For decades, history dictated how the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s world headquarters divvies up funds among its now 13 world regions, or divisions. But for the five church officials on the newly created Appropriations Review Committee, “because that’s how we’ve always done it” is no longer an adequate explanation.

Beyond the “minor adjustments” that accompanied shifts in division boundaries over the years, the group estimates that church leaders last comprehensively reviewed appropriations in the early 1990s. Even then, the result—a 1,000-page manuscript bogged down by calculations meant to find a scientific basis for distributing funds—dwarfed any practical adjustments.

“We took a look at it and said, ‘This just doesn’t make sense. This sort of thing just doesn’t fit into a nice, consistent formula,’” says Robert E. Lemon, world church treasurer and committee member.

Beginning in April, the committee will visit each division to scour financial records, spot economic strength indicators and weigh employee benefits. After reviewing between 500 and 700 church entities for 1995 and 2005, the committee will compare results for the two study years and make recommendations independent of appropriations history.

On the table is US$68 million in annual appropriations for Adventist Church institutions and divisions worldwide and any redistribution would better accommodate each region’s challenges, opportunities and economy, Lemon says.

Currency exchange is particularly dicey, says Jóhann E. Jóhannsson, treasurer for the church’s Trans-European region, first on the committee’s list for review. Because appropriations are distributed in U.S. dollars, it can be “a struggle” to balance the budget in regions with incongruent currencies—take the British pound against the weak U.S. dollar, he says.

Currency exchange also affects salaries. “In some parts of the world, it costs five to seven times more to employ one employee than in other parts of the world,” Jóhannsson says.

Similar economic problems and resource prioritization concerns the committee, not outright misappropriation of funds, Lemon says. “Money may be going toward administrative oversight, or areas where we already have infrastructure rather than the challenging areas,” he adds.

That means appropriations for some regions will inevitably be trimmed, he says, particularly where recent growth in membership and church infrastructure has kindled financial stability.

“I think everybody realizes that there are areas, in spite of once having great need, where the church is now strong enough to begin carrying more responsibility,” Lemon says.

That mindset challenges traditional distribution methods, says Lemon, which are largely driven by membership rather than need. Instead of such proportional distribution, the committee favors recalibrating appropriations according to specific, long-term needs.

“It’s very easy to make comparisons between [church regions],” says Lowell Cooper, a world church vice president and committee chair. “In fact we cannot. Growth rates are different. Economies are different. The degree to which the church in one given area relies on appropriations is different from other areas.”

Regional church leadership recognizes any decrease in appropriations only means a region with greater challenges will benefit, Cooper says. “It isn’t ‘us versus them’; we’re not having to fight and compete with each other.”

“This sort of review is very helpful, because we constantly need to redefine our goal in order to keep progressing,” says Paul R. Clee, communication director for the church’s Trans-European region. “When we question ourselves, it helps us sharpen our focus.”

The committee is expected to report to the Financial Planning and Budgeting Committee, which will recommend any changes in appropriations this fall to delegates at Annual Council, one of the church’s biannual business meetings. Recommendations will be phased in over a period of time to “allow for adjustments,” Lemon says.

Once fully adopted, the recommendations will likely guide the church’s distribution of its funds for the “foreseeable future,” Cooper says.

“Perhaps five or so years down the line, there may be need for another round to see if things need to be rebalanced once again,” he says.