, and programs they participate.

The survey is self-administered and will have directions that request that the

participant's information be confidential and remain their personal opinion. The survey

instrument writing style will be in a conversational format, and will remain generic in

terminology for all participants to understand. The field test of the survey instrument is

to eliminate any leading questions. Designating which demographic criteria to analyze

the data and the presentation of the data can influence the accuracy of the data results.

29

Data analysis. The survey instrument will use forced choice response, ranking items

and multiple choice type questions. This instrument format will allow the information to

be computer tabulated and display the information in a table format. The survey

instrument will have a Likert Scale (scale of evaluation used in surveys, using numbers

of one through five) selection allowing the statistical analysis to determine frequencies in

the responses. The data arrangement will be according to the mean score of the general

congregation and the servant sample populations. Ranking of the mean score will provide

the building committee with how each sample population evaluated the criteria for the

research objectives. This type of analysis is sufficient for the building committee to

effectively plan for Seekers Chapel’s future facility.

Limitations. Due to the nature of the research the inability of the researcher to

randomize the population is a limitation to the integrity of the data collection. This

limitation exists yet the impact will be minimal for the scope of this project. The

limitations to this data collection vary in each group surveyed. The congregation on

Sunday morning is a combination of members, long term attendees, short time attendees

and visitors. Distribution of the survey will not be difficult yet the return of the survey

may not be a priority to parishioners. The participants, if they have recently starting

attending Seekers Chapel, may have experience with a building program may influence

their responses. The survey may not clearly identify these people and create a response

bias. The total congregation may not have a clear understanding regarding the complete

needs for a new church facility. The congregation responses might show indifference’s to

critical areas the building committee could use in making critical decisions.

30

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECCOMENDATIONS

31

Summary of Chapter 1, 2 and 3


committee of Seekers Chapel Church in developing the criteria for a new facility.

Seekers Chapel is moving into its twelfth year of ministry and the congregational needs

have out grown the existing facility. Seekers Chapel currently leases their facility. The

cost for the facility and current city conditional use of the facility prevents the church

from fully ministering to its current capacity. The congregation youth population is

reaching the current capacity of the Christian Education (CE) facility’s for Sunday

School education.

The literature confirmed that the motivation for Seekers Chapel to relocate is in the

proper perspective. The literature emphasis on planning states planning is vital in order to

identify potential difficulties of relocation and ensure that a minimal amount of

difficulties that occur during the actual relocation. The literature review provides insight

to assist in selecting the building committee. The literature provided areas for the

building committee to evaluate and determine the complete needs associated with this

project and to develop a plan of initiation.

The data will create the outline for the facility needs of the congregation of Seekers

Chapel Church. The need’s assessment will provide the information of ministry focus,

facility amenities for congregational needs, facility size and congregational interest that

will assist the building committee in developing construction budgets. A survey will

gather the information from the congregation regarding their expectations for a church

32

facility. The data analysis will use a computer statistic program to develop the

information into frequencies for the building committee to develop a construction plan.

Summary of Results

The researcher used a Likert forced choice response format with comment areas for

the congregation participants. The selections allowed the respondent a not applicable

(NA) and a do not know (DK) option on some of the choices. These two selections with

no responses and invalid entries were input in traditional research fashion as no response

answers. The data analysis segregated these as missing variables and excluded these from

calculating the mean, median, and mode or any statistical calculations. The computer was

able to still include these respondents as missing in the TABLE to retain the integrity of

showing all surveys accounted for during tabulation.

The major objective of the data collection was seeking the congregation's interest and

expectations for a new building and their perceptions of the current facility. The

researcher segregated the leadership as one survey group of 25 people. The remaining

surveys of 121 people were of the General congregation attending church on December

22,1996. Three sections of the survey instrument reflect the research objective.

Classroom evaluation, sanctuary evaluation and building evaluation provide necessary

congregation information to accomplish this objective The section had two parts for

responses, the current facility and the future facility. Each section attempted to provide

comprehensive questions addressing each area.

The researcher analyzed the survey population to determine the appropriate sample

population for analyzing the data. Congregational support was the key element in trying

33

to arrange the appropriate data collected. The research instrument had several

demographic options that the researcher reviewed prior to selecting the population to

convey the congregation's interest. Attendance was a consideration, yet supporters could

very in their attendance. There are also several services that people attend due to work

schedules that might not convey their level of support and participation. Membership was

another consideration. Many churches have members that rarely support and participate

in the church. The survey distribution occurred on Sunday prior to Christmas and the

potential for visiting members responding was higher. The researcher sought guidance

from administrators familiar with congregational support. The researcher determined a

parishioner’s financial commitment indicates support, attendance, and participation in the

church. The researcher using demographics based on financial support found the sample

size was large enough to adequately be representatives of the general congregation

population. The selection of the financial supporters was based on respondents that

always or regularly tithed to the church. The researcher felt that the data gained from this

group would provide valid information for the Seekers Chapel relocation program.

The data in TABLE 1 “PARTICIPATION IN TITHING” are the results from

question 18 of the survey instrument. The information in TABLE 1 is the general

congregation sample population participation in tithing. The column ranking in TABLE

1 represents the ranking selections of the respondents. Valid responses are the actual

responses to the survey question. Valid responses were on a scale of one through five

with a not applicable and a “do not know” option. A respondent's selection of number

one represents the respondent seldom tithes. A respondent's selection of number two

34

represents the respondent occasionally tithes. A respondent's selection of number three

represents the respondent frequently tithes. A respondent's selection of number four

represents the respondent regularly tithes. A respondent's selection of number five

represents the respondent always tithes. The missing values indicate that there was no

response or the respondent choose not applicable or do not know. The frequency column

of TABLE 1 is the results for the total sample population. The frequency column

includes the results for all the response options and the number of non responses to the

question regarding tithing. The percentage column of TABLE 1 provides of the

percentage totals of the complete general congregation sample population responses. The

response of seldom for the complete general congregation sample population of 121

surveys was five percent. The column valid percentage in TABLE 1 only tabulates the

number of surveys that had valid responses in the scale from one to five. The total

number of valid responses for the general congregation that provided a number selection

between one and five was 102 surveys. The response of seldom in TABLE 1 for the valid

responses of the general congregation’s 102 surveys was 5.9 percent.

TABLE 1

35

6 5.0 5.9

6 5.0 5.9

10 8.3 9.8

26 21.5 25.5

54 44.6 52.9

102 84.3 100.0

9 7.4

5 4.1

5 4.1

19 15.7

121 100.0

S eld om

O cassionally

F requ ently

R egulary

A lw ays

Total

Valid

N o R esp on ceN otA p p licab le

D o N ot K n ow

Total

M issin g

Total

Ra nking F req u en cy P ercen tValid

P ercen t

PA RTIC IPATIO N IN TITH ING

The researcher used the demographic criteria of tithing to determine the demographic

criteria for the general congregation sample population. The researcher used TABLE 1 to

select 80 respondents of the 102 participants of the general congregation that answered

question 18 in the survey instrument regarding how often they tithe. The researcher took

the group of 54 participants that “always” tithe and the group of 26 participants that

“regularly” tithe. These two groups made up 77.4 percent of the total valid responses for

the general congregation sample population. The researcher felt these respondents

regardless of membership status are the main supporters of Seekers Chapel.

The anticipated result of congregation members participating in tithing was higher

than the researcher anticipated. This general congregation sample population provided a

solid basis for developing the percentages associated with the options for the three

sections evaluating the building.

36

The classroom section of the survey instrument has nine criteria for the respondents to

consider for evaluation. These nine criteria will provide a ranking system for the building

committee. The survey results for each of the criteria will determine how well the current

facility’s classrooms meet the criteria and rank the importance of the nine criteria for

consideration in the future facility classrooms. This ranking will assist the building

committee in determining the order of importance for addressing these issues in the

future facility’s classrooms.

The participants were asked to respond in the classroom evaluation section of the

survey instrument to nine specific criteria relating to the current and future facility. In

this classroom section of the survey instrument the respondents had to evaluate the nine

criteria for both the current facility’s classrooms and the future facility’s classrooms. The

nine criteria in the classroom section of the survey instrument regarding the current

facility were to determine areas that needed improvement for Seekers Chapel’s future

facility. The nine criteria in the classroom section of the survey instrument regarding the

future facility were to determine the importance of each criteria for our future facility.

The ranking for both current and future facility’s classrooms ranged from responses of

one low, two moderately low, three moderate, four moderately high and five high.

The data in TABLE 2 is a comparison of the general congregation and servant sample

populations responses for evaluating and ranking the nine criteria of the current facility’s

classrooms. The information in TABLE 2 is how general congregation and servants

evaluate and rank the nine criteria of the classrooms in the current facility. The

arrangement of the nine criteria in TABLE 2 is in ascending order of lowest ranking

37

criteria to highest ranking criteria to identify the weakest aspect of our current facility’s

classrooms. The ranking order in TABLE 2 will use the general congregations mean

ranking scores for display of lowest ranked criteria to highest ranked criteria. The general

congregation’s lowest mean score is the first criteria listed in TABLE 2. The researcher

in TABLE 2 will place the appropriate servant ranking for the criteria next to the general

congregations ranking. The servant’s rank order of the nine criteria will not follow an

ascending or descending order. The purpose of listing the servant ranking is to show the

differences in the responses between the two groups. A number one represents a low

evaluation response of the current facility’s classrooms. A number two represents

moderately low evaluation response of the current facility’s classrooms. A number three

represents moderate evaluation response of the current facility’s classrooms. A number

four represents moderately high evaluation response of the current facility’s classrooms.

