Page History

...

As the sending agency and the employer, Reliant Mission maintains liability and takes on the risk for its staff serving internationally, particularly in secure locations. With this in mind, Reliant's International Crisis Management Team (ICMT) is ultimately responsible for decisions regarding crisis response for Reliant employees. In all crisis response, Reliant's ICMT will work closely with field leadership, empowering field leaders to make decisions for their teams. In some situations, Reliant will also allow an approved third party (supervising network or sending church) to make decisions on behalf of the team. 

Shared Crisis Authority and Responsibilities in Reliant Partnerships

Reliant Mission utilizes a partnered and decentralized approach to ministry leadership. The purpose of this document is to summarize the roles of the various parties to whom we relate, as it pertains to potential crises and management. , so authority and responsibilities are often things that are shared. This includes crisis management and in most cases, we believe the best decisions are made, and situational awareness best occurs, closest to the ground. With this in mind, it is important for Field Leaders to be in regular communication with Reliant and any approved third-party decision-makers (Supervising Field Network, Sending Church, etc). Reliant will provide channels for communication and protocols for response to various crisis events.   

While Reliant wishes to entrust decision-making as closely as possible to the field, if a Field Leader is unable or unwilling to carry these responsibilities, Reliant will step into active management in the event of a crisis. Unless approved by Reliant and outlined in a signed MOU, it will not be appropriate for other parties to step into the management of a crisis, including relationally and financially invested partners.This document is intended to be supported by Risk Policies and Risk Management Standards (Concilium wording here- inside reliant we need the title of whatever we call our crisis/risk management realm.) 

Definition of Parties Involved

• Reliant is the employersending agency and employer, partnering with local churches and ministries to support ministry on the ground , (rather than initiate or guide those works). Reliant holds fiduciary responsibility and a duty of care for our missionaries/staffworkers, and associate volunteers. In the international crisis management field manual, the use of "Reliant" refers to the organization, often central leadership. 

• Field Leader guides the strategy and day-to-day work of the ministries where Reliant workers serve.   The capacities of Local field leaders vary; they may be a pastor, a church plant leader, a leader of a network of churches, or the team leader of a ministry. The local leader Field Leader may or may not be employed by Reliant. The local leaderField Leader(ship) has agreed to a partnership with Reliant according to the  the Memo of Understanding (MOU). One of the responsibilities assigned to the local leader is Crisis Response Field Leader is crisis response management and preparation. The local leader will relate to Reliant’s Crisis Management team and structure in the management of crises. 

• Reliant Staff is the employee or associate volunteer, who is raising support for their mission, employed by Reliant, volunteering for Reliant,  and is responsible to report to Local Leadership for guidance in ministry. 

• In the event of a crisis, the Field Leader will actively work with Reliant's ICMT to guide decision-making and response.  

• Reliant Team Member is the Reliant employee or volunteer actively involved in the field work of a Reliant ministry partner. The Reliant Team Member reports directly to a Field Leader and agrees to follow his/her guidance in crisis response and decisions for the team. The Reliant Team Member is responsible to create personal contingencies and needs to think through personal appetites for risk that could dictate a different response in various crises.  

• Supervising Field Supervising Church Network In some settings, the local field work is guided by a network of churches. In most cases, the network also has a direct partnering relationship with Reliant .  (GCE, Salt Network,   100 UPG). These networks provide oversight and training guidance to local leaders. They are also providers of resources in crisis situations through pastoral care, provision of monetary resources, recruiting, etc. When a supervising field network is present, oftentimes resources are provided by the network in crisis situations. In some cases, upon approval (by Reliant and Field Leader), Reliant will allow the Supervising Field Network to make decisions on behalf of the team in the event of a crisis. *When Reliant is working with another mission sending agency or ministry and a seconding agreement is in place, Reliant's crisis regulations will be subject to any written protocols in the secondment agreements.

• Sending Church The sending church is the entity that is affirming the calling and sending of the missionaryinternational worker.   When the sending church has a role, an expectation or duty to assist in crisis management, this will be detailed in an MOU with Reliant and the Local LeadershipField Leader. 

