For the vast majority of Irish Methodists, responding to global poverty is a priority and is faith-driven. WDR has a clear mandate to exist. Methodist respondents also stated that MCI’s ideal of every member giving 1% of income (post-tax) is a good thing although accompanying qualitative answers specified that this is not possible for all due to their own economic challenges. Thus, MCI’s 1% standard should remain but perhaps needs repackaged for contemporary audiences.

Irish Methodists have particular areas of concern, the most concerning being access to water, food, education and healthcare, as well as the modern forms of slavery. Although the level of concern should not solely dictate choice of WDR partners or themes, it is good that WDR already has a diverse spread of themes.

Despite a strong faith-driven concern for global poverty, 87% of lay Irish Methodists rated themselves as only low to middling in terms of their efforts to reduce this poverty. For Methodist ministers, the figure was 89%.

This is an opportunity to inspire and engage MCI members further.

How Irish Methodists choose charities and their awareness of WDR

Irish Methodists have criteria for how they choose to support a particular charity.

People are most attracted to charities with admirable values, who direct a high proportion of funds towards ‘the work’, whose work is of interest and have transparency in what they do and how they do it. Of less importance is whether the charity is Methodist or even faith-based. This could be read as, “if the other key criteria are not exhibited, whether a charity is faith-based or not, is irrelevant”. WDR needs to acknowledge that simply being Methodist is not in itself enough to garner support.

A focus group was asked about criteria for organisations to partner with on the ground. As well as similar answers to the above, the following were suggested: official registration, good track record, culturally sensitive, inclusive, not duplicating work of others in same area, cost effective, having high impact.

WDR believes that it and its partners rate very highly in all these standards.

34% of lay members had a high awareness of WDR and 53% a middling awareness.
Amongst ministers, 38% had a high awareness and 58% a middling awareness.
This is heartening, perhaps suggesting that communications and publicity are already reasonably effective.

People hear about WDR in the following ways:

Although some lay respondents suggested that WDR needed more visibility, WDR is regularly present on all the platforms listed in the graph, each reaching different audiences. Presence on each platform should have outcomes (learning, prayer and giving) amongst that demographic.

The annual WDR church Service is a key way in which Irish Methodists hear about MCI’s international development work and have the opportunity to respond. However, 12% of ministers do not hold a WDR service despite a Conference directive to do so. In conjunction with this, lay and ordained agreed that themes around global poverty were preached upon only rarely or, at best, occasionally.

WDR resources

Feedback from ministers on WDR resources was extremely positive. 93% of ministers who gave a qualitative answer stated that WDR resources were “excellent, good or needed nothing more”. Of course, some tweaks were suggested and this will be taken on board. A proportion of ministers do not use the service resources at all. These could well be those ministers who do not hold annual WDR services.

Prayers of Solidarity is a bimonthly prayer resource in both written and video form. 52% if ministers use the written but only 15% the video. The video format is now discontinued.

Comment was made that any resources need to be equally relevant in Ireland and Northern Ireland – language is important.

CEOs of all 12 WDR partners completed a bespoke survey to critique WDR and its practices, as well as offer suggestions for improvement.

Partners were asked to rate out of 4 (4 being highest and most favourable), WDR’s processes:

• WDR’s practice of 3-year funding cycles - 3.7

• WDR’s practice of negotiated proposals – 3.7

• WDR’s practice of six-monthly reporting – 3.8

• WDR’s practice of occasional visits – 3.7

Partners were asked to rate their sense of connection between themselves and MCI

• With WDR staff – 3.5

• With WDR committee – 2.6

• With WDR supporters – 2.2

The new WDR strategy is designed to help partners, supporters and committee feel more connection.

Partners were asked to rate how WDR lives up to its own values (justice, compassion, equality, solidarity) – 3.8

Partners were asked to comment on WDR’s weaknesses:
Some key responses were: needing more time during visits, reports can be too detailed, limited funding.
Every single partner asked for more regular communication via Zoom or face-to-face.

Partners were asked to comment on WDR’s strengths:
Some key responses were: efficient, reliable, adaptable, dream partner, passion, trusting of others, not demeaning, a focus on partners and not just projects, take partnership and solidarity very seriously…

Through several facilitated sessions and much discussion, the WDR committee identified WDR’s priorities as:

1. Managing Partnerships

2. Fundraising

 It was agreed that the experience and skills of committee members should be better identified and utilised to most benefit WDR’s work and maximise members’ fulfilment in their roles.

The committee identified the contexts (political, economic, social, technical, legal and environmental) in which it and its partners operate. This produced a view of complex challenges and opportunities. These need to be considered in WDR’s planning, implementation and communications.