A number five represents high evaluation response of the current facility’s classrooms.

The decimal point following the number pinpoints the actual placement in the above

discussed range.

The highlights in yellow in TABLE 2 are the lowest ranking criteria for the current

facility’s classroom evaluation of the general congregation and the servant sample

population. The data in TABLE 2 has a variation in the ranking of the lowest criteria

between the general congregation and the servant’s sample population. The general

congregation ranked the criteria “Highly visible” lowest of the nine criteria with the

mean score of 2.03 and the servant’s ranked the criteria “Handicap use” lowest of the

nine criteria for the current facility’s classroom with a mean score of 1.55. Comparisons

38

in TABLE 2 between the general congregation’s and the servant’s rankings of the nine

criteria of the current facility’s classrooms will assist the building committee in

identifying areas of perception differences. The building committee can then decide how

to appropriately address the differences in ranking order and differences in ranking

scores for the same criteria.

TABLE 2CURRENT CLASSROOM EVALUATION

COMPASION OF GENERAL CONGREGATION & SERVANTSCriteria General Congregation

Mean ScoreServants

Mean ScoreHighly visible 2.03 2.19Handicap use 2.14 1.55Adequate number 2.30 1.77Adequate size 2.31 1.73Appropriate furniture 2.90 2.32Easily accessed 3.03 2.67Good Heating/Air 3.53 3.55Lighting 3.60 3.32Warm and inviting 3.77 3.41

The highlights in green in TABLE 2 are the highest ranking criteria for the current

facility’s classroom evaluation of the general congregation and the servant sample

population. The general congregation sample population ranked the criteria “Warm and

inviting” the highest with the mean score of 3.77. The servant sample population ranked

the criteria “Good Heating/Air” the highest with the mean score of 3.55.

The data in TABLE 3 is the general congregation’s and servant’s sample population

comparison of both groups’ responses for evaluating and ranking the nine criteria of the

future facility’s classrooms. The data in TABLE 3 is how the general congregation and

servants evaluate and rank the importance of the nine criteria for classrooms in the future

39

facility. The arrangement of nine criteria in TABLE 3 is in descending order of highest

to lowest ranking based on the general congregation’s mean ranking scores. The general

congregation’s highest mean score is the first criteria listed in TABLE 3. The researcher


congregation’s ranking. The servant’s rank order of the nine criteria will not follow a

descending or ascending order. The purpose of listing the servant ranking is for the

differences in the responses between the two groups. A number five represents high

importance response evaluation for the future facility’s classrooms. A number four

represents moderately high importance response evaluation for the future facility’s

classrooms. A number three represents moderate importance response evaluation for the

future facility’s classrooms. A number two represents moderately low importance

response evaluation for the future facility’s classrooms. A number one represents a low

importance response evaluation for the future facility classrooms. The decimal point

following the number pinpoints the actual placement in the above discussed range.

The highlights in green in TABLE 3 are the highest ranking criteria for the future

facility classroom evaluation of the general congregation and the servant sample

population. The data in TABLE 3 has a variation in the ranking of the highest criteria

between the general congregation and the servants sample population. The general

congregation ranked the criteria “Adequate number” in TABLE 3 the highest with the

mean score of 4.76. The servant’s ranked the criteria “Warm and inviting” in TABLE 3

the highest with the mean score of 4.87. Comparisons in TABLE 3 between the two

groups’ rankings of the nine criteria for the future facility’s classroom’s will assist the

40

building committee in identifying areas of importance differences. The building

committee can then decide how to appropriately address the differences in ranking order

and differences in ranking scores for the same criteria.

TABLE 3FUTURE CLASSROOM EVALUATION


Mean ScoreServants

Mean ScoreAdequate number 4.76 4.86Warm and inviting 4.73 4.87Lighting 4.73 4.50Adequate size 4.73 4.86Good Heating/Air 4.72 4.77Handicap use 4.54 4.52Appropriate furniture 4.44 4.68Easily accessed 4.44 4.61Highly visible 4.03 4.45

The highlights in yellow in TABLE 3 are the lowest ranking criteria for the future

facility classroom evaluation of the general congregation and the servant sample

population. The general congregation sample population ranked the criteria “Highly

visible” for the future facility’s classrooms the lowest with the mean score of 4.03. The

servant sample population ranked the criteria “Highly visible” for the future facility’s

classrooms the lowest with the mean score of 4.45.

The sanctuary evaluation section of the survey instrument has 16 criteria for the

respondents to consider for evaluation. These 16 criteria will provide a ranking system

for the building committee. The survey results for each of the criteria will determine how

well the current facility’s sanctuary meet the criteria and rank the importance of the 16

41

criteria for consideration in the future facility’s sanctuary. This ranking will assist the

building committee in determining the order of importance for addressing these issues in

the future facility’s sanctuary.

The participants were asked to respond in the sanctuary evaluation section of the

survey instrument to 16 specific criteria relating to the current and future facility. In this

sanctuary section of the survey instrument the respondents had to evaluate the 16 criteria

for both the current facility’s sanctuary and the future facility’s sanctuary. The 16 criteria

in the sanctuary section of the survey instrument regarding the current facility were to

determine areas that needed improvement for our future facility. The 16 criteria in the

sanctuary section of the survey instrument regarding the future facility were to determine

the importance of each criteria for Seekers Chapel’s future facility. The ranking for both

current and future facility’s sanctuary ranged from responses of one low, two moderately

low, three moderate, four moderately high and five high.


comparison of both group's responses for evaluating and ranking the 16 criteria of the

current facility’s sanctuary. The information in TABLE 4 is how the general

congregation’s and servant’s evaluate and rank the 16 criteria of the sanctuary in the

current facility. The arrangement of 16 criteria in TABLE 4 is in ascending order of

lowest to highest ranking based on the general congregation’s mean ranking scores. The

general congregation’s lowest mean score is the first criteria listed in TABLE 4. The

researcher in TABLE 4 will place the appropriate servant ranking for the criteria next to

the general congregation’s ranking. The servant’s rank order of the 16 criteria will not

42

follow an ascending or descending order. The purpose of listing the servant ranking is to

show the differences in the responses between the two groups. A number one represents a

low evaluation response of the current facility’s sanctuary. A number two represents

moderately low evaluation response of the current facility’s sanctuary. A number three

represents moderate evaluation response of the current facility’s sanctuary. A number

four represents moderately high evaluation response of the current facility’s sanctuary. A

number five represents high evaluation response of the current facility’s sanctuary. The

decimal point following the number pinpoints the actual placement the above discussed

range.


facility’s sanctuary evaluation of the general congregation and the servant sample

population. The data in TABLE 4 has a variation in ranking of the lowest criteria

between the general congregation and the servant’s sample population. The general

congregation ranked the criteria “Adequate windows Natural Light” lowest with the

mean score of 1.72 and the servant’s ranked the criteria “Baptistery” lowest in the current

facility’s classrooms with a mean score of 1.46. Comparison in TABLE 4 between the

general congregation’s and servant’s rankings of the 16 criteria of the current facility’s

sanctuary will assist the building committee in identifying areas of perception

differences. The building committee can then decide how to appropriately address the

differences in ranking order and differences in ranking scores for the same criteria.

TABLE 4CURRENT SANCTURY EVALUATION

COMPASION OF GENERAL CONGREGATION & SERVANTS

43

Criteria General CongregationMean Score

ServantsMean Score

Adequate windows Natural Light

1.72 1.80

Baptistery 1.84 1.46Adequate band area 2.68 2.09Adequate stage 2.83 2.68Easy to find 2.96 2.30Adequate size 3.01 2.64Good sound 3.08 2.95Appropriate furniture 3.26 3.00Adequate seating 3.32 2.86Comfort 3.38 3.38Handicap use 3.40 3.00Good Heating/Air 3.49 3.64Easily accessed 3.52 3.14Lighting 3.69 3.73Warm and Inviting 3.75 3.29Podium visibility 3.96 3.73


facility’s sanctuary evaluation of the general congregation and the servant sample

population. The general congregation sample population ranked the criteria “Podium

visibility” the highest with the mean score of 3.96. The servant sample population

ranked the criteria “Podium visibility” and “Lighting” the highest with the mean score of

3.73.



future facility’s sanctuary. The data in TABLE 5 is how the general congregation and

servants evaluate and rank the importance of the 16 criteria for the sanctuary in the future

facility. The arrangement of 16 criteria in TABLE 5 is in descending order of highest to

44

lowest ranking based on the general congregations mean ranking scores. The general

congregation’s highest mean score is the first criteria listed in TABLE 5. The researcher


congregation’s ranking. The servant’s rank order of the 16 criteria will not follow a

descending or ascending order. The purpose of listing the servant ranking is to show the


importance response evaluation for the future facility’s sanctuary. A number four

represents moderately high importance response evaluation for the future facility’s

sanctuary. A number three represents moderate importance response evaluation for the

future facility’s sanctuary. A number two represents moderately low importance response

evaluation for the future facility’s sanctuary. A number one represents a low importance

response evaluation for the future facility’s sanctuary. The decimal point following the

number pinpoints the actual placement the above discussed range.


facility sanctuary evaluation of the general congregation and the servant sample

population. The data in TABLE 5 has a variation in the ranking of the highest criteria

between the general congregation and the servant sample population The general

congregation ranked the criteria “Warm and inviting” in TABLE 5 the highest with the

mean score of 4.82. The servants ranked three criteria “Warm and inviting," “Adequate

seating”, and “Podium visibility” in TABLE 5 the highest with the mean score of 4.86.

