Page History

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. 

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 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/staff, and associate volunteers.

• Field Leader guides the strategy and day-to-day work of the ministries where Reliant workers serve.  The capacities of Local 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 may or may not be employed by Reliant. The local leader(ship) has agreed to a partnership with Reliant according to the  Memo of Understanding. One of the responsibilities assigned to the local 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. 

• Supervising Church Network In some settings, the local 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 to local leaders. They are also providers of resources in crisis situations through pastoral care, provision of monetary resources, recruiting, etc. 

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

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:

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 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 Worker: Individually needs to feel called to take the risk and accept the invitation. There is not to be pressure or coercion. 

Sending Church : Releases, prays for and supports the individual workers as they are guided by the local 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

Local Leaders:  Are responsible to prepare crisis management (contingency) plans and ensure that team members are informed of how to engage with those plans. Contingency plans shall be reviewed and updated on an annual basis (or more often if that serves the Local ministry).

• These will outline three to five threats the Reliant workers may face, 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. 

Sending Church: As applicable, the sending church will communicate to the Local leadership the resources they hope to provide in case 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

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 is responsible to balance the local priorities of the ministry with kingdom values and stewardship of personnel. That person 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.) 

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 expects to be informed if a team utilizes its contingency plan due to an occurrence that is outside of daily norms.  This communication may be brief and should follow a team leader’s duty to secure the safety of local team members. 
• In many cases, Reliant can provide communication resources to a team in crisis as it relates to sending churches, donors, families and US-based relationships.  These are services that Reliant may provide if asked by individuals or team leaders. 
• Reliant will manage all communication that is provided publicly to entities outside of the ministry partnership, such as press, other ministries, etc. 

Reliant Worker: is 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,

Scott Brawner”