Several years ago I undertook a major overhaul of a churchwide database--the hardware and software required to keep up with our membership, attendance, contributions and other info--for the congregation I served at the time. During this transition, we paused to reflect and quantify what, exactly, we wanted to be able to use our database for, and how we would go about organizing the system to achieve those goals. These insights were helpful and formed the basis of our ongoing database philosophy.

A database is only as good as the data. Like many churches, we held on to all our data. And I mean all our data! We had one-time guests on file going back 15 years. In a church with some 8,000 active members, attenders and guests, our database had 26,000+ records, the majority of which had not been touched in years. Our first step was to determine criteria for keeping someone in the database. We determined that we needed at least a full name, address, one piece of additional contact information (phone or email), birthdate and an activity (attendance, contribution, contact) within the last 18 months to justify keeping someone on file. Any record that did not fit that criteria was discarded--for us, some 18,000 in all.

I would recommend to you that if you are frustrated with your database system or consider it largely ineffective, you first look at the data and determine whether it is useful or not. The purging of bad data should be scheduled regularly--once a year, for us, from now on. Now some might argue, why throw all those "people" away? Don't we bear some responsibility for determining their spiritual condition. Yes, we did. We did for 15 years and accomplished nothing. In some cases, you need to start fresh if you're going to accomplish anything useful with your data for the Kingdom.

Next, we determined that putting new data into the system should be a staff-level task. While some systems available these days allow for lay involvement in this process (like entering attendance over the internet), we found numerous mistakes made even by those who were adept with the system, but nevertheless did not put as much emphasis on proper data entry as we required. In the end, it cost us far more time to correct data errors than it did to simply enter the data ourselves at the staff level. Though I am an advocate for lay access and involvement in the upkeep and use of the church database, I still believe that new data entry is best accomplished by qualified staff persons.

A database system is only as good as those who know the system. A second issue we had in our database makeover was training--most of our staff did not know the system. Prior to our database makeover, no formal training had been held by the church on the database software in more than three years. This lack of training at all levels--ministerial to secretaries--led to great frustration with our system, and resulted in “data cliques” throughout the church (see details below).

Our training was threefold. First, we had basic training offered for all staff. Secondly, we had advanced training on the “back end” of the system for our data processing staff. Finally, several staff members were trained at the “instructor” level, allowing them to, in turn, train other staff and new staff, as well as lay leaders and participants, as required for the future. During the basic training, we emphasized the requirement for all data to be input into the system so that we had an accurate representation of the ongoing ministry of the church.

A database must minimize data cliques. Data cliques are little reservoirs of data, like an Excel Spreadsheet or email list, kept by a single staff member out of convenience and not shared with anybody. The problem with a data clique is that the information is inaccessible to the majority of church leaders, and is not standardized in our system. It means our main database does not give us a completely true picture of our church. For instance, if a staff member finds it “too difficult” to put guest records into the system each week, they may instead choose to converse with these guests by simply adding their email addresses to their email application, forgoing our guest tracking altogether.

That works fine for the guest's interaction with that staff member, but the church as a whole does not know those guests even exist, or when they came, or how to get in touch with them, or if they have any ministry needs that are not being met. Worse still, what if that staff member transitions to another position or even off the church staff altogether? All connection to that guest or attender is lost. Data cliques do not allow us to use our database to enable the church--a body of believers--to build relationships with individuals, versus individual relationships with other individuals. This connection--church body-to-person--is essential to the effectiveness of the church in reaching and interacting with people at all levels.

A database report is only useful if it's timely and accurate. The ultimate goal of any database is to manipulate and report on the data. For us, the ability to output the data quickly and in usable forms was paramount. Reporting from our database is used for three tasks primarily: (1) Contact with members, attenders and guests through mailing lists, emails, mail merges and so forth, (2) Attendance and trend reporting for staff accountability, ministry to absentees and guests and space planning, and (3) Management of contribution data for budgeting, accounting and the contributor’s tax purposes. In these three areas, the goal is simple: a truthful representation of the church’s activities.

Through the years I’ve heard and used the phrase "ministry numbers." Often there is in the North American church the temptation to "puff up" the actual attendance, number of guests or other data out of a desire for success or growth, even jealousy. I've been there when 125 in attendance was reported as "almost 200" or "several hundred." Ministry can be challenging, and I have found an unwritten but often seen practice of being intentionally optimistic about data in the church to the point of lying. This is surprisingly common in churches of all sizes.

A database, properly managed, presents the truth. And that's ultimately what matters, because we cannot effectively plan ministries, devote resources and become accountable to follow up without a baseline of truth in our data.

Our stewardship of data is both a priority and private. Finally, just as a Communications Ministry is a steward of information, a database manager is a steward of data. Good stewardship of data for us is measured first in our use of the information. Too often churches collect attendance data, contribution data, ministry activity data, and do nothing with it. It sits in their computers and but for a contribution report at the end of the year and occasional emailings does little or nothing.

As church leaders we must look at the value of this information for follow up and ministry. I can know today, for instance, how many Bible study members have not been present at church for the last three weeks. Now, what can I do with that information? Most churches do nothing with it. But doing something with it should be a priority.

I would suggest sending all those folks an email letting them know we miss them and giving contact information if they have ministry needs. I would also contact each class leader, giving them a list for follow up as well. I would perhaps even see if a trend was developing among absentees by getting a report of absences year-over-year for that particular season, or looking at data on those who had left the church in the last five years for reasons other than an out-of-town move, and find how many absences preceded their departure. Any and all of these options do more than make the data mean something. These actions are taken when we view the data as a tool to improve our ministries and impact people. It is, in essence, good stewardship of the database.

Finally, we must value the privacy of our data. The personal information of our membership must be guarded--more so now in the age of identity theft. Ten years ago, church members would not mind if you gave out their phone number to someone who called the church trying to contact them. Today that is not the case. The privacy of other data related to an individual, including their attendance information, must be stewarded properly.

A database that is accurate, discreet and diligently maintained becomes more than a collection of words and numbers in a computer. It is a fantastic tool for ministry that we can use daily to touch lives and minister to people in an effective manner.

About the Author. Eugene Mason has more than two decades of experience in ministry communications and technologies. More...