The building committee will need to review these multiple elections and prioritize them

into the 16 criteria ranking order of importance. Comparisons in TABLE 5 between the

45

two group’s rankings of the 16 criteria for the future facility’s sanctuary will assist the

building committee in identifying areas of importance differences. The building

committee can then decide how to appropriately address the differences in ranking order

and differences in ranking scores for the same criteria.

TABLE 5FUTURE SANCTURY EVALUATION


Mean ScoreServants

Mean ScoreWarm and Inviting 4.82 4.86Adequate seating 4.78 4.86Adequate size 4.78 4.82Good sound 4.76 4.77Lighting 4.70 4.67Good Heating/Air 4.68 4.68Easily accessed 4.64 4.77Adequate stage 4.64 4.71Podium visibility 4.64 4.86Handicap use 4.63 4.55Easy to find 4.58 4.68Appropriate furniture 4.48 4.67Comfort 4.46 4.73Adequate band area 4.40 4.55Adequate windows Natural Light

4.36 4.59

Baptistery 4.12 4.35

The highlights in yellow in TABLE 5 are the lowest ranking criteria for the future

facility sanctuary evaluation of the general congregation and the servant sample

population. The general congregation sample population ranked the criteria “Baptistery”

for the future facility’s sanctuary the lowest with the mean score of 4.12. The servant

46

sample population ranked the criteria “Baptistery” for the future facility’s sanctuary the

lowest with the mean score of 4.35.

The building evaluation section of the survey instrument has 23 criteria for the

respondents to consider for evaluation. These 23 criteria will provide a ranking system

for the building committee. The survey results for each of the criteria will determine how

well the current building meets the criteria and ranks the importance of the 23 criteria

for consideration in the future building. This ranking will assist the building committee

in determining the order of importance for addressing these issues in the future building.

The participants were asked to respond in the building evaluation section of the

survey instrument to 23 specific criteria relating to the current and future building. In this

building section of the survey instrument the respondents had to evaluate the 23 criteria

for both the current building and the future building. The 23 criteria in the building

section of the survey instrument regarding the current building were to determine areas

that needed improvement for our future building. The 23 criteria in the building section

of the survey instrument regarding the future building were to determine the importance

of each criteria for Seekers Chapel’s future building. The ranking for both current and

future building ranged from responses of one low, two moderately low, three moderate,

four moderately high and five high.



current building. The information in TABLE 6 is how the general congregation and

servant’s evaluate and rank the 23 criteria of the current building. The arrangement of 23

47

criteria in TABLE 6 is in ascending order of lowest to highest ranking based on the

general congregation’s mean ranking scores. The general congregation’s lowest mean

score is the first criteria listed in TABLE 6. The researcher in TABLE 6 will place the

appropriate servant ranking for the criteria next to the general congregation’s ranking.

The servant’s rank order of the 23 criteria will not follow an ascending or descending

order. The purpose of listing the servant ranking is to show the differences in the

responses between the two groups. A number one represents a low evaluation response of

the current building. A number two represents moderately low evaluation response of the

current building. A number three represents moderate evaluation response of the current

building. A number four represents moderately high evaluation response of the current

building. A number five represents high evaluation response of the current building. The


range.

The data in TABLE 6 has several criteria italicized. These criteria “Ball diamond,”

“Gym,” “Library,” “ Kitchen,” “Playground,” “Weekly preschool,” and “elementary

school” are not amenities that exist in the current facility. The mean scores shown on the

table reflect only a few responses that occurred from both general congregation and

servant’s that selected a number instead of the not applicable response.


building evaluation of the general congregation and the servant sample population. The

general congregation ranked the criteria “Visibility from street” in TABLE 6 lowest with

the mean score of 1.62 and the servant’s ranked the criteria “Visibility from street”

48

lowest in the current facility’s classrooms with a mean score of 1.10 . Comparisons in

TABLE 6 between the two group's rankings of the 23 criteria of the current facility’s

classrooms will assist the building committee in identifying areas of perception

differences. The building committee can then decide how to appropriately address.

TABLE 6CURRENT BUILDING EVALUATION


Mean ScoreServants

Mean Score Ball diamond 1.52 1.00Gym 1.55 1.00Library 1.56 1.17Kitchen area 1.58 1.00Visibility from street 1.62 1.10Playground 1.65 1.00Weekly preschool 1.74 1.00Elementary school 1.76 1.00Storage Areas 2.03 1.56Easy to find 2.21 1.64Cabinets 2.38 1.89Fellowship hall 2.45 2.10Meeting rooms 2.46 2.07Adequate staff offices 2.63 1.55Handicap use 2.63 2.26Prayer facility 2.84 2.46Bathrooms 2.87 2.15Easily accessed 3.10 2.32Stairs 3.12 2.83Good sound 3.25 2.95Lighting 3.53 3.57Good Heating/Air 3.59 3.52Adequate parking 3.97 3.57

49



general congregation sample population ranked the criteria “Adequate parking” the

highest with the mean score of 3.97. The servant sample population ranked the criteria

“Adequate parking” and “Lighting” the highest with the mean score of 3.57.



future building. The data in TABLE 7 is how the general congregation’s and servant’s

evaluate and rank the importance of the 23 criteria for future building. The arrangement

of 23 criteria in TABLE 7 is in descending order of highest to lowest importance ranking

based on the general congregation’s mean ranking scores. The general congregation’s

highest mean score is the first criteria listed in TABLE 7. The researcher in TABLE 7

will place the appropriate servant ranking for the criteria next to the general

congregations ranking. The servant’s rank order of the 23 criteria will not follow a

descending or ascending order. The purpose of listing the servant ranking is to show the


importance response evaluation for the future building. A number four represents

moderately high importance response evaluation for the future building. A number three

represents moderate importance response evaluation for the future building. A number

two represents moderately low importance response evaluation for the future building. A

number one represents a low importance response evaluation for the future building. The

50


range.



data in TABLE 7 has a variation in the ranking of the highest criteria between the general

congregation and the servant’s sample population. The general congregation ranked the

criteria “Good Heating/Air” highest with the mean score of 4.74 and the servant’s ranked

the criteria “Visibility from street” highest with the mean score of 4.86. Comparisons in

TABLE 7 between the two group’s rankings of the 23 criteria for the future building will

assist the building committee in identifying areas of importance differences. The

building committee can then decide how to appropriately address the differences in

ranking order and differences in ranking scores for the same criteria.

51

TABLE 7FUTURE BUILDING EVALUATION


Mean ScoreServants

Mean ScoreGood Heating/Air 4.74 4.76Adequate parking 4.71 4.76Good sound 4.70 4.65Lighting 4.69 4.62Bathrooms 4.59 4.57Fellowship hall 4.57 4.55Easily accessed 4.55 4.76Adequate staff offices 4.54 4.76Handicap use 4.50 4.63Easy to find 4.49 4.71Playground 4.44 4.75Meeting rooms 4.38 4.50Visibility from street 4.33 4.86Prayer facility 4.31 4.35Kitchen area 4.27 4.76Cabinets 4.05 4.35Weekly preschool 4.03 3.80Stairs 4.02 4.44Storage Areas 4.02 4.47Elementary school 3.91 3.80Gym 3.89 4.11Library 3.79 3.80Ball diamond 3.68 3.65



general congregation sample population ranked the criteria “Ball diamond” for the future

building the highest with the mean score of 3.68. The servant sample population ranked

the criteria “Ball diamond” for the future building the highest with the mean score of

3.65.

52

The researcher’s second objective for the research was to establish specific facility

information for the building committee to develop an integrated building solution. The

information in TABLE 8, TABLE 9, TABLE 10, TABLE 11, and TABLE 12 will assist

the committee in establishing the type of program for Seekers Chapel’s relocation into a

new facility and the building size. This information in TABLE 8, TABLE 9, TABLE 10,

TABLE 11, and TABLE 12 combined with the information in the previous seven tables

will assist the building committee in assessing the cost of the project.

The data in TABLE 8 and TABLE 9 will determine the capacity needs of the new

facility. The building committee can then evaluate the square footage and perform cost

analysis for the new facility.


comparison of the size of the future sanctuary. A number one represents a future

sanctuary size of 200-350. A number two represents a future sanctuary size of 351-500.

A number three represents a future sanctuary size of 501-750. A number four represents

a future sanctuary size of 751-1000. A number five represents a future sanctuary size of

1001-1500. The decimal point following the number pinpoints the actual placement of

the discussed range.

TABLE 8 FUTURE SANCTUARY SIZE EXPECTATION

COMPARISON OF GENERAL CONGREGATION AND SERVANT’S

53

Criteria General Congregation Mean Score

Servants Mean Score

Sanctuary Size 2.66 3.36

The data in TABLE 8 has a slight variation in the comparison of the general

congregation and the servant sample population. The general congregation ranked the

future sanctuary size with a mean score of 2.66.


comparison of the maximum capacity for future classrooms. A number one represents a

future classroom capacity of 10. A number two represents a future classroom capacity of

15. A number three represents a future classroom capacity of 20. A number four

represents a future classroom capacity of 25. A number five represents a future classroom

capacity of 30. The decimal point following the number pinpoints the actual placement

of the discussed range.