Our guiding principles:

We look to support the local leadership of our partnering churches to be the primary decision makers and crisis managers in our international locations.  We believe the best decisions and situational knowledge are held closest to the ground in most cases. We expect local leadership to be responsive to their agencies and to Reliant as there are times when non-local parties need to guide response. (Note- how do we state that as employer we maintain Duty of care of employees? Is it a form of final say? Or something different?)  

While we wish to entrust decision-making as closely as possible to the field, if field-level parties are unable or unwilling to carry those responsibilities, Reliant may step into management or delegate management to a ministry partner who can function within our employment and confidentiality framework.  It will not be appropriate for other parties to step into management of incidences unless that responsibility was pre-planned and expressed in an MOU, or unless Reliant expressly designates that involvement during or following a crisis incident. This includes relationally and financially invested partners.  During and following a crisis incident, interested partners may present resources to Reliant, and Reliant will appropriately disburse those offerings. 

The following represent various phases of Risk Preparation and Management. 

Placement of a team in a location with probable risk:

Here are specific examples of how Reliant hopes to share authority and various parties are involved in crisis management and response:

Location Preparation

Field Leader:  When a Field Leader wishes to enter a new international location as a Reliant employee, or if a non-Reliant Field Leader wishes to enter a new location with Reliant employees, he/she needs to be confident (and able to articulate) Local Leader:  In order to enter a ministry setting where risk is present or probable, the leadership of the church / team / partner ministry needs to be confident that the potential risk carries kingdom value, and aligned with stewardship of kingdom resources. The Local leader initiates the ministry choices and invites Reliant will work with the Field Leader and any approved third-party decision-maker (field network or sending church) to approve work in the new location. The Field Leader is the one to initiate this process and will invite a team (or team members) to join in the strategic endeavor.  

Reliant:  Support the choice of engagement in a location of risk with the following Duty of Care:  

• Confirm that the church / team partnership has enough resources to withstand the potential risk. If those resources are lacking, Reliant will help to ensure that proper resources are made available before mobilizing its workers. 
• Assessment of individual Team members. Reliant will screen to help ensure preparedness of potential team members being ready for the stress related to likely risks. 

 Reliant will aim to support the Field Leader in the desire to launch a ministry in a new international location. Reliant will initiate discussions and ask appropriate questions to allow the Field Leader to articulate confidence in God's call to a new location. In locations of greater security risk, Reliant will provide a basic assessment to gauge the Field Leader's readiness (and willingness) to lead out in crisis management. Reliant will also assess the availability of resources to empower ministry in the high-risk location. The final decision making is ultimately the responsibility of Reliant, but as spelled out above, Reliant seeks to share authority and will work with the Field Leader and any approved third party decision-maker to make final approval on starting ministry in a new location.  

Reliant Team Member: Personally Reliant Worker: Individually needs to feel called to take the risk and accept the invitation . There is not to be pressure or coercionfrom the Field Leader.  

Supervising Field Network: When an approved sending field network is present, Reliant will work with leadership within the network to make a final decision on the new location. Often, it will be the responsibility of the sending field network to gauge the strategic nature of sending a team to a new location, especially one with a greater security risk. 

Sending Church: ReleasesAt times a sending church will be involved in decision making, but more often, the sending church releases, prays for, and supports the individual workers as they are guided by the local field leadership and Reliant.   If the Sending Church has concerns about the preparedness of a Reliant Worker, that concern needs to be addressed during the assessment process. 

Preparing for Risk Management

The sending church is invited to express concerns about sending team members to a high-risk location. Reliant will involve the sending church in decision making on a new location if the sending church has pre-approved third party authority as detailed in a signed MOU.  

Preparing for Crisis Management

Field Leaders:  All field leaders at Reliant are responsible to prepare official team-wide, location-specific Local Leaders:  Are responsible to prepare crisis management (contingency) plans for and ensure that team members are informed of how to engage with those plans. Contingency plans shall use those plans. Reliant will provide Field Leaders a risk assessment tool, and it will be the responsibility of the Field Leader to fill that out and provide Reliant with the team's greatest risks and the contingency plans in the event of each of those risks occurring. These plans will be reviewed and updated on an annual basis (or more often if that serves the Local local ministry).