TABLE 9 MAXIMUM CLASSROOM CAPACITY


Criteria General Congregation Mean Score

Servant’s Mean Score

Classroom capacity 3.17 3.27

The data in TABLE 9 has little variation in the comparison of the general

congregation and the servant sample population. The general congregation ranked the

future sanctuary size with a mean score of 3.17. The servants ranked the future sanctuary

size with a mean score of 3.27.

54

The data in TABLE 10 presents options for the building committee to consider as

contingencies for the Seekers Chapel relocation. The church relocation process flexibility

will be evidence of seeking God’s wisdom of how to proceed for Seekers Chapels next

facility.


comparison of relocation options into a future facility. A number one represents a low

desire for this option. A number two represents a moderately low desire for this option.

A number three represents a moderate desire for this option. A number four represents a

moderately high desire for this option. A number four represents a high desire for this

option. The decimal point following the number pinpoints the actual placement of the

discussed range.

TABLE 10RELOCATION OPTIONS


Options General Congregation Mean Score

Servant’s Mean Score

Buy land and immediately build 4.47 4.00Buy an existing church facility 3.55 3.39Rent any facility and buy land 2.94 2.09Buy a school facility 2.61 3.18Share a facility with another church 1.75 1.52Stay in current facility 1.59 1.19Rent larger business park facility 1.40 1.14

The data in TABLE 10 has a variation in the ranking of some of the options for

relocation. The primary option in TABLE 10 is to “Buy land and immediately build. The

55

general congregation ranked this option with a mean score of 4.47. The servants ranked

this option with a mean score of 4.00.

The lowest option for relocation in TABLE 10 has a variation in ranking between the

general congregation and the servant’s. In TABLE 10 the general congregation ranked

the option “Rent larger business park facility” with a mean score of 1.40. In TABLE 10

the servant’s ranked the option “Rent larger business park facility” with a mean score of

1.14.

The data in TABLE 11 and TABLE 12 provide information on how prepared the

congregation of Seekers Chapel is for this relocation. The information in TABLE 11 and

TABLE 12 will allow the building committee to develop an action plan to assist the

congregation in understanding the parameters that will provide the facility that best meets

the ministry needs of Seekers Chapel.


comparison of the maximum cost of the building project. A number one represents the

maximum cost for the new building should be $ 750,000.00 dollars. A number two

represents the maximum cost for the new building should be $ 1 million dollars. A

number three represents the maximum cost for the new building should be $ 1.5 million

dollars. A number four represents the maximum cost for the new building should be $ 2

million dollars. A number five represents the cost for the new building to be over $ 3

million dollars. The decimal point following the number pinpoints the actual placement

of the discussed range.

56

TABLE 11 MAXIMUM COST OF BUILDING PROJECT

COMPARISON OF GENERAL CONGREGATION AND SERVANT’SCriteria General Congregation

Mean ScoreServants

Mean ScoreMaximum Cost 3.17 4.06

The data in TABLE 11 has a variation in the comparison of the general congregation

and the servant sample population. The general congregation ranked the “Maximum

Cost” with a mean score of 3.17. The servants ranked the “Maximum Cost” with a

mean score of 4.06.


comparison of the length of building project. A number one in represents the project's

length should be 6 months. A number two in represents the project's length should be 1

year. A number three in represents the project's length should be 1.5 years. A number

four in represents the project's length should be 2 years. A number five in represents the

project's length should be 2.5 years. The decimal point following the number pinpoints

the actual placement of the discussed range.

TABLE 12 LENGTH OF BUILDING PROJECT


Criteria General Congregation Servants

57

Mean Score Mean ScoreLength of project 3.24 3.70

The data in TABLE 12 has a variation in the comparison of the general congregation

and the servant sample population. The general congregation ranked the “Length of

Project” with a mean score of 3.24. The servant’s ranked the “Length of Project” with a

mean score of 3.70

The researcher's expectations were to have the a majority of the congregation fill out

the survey instrument. The researcher's expectations were exceeded with having 150

survey instruments completed. The researcher had expected that certain sections of the

survey instrument would not be completed. The researcher was pleased that the majority

of the survey instruments sections were completely properly.

The researcher expected the current facility evaluations for the classrooms, sanctuary,

and building to be low in ranking scores. The research showed that the respondents

ranked the current facility moderate to moderately low in the evaluation of the criteria for

the current facility as the researcher expected. The researcher expected the future facility

evaluations for the classrooms, sanctuary and building to be high side in ranking scores.

The research showed that the respondents ranked the future facility moderately high in

importance to high importance of the criteria for the future facility as the researcher

expected. The researcher expected the results of the survey regarding the congregation’s

understanding of the length of the project and cost of the project was exactly how the

results of the survey data actually occurred.

Conclusions

58


committee of Seekers Chapel Church in developing the criteria for a new facility. The

needs assessment will consider long term growth, the congregations financial awareness,

determining the facility requirements that best match the church vision and congregation

interest.

The research objectives were clearly met and the data provided insightful information

into determining the facility requirements and congregation's interest. The data builds on

the literature’s insights to provide the Seekers Chapel building committee with

information to assist in planning Seekers Chapel’s relocation. The general congregation

and servants data regarding sanctuary size, and classroom size provides the building

committee with the long term consideration necessary for planning the relocation.

The researchers' expectations were met and exceeded by the abundant response to the

survey and the effort the congregation made in responding to all the questions asked. The

researcher received valuable comments in the comment sections that will provide helpful

information to maintain clarity through this relocation planning.

The evaluation of the current facility clearly shows the limitations of the current

facility. The general congregation’s desire for playground facilities and kitchen areas also

supports the limitations of the current facility. The limited visibility of the current

facility, and access to the current facility also emphasizes the limitations of the facility.

The literature supports the need for a church facility to accentuate the church ministry

strengths. The current facility from the data gained shows the current facility's limitations

for serving the church's ministry needs.

59

Planning is critical for the building committee as was discovered in the literature.

This data provides the building committee with a stating point in planning for the new

facility. The literature emphasized that clear direction is critical for a successful new

building program. Finding the direction often takes valuable time that the committee

really cannot afford. The data helps eliminate some of the potential for initial

misdirection or floundering that could occur with any type of committee group.

Procedurally, performing the research project in a small task force setting could be

more effective and include more information. One person performing research in the

church can create several areas of potential problems. The researcher is looking at the

situation only from the researcher's perspective. Tunnel vision is a dilemma that a single

researcher can present in this type of project. It is difficult to say if this has occurred in

this project. The researcher attempted to remain sensitive to this throughout the project.

Small groups can generate creativity by using brain storming to address critical issues

associated with such a project This is particularly evident in the survey design. After

administering the survey to the congregation some participants suggested interesting

additions that would benefit the research if included. The comment sections were helpful

in identifying areas not covered in the survey and made comments regarding the area

missed. The researcher did not gain the benefit of a collective response from the total

survey population regarding the missed items due to only few people that commenting on

the missed items. The survey instrument was confusing for a few individuals who

incorrectly selected items and some became discouraged and did not complete the

survey. In the evaluation sections some of the participants felt that the criteria had some

60

redundancy. This was mainly due to the sanctuary and the building being separate

independent sections in the survey. The current facility is small and the sanctuary

encompasses a majority of the building. The congregation participates primarily in

activities in the sanctuary. Between the sanctuary and the classrooms that encompasses

ninety percent of the building. The section was still important to review for future

amenities so it was import for the research.

The church is ready for a new facility. The church congregation has provided the

leadership of the church with the necessary information to actively pursue planning the

relocation process. The information provides the building committee the necessary

criteria to design a plan with clear direction for a new facility. Effective accomplishment

of this can occur by assembling all the information in the evaluation areas and writing

out the criteria for space and amenities that will best serve Seekers Chapel. Ranking

criteria the classroom, sanctuary and building sections of the survey instrument will

require careful consideration. Rounding mean scores into whole numbers using the

rounding method of above or below.5 percentage could rank the mean scores of the

general congregation and the servant sample population into a different ranking response.

Rounding can effect the comparison of two groups score regarding a criteria. The general

congregation sample population may score a criteria at 3.59 that would round up to a

four. The servant sample population may score a criteria at 3.47 that would round down

to a three. The response level changes between the two groups and the building

committee might consider further discussions of the difference to evaluate how to

proceed. Proceeding may require discussions with church leadership regarding the

61

change and if this should be considered significant. The purpose of evaluating the current

classrooms, sanctuary and building are to better understand a basis for each of the group's

perception. The perception rankings provide a benchmark to assist the building

committee in designing the future facility’s classrooms, sanctuary and building.

Understanding the importance evaluation of the criteria for the future classrooms,

sanctuary and building provides a valuation to how critical the criteria are for

consideration in the new facility.

The data in TABLE 8, TABLE 9, assisted the researcher in providing the building

committee with specific information for consideration regarding the size of the future

facility. The data in TABLE 8 indicates that the general congregation and the servant’s

expectations for the sanctuary size should be 501-750 in capacity. The data in TABLE 9

indicates that the general congregation and the servant’s expectations for the classroom

size should be 20 in capacity.

The data in TABLE 10 provides the building committee with the primary choice for

how to proceed regarding which option for relocation to consider. The response of a

number four regarding “Buy land and immediately build” in TABLE 10 indicates the

general congregation’s and the servant’s sample populations feel moderately high in

importance in desiring this as the primary option for the building committee to consider

for Seekers Chapel’s relocation.

The general congregation’s familiarity with financial matters in a church setting also

created some difficulty for the congregation to respond to certain questions in the survey.

The comments from these questions and the lack of response to the questions provide the

62

building committee with data to support the need to heighten the congregation's

awareness in this area. Unfortunately the information desired to be obtained suffered due

to the general congregation’s limited knowledge. This limitation also existed in timing

necessary for the length of the project.

The data in TABLE 11 provides the building committee with information to assist in

determining the perceptions the general congregation and the servants have regarding the

cost of the project. The data in TABLE 11 indicates that the general congregation

estimate of cost should be 1.5 million dollars and the servants estimate the cost should be

two million dollars. The building committee needs to further discus and evaluate the

differences in perceptions regarding the cost of the building project. Proceeding may

require discussions with church leadership regarding the change and if the change should

be considered significant. The building committee needs to assess the information in the

previous tables to determine the evaluation criteria impact in cost with the size of the

classrooms and the sanctuary. The building committee will need to perform a cost

analysis and then inform the general congregation and the servants of the cost for the

desires that the survey results provided for the importance criteria and the size of the

classrooms and the sanctuary. The building committee will need to determine how to

deal with any variations regarding the cost of the project and work with the church

leadership and congregation on how to proceed. The cost of the project can impact the

motivation and the support of the congregation. The literature review also cautions that

cost should not impact the effectiveness of the ministry of the church by reallocation

funds from ministry to the building program.

63

The data in TABLE 12 provides the building committee with information to assist in

determining the perceptions the general congregation and the servants have regarding the

length of the project. Rounding the raking of the general congregation’s estimate

regarding the length of the project is 1.5 years. Rounding the servants’ estimate

regarding the length of the project is two years. The building committee needs to further

discus and evaluates the differences in perceptions regarding the length of time of the

building project. Proceeding may require discussions with church leadership regarding

the change and if the change should be considered significant. The length of the project

impacts the motivation and support of the congregation. The length of time also can

impact the cost of the total project.

The data obtained from the research provides the researcher with these findings.

·The congregation recognizes the limitations of our current facility and is

ready for a new building.

·The interest of the church is to have a very complete facility.

·The congregation will need to gain a greater awareness of the financial

needs to have a facility that meets with the criteria that they expressed.

·The majority of the congregation are financially committed to the church.

·The congregation responses to the survey instrument have provided the building

committee with vital information needed for planning Seekers Chapels future

facility.

The church will have a major financial undertaking that will require a tremendous

amount of faith. The church will need to have patience while going through the process

64

of transition going from planning, to implementing the plan, to construction, and

relocation.

Recommendations

Policy recommendations. The building committee should obtain church planning

resource material from A Comprehensive Guide to Church Construction (Miller, 1995)

and Church Building Source Book. (Bowman, 1987) The researcher recommends these

for their comprehensive step by step planning development format. The information from

the research regarding the criteria evaluating the facility for “warm and inviting” is an

area that these resources discuss. The resources make suggestions on improving how to

make your facility more warm and inviting. The handicap information from the research

is important in regards to accommodating their needs. Having a two story facility

consideration of an elevator placement in the facility is critical. These resources assist

building committees in addressing handicap issues and other issues that the committee

might fail to consider. The information is critical to planning a facility that specifically

meets Seekers Chapel’s facility needs. The building committee can use the planning

information from these resources and apply the data from this research project. The

information for classroom size in TABLE 9 maximum number of students in a classroom

can be inputted in a formula found in these resources to determine the square footage

needed for 20 students. The sanctuary size in TABLE 8 of 501-750 seating capacity

number can influence bathroom requirements based on the number of people per

bathroom ration found in these resources. The sanctuary size in TABLE 8 of 501-750

seating capacity can influence parking facilities requirements which these resources

65

provide formulas to determine the proper parking lot size. These are a few examples of

how the two resources mentioned can assist the building committee in effectively

planning Seekers Chapels future facility.

When the building committee finds out the necessary information regarding the

relationships between the information in the survey and the physical size of a facility that

meets the findings of the research the building committee should use outside input from

construction management professionals regarding estimates of cost for construction. This

initial cost analysis needs to be performed prior to any architectural drawings are

considered. After obtaining the cost analysis strategic planning needs to occur in

preparing the congregation to assist in meeting the challenges of obtaining adequate

financing for the project.

The building committee should consider the length of time factor in regards to the

size of the project. The building committee should not circumvent proper initial planning

in order to meet the time estimates provided in the survey. The research literature

emphasizes the importance of planning. The building committee and the church

leadership may need to consider extensions on the lease of our current facility or an

interim move in order to spend adequate time in planning for the new facility.

Recommendations for future research. The research project did not cover many

aspects of the church relocation process. There are many items for consideration the

researcher discovered while researching the specific objective for this research project.

The researcher recommends for future research, to research the financial opportunities

in church construction for innovative types of financing. The financial addition should

66

include stewardship programs for preparing the church congregation financially for a

church relocation.

The researcher recommends for future research, to research the impact and influences

cities have on a church’s relocation. This research should include trails experienced due

to not properly investigating all the local government's guidelines, codes and ordinances.

This research should include investigating long term city planning and problems

associated with long term planning agendas. The planning is important part of this

additional research regarding cities for current zoning and future zoning. The cities’

plans for future freeways, flood controls or business developments, particularly

industrial, create dilemmas for churchs years after their construction. This research

should include negotiations with cities and avoiding excessive fees or fines.

The researcher recommends for future research, to research the importance of site

location and previous use issues. The previous use could be where several small

businesses operated and ownership changed periodically. The research could emphasize

importance of title information and history of business licenses with the site address. In

depth investigation and information gathering is critical for churches in property

consideration due to environmental hazards that might exist because of previous use This

research should include the financial impacts that can occur due to discovered

environmental hazards found during the construction process. This research should

include the impact of grading requirements due the terrain, drainage or soils conditions.

This research should include identifiers that indicate how to evaluate property that has

never been developed due to the cost of development. This research should include how

67

architects will provide unique building designs to complement the a difficult terrain yet

fail to consider the cost of construction. Real estate is location oriented. This research

should include criteria for determining the proper location.

The researcher recommends for future research, to research the dealing with

professional encountered in the church relocation process. This research should include

how to communicate and negotiate specialized professions; Realtors, architects,

stewardship consultants, building consultants, lawyers, bankers and builders. This

research should include how to work with church members that assume one or several of

these professional roles during the relocation. Interfacing with each of the professionals

often requires a variety of communication methods. If the professional is a church

member the communication becomes often more complex and unfortunately political.

This research should include information on common practices of these professions

including specific terminology that is used by similar professionals yet has different

definitions. This research should address common problems encountered when dealing

with each of these professionals in the relocation process and helpful suggestions that

could assist in having a positive outcome and good witness for Christ. It is common for

builders who have subcontracted for churches to have disgust for the church from the

experience of working with the church.

The researcher has attempted to diligently present the important information that

specifically addresses facility requirements. The needs assessment provided the

congregation’s insight into the size of facility for future growth. The research included

the congregation’s input into how much money they felt that the project would cost. The

68

research gained from the congregation their evaluation of the current facility and their

desires of a future facility. The research will assist the building committee in matching

the church's vision with the congregation's interest.

REFERENCES

Belknap, R. L. (1978). Effective Use of Church Space. Valley Forge: Judson Press.

Bowman, R. & Hall, E. (1987 Fall). When not to Build. Leadership: A Practical Journal for Church Leaders , pp. 102-105

Bowman, R. (1987) Church Building Sourcebook . Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press.

Buchan, J. (1995, May/June). The Joys & Pitfalls of Church Construction. Ministries Today. pp. 78-84

Callahan, K.L. (1983). Twelve Keys to an Effective Church. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers.

69

Clark, J. Heavenly Help Firestone Inc. Fits Five-State Need For Church Renovation. (1995 May 12.). Dallas Business Journal. Vol. 18, Issue 37, pp.B1,2p,1c.

Conover, E.M. (1948). The Church Builder. New York: Interdenominational Bureau of Architecture.

Dupray, B. (1992, June 14). To Build or Not to Build?. Christian Standard. pp.10

Dupray, B. (1996, April). Church Lending Made Easy. Brochure Church Development Fund Inc. Fullerton, CA. (Available from Church Development Fund Inc., 905 S. Euclid Street, Fullerton , CA., 92632.)

Hicks. J. For Church, Moving to Car Lot Is a Big Deal. (1996 April 18). Orange County Edition. Los Angeles Times. pp.B-2

Kelly, W. A. (1984) A Manual for Ministries on Church Building Construction. (Doctoral dissertation, Ashland Theological Seminary, D. Min ).

McGavran, D. A. (1974) Principals of Church Growth. California: William Carey Library.

Miller, J. (1995) A Comprehensive Guide to Church Construction. Kearney, NE: Morris Publishing.

Nalick, J. Community News Focus; Westminster; Vacant School to Be Leased to Church. (1994, November, 29 ) Orange County Edition. Los Angeles Times. pp.B-2

Rolfs, S. (1995, May/ June). The Hidden Cost of Environmental Hazards Ministries Today. pp. 56.