• These The risk assessment will outline three to five threats the Reliant workers may face, the 3-5 greatest risks to the team and plans for response. They will include information about communication, potential trigger points, responsibilities, and preparedness required of team members (including finance, documents, and other items to have ready).  
• Crisis Management plans will be submitted to Reliant for review and kept on file by Reliant’s International team.

Reliant: Review Contingency plans and have them accessible for affected parties. 

Reliant Worker:

• Will be present for annual review of these plans and 
• Ensure that they understand and can respond to the Contingency plans. 
• Maintain preparedness levels as outlined in the Contingency plans. 

• General team-wide crisis management plans should include things like in-country rallying points, shelter in place locations, out-of-country rallying points, evacuation plans by air, land, sea, etc. Reliant will provide the Field Leader with tools and templates to complete this. 

Reliant: It will be the responsibility of Reliant to provide the necessary tools and templates for the team to use in order to create crisis management and contingency plans. Reliant will also be responsible to review/approve these plans and will hold affected parties accountable to use them in crisis events. 

Reliant Team Member: Each Reliant Team Member will be responsible to have personal/family plans in the event of a crisis. The Reliant Team Member must know and understand the team's contingency plans in various scenarios and how he/she will specifically respond in each event. 

Supervising Field Network: If a supervising field network is present and has approved decision-making authority in the event of a crisis, it will be the responsibility of the network to review (and possibly approve) contingency plans. The supervising field network will provide Reliant a clear point person with the authority to make decisions and provide guidance in the event of a crisis. It will also be important for them to communicate with Reliant and the Field Leader Sending Church: As applicable, the sending church will communicate to the Local leadership the resources they hope to provide in case the event of a crisis.  The church will provide a point-person who will receive communication. The church will appropriately entrust local leadership, the supervising church network, and Reliant with management of crises responsibilities and make it easy for each party to fulfill their roles. 

Additional Considerations

• Any team serving in locations where US State Dept security is level 2 or higher may be required by Reliant to secure consultants for risk management and expected to bear the cost of these services. 
• Individuals on teams should realize that team contingency plans may not fully address personal contingency planning which may be needed for individuals or family units.  Individuals need to have robust lines of communication and cooperation if there are personal issues that might require their departure from the field.

Managing Occurrences of Crisis - Decision-Making Authority

Sending Church: If a sending church has pre-approved third-party decision-making authority as detailed in a signed MOU, it will be the responsibility of the network to review (and possibly approve) contingency plans. The sending church will provide Reliant a clear point person with the authority to make decisions and provide guidance in the event of a crisis. It will also be important for them to communicate with Reliant and the Field Leader the resources they hope to provide in the event of a crisis. 

Decision-Making Authority in the Event of a Crisis

Field Leader: The Field Leader is the primary party responsible to respond to crises as they develop. The Field Leader Local Leader: is the primary party responsible to manage risks as they develop. The Local leader may delegate management to another responsible party, as outlined in the contingency plan.   Risk management should follow the principles outlined in contingency plans. The local leader The Field Leader is responsible to balance the local priorities of the ministry with kingdom values and stewardship of personnel. That person The Field Leader should ensure the safety of the team according to contingency plan principles, while informing Reliant and other church network supervisors as it is safe and possible to do so. (Is informing Reliant enough? Probably yes in a low-risk setting, probably not so much in a high-risk situation.) and is responsible to implement/follow team contingency plans when necessary. Decisions on team security levels and trigger points will be made by the Field Leader. When real-time immediate decisions on sheltering-in-place and evacuation is necessary, the Field Leadership has the authority to make those. Whenever possible, the Field Leader will be required to involve Reliant and any approved third-party decision-makers in the decisions regarding crisis response.  

Reliant: As an organization, Reliant shares authority and responsibility and will empower the leadership of a church/ministry partner to make decisions. However, as the employer, Reliant has Reliant: wishes to entrust leadership to the lowest level possible. It retains the right to require its personnel to exit a situation at a safe juncture if it chooses to do so.  

Reliant

...