Sider, R.J. (1979). Cautious Against Ecclesiastical Elegance. Christianity Today. pp.14-19

Sillis, H. S. (1989). Possibilities in Church Relocation: Building a New Church For New Times. Local Church Development Resources. pp.11-12, 31

Wilkinson, D. (1984, Winter). Church Building and Expansion Buying Guide for Church Leaders. Christianity Today. pp.3-20

Wood H. G., Nissen, J., Carlson, T., and Thulson, S. (1985 ). Is There Life After a

70

Building Program? Leadership: A practical Journal for Church Leaders . p.126-136

APPENDIX A: CHURCH ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

71

Seekers Chapel

GOD FATHER, SON, HOLY SPIRIT

Pastor Bob Barnett

Board of Advisers:Andy AikenDan Cron

Bob Barnett

Elders:Department heads

Head UsherYouth Leaders

Pastors:Robbie CronKen WilsonBob Barnett

Youth Pastor:Ken Wilson

Worship Leader:Rob Cron

YouthHS/JR.Hi/

Y.E.

College& Career

Musicians& Sound

Choir

Congregational Ministries:Outreach, Maintenance,

Men’s & Women’s GroupsStudies, Drama

Church Groups:Pairs & Spares

Young MarriedsSecret SistersFishing Club

Women’s MinistriesMen’s Ministries

C.E. DirectorLinda Cron

C.E. Dept Heads

S.S. Teachers

CONGREGATION AT LARGE

72

APPENDIX B: RESEARCH PROJECT SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Seekers Chapel Congregational Building interest survey

1) Age

Under 20 21-29 30-45 46-59 60&Above

2) Male Female

3) Single Married Separated Divorced Widow/er 4) Children 5) Number of children

6) Student Homemaker Employed Other

7) Member Non Member Visitor 8) Estimate the number of miles one way you travel to church.

1to 5miles 6-10miles 11-15miles 16-25miles over 26 miles9) What is the maximum amount miles you are willing to travel one way to church.

1to 5miles 6-10miles 11-15miles 16-25miles over 26 miles

Reasons for attending Importance HIGH LOW 10) Pastor 11) Sunday school program 12) Grew up in the church 13) Choir 14) Family atmosphere 15) Friendships 16) Live close 17) Ministry opportunitiesOther options not listed or comments

1

A

A

2 3 4 5

5 4 3

1

A

A

2

2

1

3

NA

5 4 3 2 1 NADK

DK5 4 3 2 1 NADK5 4 3 2 1 NADK5 4 3 2 1 NADK5 4 3 2 1 NADK5 4 3 2 1 NADK5 4 3 2 1 NADK

1

A1

A

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

1

A

A

2

1

A

A

2

3 4 5

N 2Y 1 A

A

A

1 2 3 4

Survey #

5

1 2

B

3 4 5NADK

DK

1 2 3 4 5

Legend Do not Know Not Applicable General Scale

Mark Boxes with an X

Legend Do not Know No Applicable

1

A

A

2

A

A

3

A

A

4

A

A

I participate in Always Seldom18) Tithing Select one 19) Attending Sunday Morning Service 20) Attending Sunday Evening Service 21) Choir 22) Women’s tea or men’s prayer 23) Thursday evening 24) Cleaning crew 25) Youth activities26) Teaching Sunday SchoolOther options not listed or comments

Activities I currently like to participate in at Seekers Chapel/ or would participate in if available in the future

In Current Facility In Future Facility Always Seldom Always Seldom

27) Craft workshops 28) Support groups 29) Special programs 30) Basketball 31) Softball 32) Dances 33) Potlucks 34) Fitness programs35) Food outreach ministriesOther options not listed or comments

Seekers Chapel attendance is currently 150 to 200 hundred people. 36) What size sanctuary seating should Seekers Chapel consider for a new location. 200-350 351-500 501-750 751-1000 1000-1500

5

5a

4

4a

3

3a

2

2a

1

1a

NA

5

Na1

5a

4

4a

3

3a

2

2a

1

1a

NA

Na1

DK

Dk1

5

5a

4

4a

3

3a

2

2a

1

1a

NA

Na1

DK

Dk1

DK

Dk1

5

5a

4

4a

3

3a

2

2a

1

1a

NA

Na1

DK

Dk1

5

5a

4

4a

3

3a

2

2a

1

1a

NA

Na1

DK

Dk1

5

5a

4

4a

3

3a

2

2a

1

1a

NA

Na1

DK

Dk1

5

5a

4

4a

3

3a

2

2a

1

1a

NA

Na1

DK

Dk1

5

5a

4

4a

3

3a

2

2a

1

1a

NA

Na1

DK

Dk1

5

5a

4

4a

3

3a

2

2a

1

1a

NA

Na1

DK

Dk1

5 4 3 2 1 NA

1

5

2

4

3

3

4

2

5

1 NADK

5 4 3 2 1 NADK

DK

5 4 3 2 1 NADK

5 4 3 2 1 NADK

5 4 3 2 1 NADK

5 4 3 2 1 NADK

5 4 3 2 1 NADK

5 4 3 2 1 NADK

8:30 1a

10:30 2a

1




2

B

1

3

2

B

4

3

5

4

NA

5

DK

DK

NADK

DK

37) What is the maximum amount of money Seekers Chapel should spend for a facility.

$ 750,000.00 1mil 1.5mil 2mil 3mil or moreComments

38) From start to finish how long do you think this project should take.

6 months 1 year 1.5 years 2years 2.5 yearsComments

Options for Seekers Chapel to consider for a future location Importance HIGH LOW

39) Stay in the building now using 40) Rent a larger business building similar to current building 41) Rent any facility but buy the land for a new facility 42) Buy a church facility the appropriate size you indicated 43) Buy a school facility 44) Share a facility with another church 45) Buy land and immediately build a new facility Other options not listed or comments

46) Classroom should have a maximum capacity for students of.

10 15 20 25 30Comments

1

A

A

2

5

3

4

4

3

5

2 1 NADK5 4 3 2 1 NADK5 4 3 2 1 NADK5 4 3 2 1 NADK5 4 3 2 1 NADK5 4 3 2 1 NADK5 4 3 2 1 NADK

1

A

1

A

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5




1 2

B

3 4 5NADK

DK

Evaluate the current facility and indicate importance for new buildingClassroom evaluation Current Facility Desire Future Facility HIGH LOW HIGH LOW47) Warm and inviting 48) Highly visible 49) Easily accessed 50) Adequate number of classrooms 51) Adequate size 52) Appropriate furniture 53) Handicap use 54) Lighting 55) Good heating/air-conditioning Other options not listed or comments

Evaluate the current facility and indicate importance for new buildingSanctuary Current Facility Desire Future Facility HIGH LOW HIGH LOW56) Warm and inviting 57) Easy to find 58) Easily accessed 59) Adequate seating 60) Adequate size 61) Appropriate furniture 62) Handicap use 63) Lighting 64) Good heating/air-conditioning 65) Good Sound66) Adequate stage 67) Adequate band area 68) Podium visibility 69) Comfort 70) Adequate windows/Natural light 71) Baptistery Other options not listed or comments

Evaluate the current facility and indicate importance for new building

5a

5a

5a

4a

4a

4a

3a

3a

3a

2a

2a

2a

1a

1a

1a

Na1

5a

Na1

5a

Na1

4a

4a

3a

3a

2a

2a

1a

1a

Na1

Na1

Dk1

Dk1

5a

5a

4a

4a

3a

3a

2a

2a

1a

1a

Na1

Na1

Dk1

Dk15

a4a

3a

2a

1a

Na1

Dk1

Dk1

Dk1

Dk1

5a

5aA

5a

4a

4a 2a b

4a

3a

3a

3a

2a

2a

2a

1a

1a

1a

Na1

Na1

Na1

Dk1

Dk1DK

Dk1

5a

5a1a1a1a

5a

4a

4a

4a

3a

3a

3a

2a

2a

2a

1a

1a

1a

Na1

Na1

Na1

Dk1

Dk1

Dk1

5a

5a

5a

4a

4a

4a

3a

3a

3a

2a

2a

2a

1a

1a

1a

Na1

Na1

Na1

Dk1

Dk1DK1

Dk1

5a

5a

5a

4a

4a

4a

3a

3a

3a

2a

2a

2a

1a

1a

1a

Na1

Na1

Na1

Dk1

Dk1

Dk1

5a

5a

5a

4a

4a

4a

3a

3a

3a

2a

2a

2a

1a

1a

1a

Na1

Na1

Na1

Dk1

Dk11

Dk1

5a

5a

4a

4a

3a

3a

2a

2a

1a

1a

Na1

Na1

Dk1

Dk1

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

NA

NA

NA

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

NA

NA

DK

DK

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

NA

NA

DK

DK

5 4 3 2 1 NADK

DK

DK

DK

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

NA

NA

NA

DK

DK

DK

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

NA

NA

NA

DK

DK

DK

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

NA

NA

NA

DK

DK

DK

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

NA

NA

NA

DK

DK

DK

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

NA

NA

NA

DK

DK

DK

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

NA

NA

DK

DK







1 2

B

3 4 5NADK

DK

Building Current Facility Desire Future Facility HIGH LOW HIGH LOW

72) Visibility from street 73) Easy to find 74) Easily accessed 75) Adequate parking 76) Adequate staff offices 77) Kitchen area 78) Handicap use 79) Lighting 80) Good heating/air-conditioning 81) Good Sound82) Stairs 83) Gym 84) Meeting rooms 85) Fellowship hall 86) Prayer facility 87) Library 88) Storage areas 89) Cabinets 90) Bathrooms 91) Provide weekday preschool 92) Elementary school 93) Playground 94) Ball diamond Other options not listed or comments

APENDIX C: CLASSROOM EVALUATION TABLES

5a

5a

5a

4a

4a

4a

3a

3a

3a

2a

2a

2a

1a

1a

1a

Na1

5a

Na1

Na1

5a

4a

4a

3a

3a

2a

2a

1a

1a

Na1

Na1

Dk1

Dk1

5a

4a

3a

2a

1a

Na1

Dk15

a4a

3a

2a

1a

Na1

Dk1

Dk1

Dk1

Dk1

5a

5a

5a

4a

4a

4a

3a

3a

3a

2a

2a

2a

1a

1a

1a

Na1

Na1

Na1

Dk1

Dk1

Dk1

5a

5a

5a

4a

4a

4a

3a

3a

3a

2a

2a

2a

1a

1a

1a

Na1

Na1

Na1

Dk1

Dk1

Dk1

5a

5a

4a

4a

3a

3a

2a

2a

1a

1a

Na1

Na1

Dk1

Dk1

5a

5a

5a

4a

4a

4a

3a

3a

3a

2a

2a

2a

1a

1a

1a

Na1

Na1

Na1

Dk1

Dk1

Dk1

5a

5a

5a

4a

4a

4a

3a

3a

3a

2a

2a

2a

1a

1a

1a

Na1

Na1

Na1

Dk1

Dk1

Dk1

5a

5a

4a

4a

3a

3a

2a

2a

1a

1a

Na1

Na1

Dk1

Dk1

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

NA

NA

NA

5 4 3 2 1 NADK

5 4 3 2 1 NADK

5 4 3 2 1 NADK

DK

DK

DK

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

NA

NA

NA

DK

DK

DK

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

NA

NA

NA

DK

DK

DK

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

NA

NA

NA

DK

DK

DK

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

NA

NA

DK

DK

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

NA

NA

DK

DK

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

NA

NA

DK

DK

5 4 3 2 1 NADK5 4 3 2 1 NADK


GENERAL CONGREGATIONCriteria Mean Total Valid

ResponsesHighly visible 2.03 65Handicap use 2.14 56Adequate number 2.30 61Adequate size 2.31 61Appropriate furniture 2.90 61Easily accessed 3.03 69Good Heating/Air 3.53 59Lighting 3.60 62Warm and inviting 3.77 66

The left hand side of TABLE 1 displays the nine criteria evaluated in the classroom evaluation

section of the survey instrument. The total valid responses shows of the 80 general congregation

sample population show how many participants actually had valid responses to the nine criteria in the

classroom section of the survey instrument. The total valid responses are the data responses

excluding the missing values. The criteria in TABLE 1 “highly visible” had a total of 65 respondents

out of the 80 in the general congregation sample population. The criteria “Highly visible” has the

lowest mean score of 2.03. The mean score for 2.03 indicates that the general congregation evaluates

the current facility's classrooms as moderately low in visibility. The general congregation evaluation

of the current facility’s classrooms ranked the criteria “Warm and inviting” highest with a mean of

3.77. This would place the criteria “Warm and inviting” when rounded up, into the moderately high

category.


GENERAL CONGREGATION

Criteria Mean Total Valid

ResponsesAdequate number 4.76 71Warm and inviting 4.73 71Lighting 4.73 70Adequate size 4.73 70Good Heating/Air 4.72 68Handicap use 4.54 70Appropriate furniture 4.44 70Easily accessed 4.44 71Highly visible 4.03 70


section of the survey instrument. The total valid responses show of the 80 general congregation

sample population participants how many actually had valid responses to the nine criteria in the

section. The total valid responses are the data responses excluding the missing values. The criteria

“highly visible” had a total of 70 respondents out of the 80 in the general congregation sample

population. The mean score of 4.03 indicates that the general congregation evaluates the importance

of the criteria “Highly visible” for the future facility’s classrooms as moderately high. Visibility

needs improvement yet it is the ninth on the list of importance for the classrooms in the future

facility. The general congregation evaluation of the future facility’s classrooms ranked of highest

importance “adequate number of classrooms” criteria with a mean of 4.76. This would place the

importance “adequate number of classrooms” criteria when rounded into the highly important

category.


SERVANTS

Criteria Mean Total Valid Responses

Handicap use 1.55 22Adequate size 1.73 22Adequate number 1.77 22Highly visible 2.19 21Appropriate furniture 2.32 22Easily accessed 2.67 21Lighting 3.32 22Warm and inviting 3.41 22Good Heating/Air 3.55 22

The left hand side of TABLE 3 displays the nine criteria evaluated in the classroom section of

the survey instrument. The total valid responses show of the 25 servant’s sample population how

many participants actually had valid responses to the nine criteria in the classroom section of the

survey instrument. The total valid responses are the data responses excluding the missing values. The

researcher for continuity has choose to discuss the results in TABEL 3 for the criteria “highly

visible.” The criteria “highly visible” had a total of 21 respondents out of the 25 in the servant

sample population. This criteria “highly visible” has the mean score of 2.19. The mean score of 2.19

indicates that the servant’s evaluate the current facility's classrooms as moderately low in visibility.

The criteria highly visible in the servant sample population ranked fourth lowest in TABLE 3 of the

nine evaluation criteria. The servant sample population ranked the criteria “Handicap use” the lowest

in TABLE 3 with a mean score of 1.55. The servant evaluation of the current facility’s classrooms

ranked highest the criteria “Good Heating/Air” with a mean score of 3.55. This would place the

criteria “Good Heating/Air” when rounded into the moderately high ranking category.


SERVANTSCriteria Mean Total Valid

ResponsesWarm and inviting 4.87 23Adequate number 4.86 22Adequate size 4.86 22Good Heating/Air 4.77 22Appropriate furniture 4.68 22Easily accessed 4.61 23Handicap use 4.52 21Lighting 4.50 22Highly visible 4.45 22


section of the survey instrument. The total valid responses show of the 25 servant’s sample

population participants how many actually had valid responses to the nine criteria in the section. The

total valid responses are the data responses excluding the missing values. The criteria “highly visible”

had a total of 22 respondents out of the 25 in the servant’s sample population. The criteria “highly

visible” in TABLE 4 ranked at the mean score of 4.45 ninth of the nine criteria for the future

facility’s classrooms. The mean score of 4.45 indicates that the servant’s evaluates the importance of

the criteria “Highly visible” for the future facility’s classrooms as moderately high. Visibility needs

improvement yet it is ninth on the list of importance for the classrooms in the future facility. The

servant evaluation of the future facility’s classrooms ranked of highest importance “Warm and

inviting” criteria with a mean score of 4.87. This would place importance “Warm and inviting”

criteria when rounded into the highly important category.

The information in TABLE 2 provides the building committee with the general congregation’s most

important criteria of the future classrooms. The information in TABLE 1 shows the limitations that

the general congregation’s see in our existing classrooms and in TABLE 2 the general congregation’s

expectations for future facility’s classrooms.

The information in TABLE 4 provides the building committee with the servant’s most important

criteria s of the future classrooms. The information in TABLE 3 shows the limitations that the

servant’s see in our existing classrooms facility’s and in TABLE 4 the servant’s expectations for

future facility’s classrooms.

APPENDIX D: SANCTUARY EVALUATION TABLES

TABLE 1CURRENT SANCTUARY EVALUATION

GENERAL CONGREGATION

Criteria Mean Total Valid ResponsesAdequate windows Natural Light

1.72 61

Baptistery 1.84 38Adequate band area 2.68 73Adequate stage 2.83 76Easy to find 2.96 76Adequate size 3.01 73Good sound 3.08 76Appropriate furniture 3.26 72Adequate seating 3.32 75Comfort 3.38 74Handicap use 3.40 65Good Heating/Air 3.49 75Easily accessed 3.52 77Lighting 3.69 71Warm and Inviting 3.75 77Podium visibility 3.96 77

The left hand side of TABLE 1 displays the 16 criteria evaluated in the current sanctuary section

of the survey instrument. The total valid responses show of the 80 general congregation sample

population how many participants actually had valid responses to the 16 criteria in the sanctuary

section of the survey instrument The criteria in TABLE 1 “Adequate windows natural light” had a

total of 61 respondents out of the 80 in the general congregation sample population. The criteria in

TABLE 1 “Adequate windows natural light” has the lowest mean score of 1.72. The mean score of

1.72 indicates that the general congregation evaluates the current sanctuary as moderately low in

having “Adequate windows natural light.” The general congregation evaluation of the current

sanctuary ranked the criteria “Podium visibility” highest with a mean of 3.96. This would place the

criteria “Podium visibility” when rounded up, into the moderately high category

TABLE 2FUTURE SANCTUARY EVALUATION

GENERAL CONGREGATIONCriteria Mean Total Valid Responses

Warm and Inviting 4.82 74

Adequate seating 4.78 74Adequate size 4.78 74Good sound 4.76 74Lighting 4.70 74Good Heating/Air 4.68 75Easily accessed 4.64 74Adequate stage 4.64 74Podium visibility 4.64 67Handicap use 4.63 75Easy to find 4.58 74Appropriate furniture 4.48 73Comfort 4.46 74Adequate band area 4.40 73Adequate windows Natural Light

4.36 74

Baptistery 4.12 69

The left hand side of TABLE 2 displays the 16 criteria evaluated in the sanctuary evaluation


sample population participants how many actually had valid responses to the 16 criteria in the

section. The total valid responses are the data responses excluding the missing values. The general

congregation evaluation of the future facility’s sanctuary ranked of highest importance “Warm and

Inviting” criteria with a mean of 4.82. This would place the importance “Warm and Inviting”

criteria when rounded into the highly important category. The general congregation evaluation of the

future facility’s sanctuary ranked of lowest importance “Baptistery” criteria with a mean of 4.12.