Reliant Worker: is Team Member: All Reliant team members are expected to follow any instructions provided by local leadership or Reliant during a time of crisis, making it as easy as possible for leaders to lead effectively.  Workers are also expected to understand ministry principles and values, providing information that is helpful to their ministry’s shared values, and seeking ways to be supportive to the work and their teammates. 

Other Managing Parties: If the Local leader wishes to engage the help of other managing parties, like Concillium, their Supervising Church Network, or Reliant, that should be clarified in the Contingency planning phase. If delegation happens as an incident unfolds, that change needs to be communicated to and approved Reliant, per principles in partnering agreements.  (I took out the Supervising church network from this statement.) 

Reliant expects that other parties who are not expressly delegated with crisis management responsibilities will look to Reliant first for information and needs so that those locally managing a situation are free to focus on their first responsibilities related to the crisis and their teams. 

Additional Considerations: 

• If risk dynamics in a ministry location change or heighten, any party (Local leader, worker, Reliant, or Supervising Church Network) may seek removal of Reliant parties from a location. In other words, an individual or family may depart a heightened risk situation in their ministry location if they deem that the risk is greater than they wish to bear, and if it is reasonably safe to depart. 
• Reliant expects that no party will be compelled to take on risk greater than they believe is best.  Thus, if ministry choices lead to greater risk to Reliant Workers, they shall be provided the opportunity to choose not to take that risk. 

_End Document _ 

The following are questions provided by Scott Brawner for consideration in a shared model. They provide some healthy tests for our document, but are not intended to be part of the document.  We can discuss these as a group together: 

“You mention the need for clarity of who carries what authority and responsibility. This is critical to establish before a crisis comes. In particular the ability to verbalize and document authority levels and responsibilities in a crisis -before- a crisis. That way, field team members, headquarters leaders, and key stakeholders (like church partners) understand their responsibilities and act proactively in an emergency.

“I appreciate your explanation of Reliant’s decision making process; it is very helpful. Please allow me to ask some clarifying questions:

1. Who in this process bears the ultimate fiduciary responsibility (or duty of care) for field workers? In other words, if the goal is to move decision making to the “lowest possible level,” and a crisis incident occurs (from kidnapping to critical injury needing hospitalization and evacuation) who is running crisis management?

1. Are those who are running crisis response the same as those who are paying for it?

1. If Reliant leaders are too removed to make the best decisions, and a catastrophic incident occurs, what is Reliant’s responsibility legal and ethical responsibility to the field worker?  

“As for not reinventing the wheel, a couple of points:

1. In the government, when it comes to resolving crisis where there are multiple agencies involved, usually a task force is created where multiple agency heads or points of contact can interact and coordinate toward a mutually agreed resolution. It sounds like a taskforce approach to crisis resolution.  The main concern for me: What happens when stakeholders disagree their opinions become competing interests? Who has the final say on decisions?

1. As for mission agencies that run in a similar fashion to Reliant, it might be good to bring in Concilium’s Director of Operations who is also the security consultant for CTEN ministries. CTEN is a federated, field based model where the sending agency is more of an infrastructure and support tool than a corporate authority. I would be happy to connect you two if you desire.

“Thanks again, Cori, for your great explanations. It is a blessing to serve Reliant and are excited to continue our relationship!

In Christ,

Supervising Field Network: If a supervising field network is present and has approved decision-making authority in the event of a crisis, it will be the responsibility of the network to provide Reliant a clear point person with the authority to make decisions and provide guidance in the event of a crisis. It will also be important for them to communicate with Reliant and the Field Leader the resources they hope to provide in the event of a crisis. 

Sending Church: In general, sending churches will not have decision-making authority in the event of a crisis, especially if an approved supervising field network is present. However, if a sending church is present and has pre-approved decision-making authority as detailed in the MOU, it will be the responsibility of the network to provide Reliant a clear point person with the authority to make decisions and provide guidance in the event of a crisis. It will also be important for them to communicate with Reliant and the Field Leader the resources they hope to provide in the event of a crisis.

Third-Party Security Consultants: If the Field leader wishes to engage the help of a third-party security constant (like Concillium), it should be clarified in the contingency planning phase. If delegation to a consultant is expected to happen as an incident unfolds, that change needs to be communicated to and approved by Reliant. 

 Scott Brawner”