This would place the importance “Baptistery” criteria when rounded into the moderately high

importance category.

TABLE 3CURRENT SANCTUARY EVALUATION

SERVANTSCriteria Mean Total Valid Responses

Baptistery 1.46 13

Adequate windows Natural Light

1.80 15

Adequate band area 2.09 22Easy to find 2.30 23Adequate size 2.64 22Adequate stage 2.68 22Adequate seating 2.86 22Good sound 2.95 22Appropriate furniture 3.00 22Handicap use 3.00 20Easily accessed 3.14 22Warm and Inviting 3.29 21Comfort 3.38 21Good Heating/Air 3.64 22Lighting 3.73 22Podium visibility 3.73 22


section of the survey instrument. The total valid responses shows of the 25 servant sample population

participants how many actually had valid responses to the criteria in the sanctuary section of the

survey instrument. The servant sample population ranked the criteria “Baptistery” the lowest in

TABLE 3 with a mean score of 1.46. This would place the criteria “Baptistery” when rounded into

the low category. The servant evaluation of the current facility’s sanctuary ranked highest the criteria

“Podium visibility” with a mean score of 3.73. This would place the criteria “Podium visibility”

when rounded into the moderately high category.

TABLE 4FUTURE SANCTUARY EVALUATION

SERVANTSCriteria Mean Total Valid Responses

Warm and Inviting 4.86 22

Adequate seating 4.86 22Podium visibility 4.86 22Adequate size 4.82 22Easily accessed 4.77 22Good sound 4.77 22Comfort 4.73 22Adequate stage 4.71 21Easy to find 4.68 22Good Heating/Air 4.68 22Appropriate furniture

4.67 21

Lighting 4.67 21Adequate windows Natural Light

4.59 22

Handicap use 4.55 22Adequate band area 4.55 22Baptistery 4.35 20


section of the survey instrument. The total valid responses show of the 25 servant’s sample

population participants how many actually had valid responses to the criteria in the section. The

servant evaluation of the future facility’s sanctuary ranked of highest importance “Warm and

inviting” criteria with a mean score of 4.86. This would place the importance of the criteria “Warm

and inviting” when rounded into the highly important category. The servant evaluation of the future

facility’s sanctuary ranked the criteria “Baptistery” of lowest importance with a mean score of 4.35.

This would place the importance of the criteria “Baptistery” criteria when rounded into the

moderately high importance.

The information in TABLE 2 provides the building committee with the general congregation’s

most important criteria of the future sanctuary. The information in TABLE 1 shows the limitations

that the general congregation’s see in our existing sanctuary and in TABLE 2 the general

congregation’s expectations for future facility’s sanctuary.


criteria of the future sanctuary. The information in TABLE 3 shows the limitations that the servant’s

see in our existing sanctuary and in TABLE 4 the servant’s expectations for future facility’s

sanctuary.

APPENDIX E: BUILDING EVALUATION TABLES

TABLE 1CURRENTBUILDING EVALUATION GENERAL CONGREGATION


Ball diamond 1.52 21Gym 1.55 29Library 1.56 27Kitchen area 1.58 31Visibility from street 1.62 69Playground 1.65 23Weekly preschool 1.74 23Elementary school 1.76 21Storage Areas 2.03 39Easy to find 2.21 72Cabinets 2.38 42Fellowship hall 2.45 47Meeting rooms 2.46 52Adequate staff offices 2.63 54Handicap use 2.63 57Prayer facility 2.84 44Bathrooms 2.87 67Easily accessed 3.10 73Stairs 3.12 66Good sound 3.25 72Lighting 3.53 73Good Heating/Air 3.59 71Adequate parking 3.97 73



sample population participants how many actually had valid responses to the criteria in the section.

The criteria highly visible had a total of 65 respondents out of the 80 in the sample population. This

is the lowest mean 2.03. This the mean indicates that the general congregation evaluates the current

facility's classrooms as moderately low in visibility. The general congregation evaluation of the

current facility’s classrooms ranked the criteria “Warm and inviting” highest with a mean of 3.77.

This would place the criteria “Warm and inviting” when rounded up, into the moderately high

category. TABLE 2

FUTURE BUILDING EVALUATION GENERAL CONGREGATIONCriteria Mean Total Valid Responses

Good Heating/Air 4.74 70Adequate parking 4.71 72

Good sound 4.70 70Lighting 4.69 72Bathrooms 4.59 73Fellowship hall 4.57 72Easily accessed 4.55 73Adequate staff offices 4.54 68Handicap use 4.50 72Easy to find 4.49 73Playground 4.44 68Meeting rooms 4.38 72Visibility from street 4.33 73Prayer facility 4.31 70Kitchen area 4.27 70Cabinets 4.05 64Weekly preschool 4.03 66Stairs 4.02 65Storage Areas 4.02 66Elementary school 3.91 64Gym 3.89 66Library 3.79 68 Ball diamond 3.68 63

The left hand side of TABLE 2 displays the 23 criteria evaluated in the building evaluation

section. The total valid responses show of the 80 general congregation sample population participants

how many actually had valid responses to the criteria in the section. The criteria “Good Heating/Air”

had a total of 70 respondents out of the 80 in the sample population. This ranked at the mean score

of 4.74 highest of the 23 criteria for the future building. This the mean indicates that the general

congregation evaluates the importance of the criteria “Ball diamond” high for the future building.

This ranked at the mean score of 3.68 lowest of the 23 criteria for the future building. This the mean

indicates that the general congregation evaluates the importance of the criteria “Ball diamond”

moderately high for the future building.

TABLE 3CURRENT BUILDING EVALUATION SERVANTS


Kitchen area 1.00 09

Gym 1.00 06Weekly preschool 1.00 07Elementary school 1.00 06Playground 1.00 06 Ball diamond 1.00 06Visibility from street 1.10 21Library 1.17 06Adequate staff offices 1.55 20Storage Areas 1.56 18Easy to find 1.64 22Cabinets 1.89 19Meeting rooms 2.07 15Fellowship hall 2.10 10Bathrooms 2.15 20Handicap use 2.26 19Easily accessed 2.32 22Prayer facility 2.46 13Stairs 2.83 18Good sound 2.95 20Good Heating/Air 3.52 21Adequate parking 3.57 21Lighting 3.57 21

The left hand side of TABLE 3 displays the 23 criteria evaluated in the building evaluation section.

The total valid responses show of the 25 servant sample population participants how many actually

had valid responses to the criteria in the section. The criteria “Visibility from street” had a total of 21

respondents out of the 52 in the sample population. This criteria “Visibility from street” has the

lowest mean score of 1.1. This the mean indicates that the servant’s evaluate the current building as

low in “Visibility from street”. The servant evaluation of the current building ranked highest the

criteria “Adequate parking” and “Lighting” with a mean of 3.57. This would place “Adequate

parking” and “Lighting” when rounded into the moderately high category.

TABLE 4FUTURE BUILDING EVALUATION SERVANTS

Criteria Mean Total Valid ResponsesVisibility from street 4.86 21Easily accessed 4.76 21

Adequate parking 4.76 21Adequate staff offices 4.76 21Kitchen area 4.76 21Good Heating/Air 4.76 21Playground 4.75 20Easy to find 4.71 21Good sound 4.65 20Handicap use 4.63 19Lighting 4.62 21Bathrooms 4.57 21Fellowship hall 4.55 20Meeting rooms 4.5 20Storage Areas 4.47 19Stairs 4.44 18Prayer facility 4.35 20Cabinets 4.35 20Gym 4.11 19Library 3.80 20Weekly preschool 3.80 20Elementary school 3.80 20 Ball diamond 3.65 20

The left hand side of TABLE 4 displays the 23 criteria evaluated in the building evaluation section.

The total valid responses show of the 25 servant’s sample population participants how many actually

had valid responses to the criteria in the section. The criteria “Visibility from street” had a total of 21

respondents out of the 25 in the sample population. This ranked at the mean of 4.86 highest of the 23

criteria for the future building. The mean score for the criteria “Visibility from street” indicates that

the servant’s evaluates the importance for the future building as high. The criteria “Ball diamond”

ranks lowest of the 23 criteria with a mean score of 3.65. The mean score for the criteria “Ball

diamond” indicates the servant sample population ranks this the lowest priority of importance for

future building

The information in TABLE 1 shows the limitations that the general congregation’s see in our

existing building and in TABLE 2 the general congregation’s expectations for future facility.


criteria s of the future classrooms in the new facility. The information in TABLE 3 shows the

limitations that the servant’s see in our existing building and in TABLE 4 the servant’s expectations

for future facility.

APPENDIX F: ALL COMMENTS WRITTEN IN THE SURVEY RESPONSE

Facility Needs Assessment for SeekersChapel

Documents

senior pastor

music pastor

youth ministrys pastor

fulltime associate pastor

church vision

main counseling pastor

senior year

church secretarial assistants