Developing a Ministry Team In the Small Church

≈

By Glenn Daman

 After several meetings with the board at Townsville Community Church, Pastor John soon discovered that the majority of the board's efforts were spent discussing who would take care of the church facilities and when repairs would be made.  Whenever the pastor tried to bring issues concerning the spiritual well being of the congregation, the board responded by stating: "this is the job of the pastor."  At one meeting the pastor invited the board members to join him in visiting people who were ill or in the hospital.  While the board agreed that visitation was important, they responded that this is the task they had hired him to perform and they did not have the time available for this ministry.

            When First Bible Church hired the new pastor they were somewhat suspicious.  The previous pastor had been a gifted communicator fresh from seminary and soon left for a larger congregation.  He had also instituted new programs and changes without congregational or board approval.  The tension mounted until finally the church was split over some of the new changes.  Thus, they were suspicious of the new arrival.  Even though his resume was impressive and his preaching excellent, the people wondered if he would fit into the new ministry.  Since he grew up in a large eastern city, they were concerned that he would not understand and accept their small western culture.  Consequently, they were reluctant to give the new pastor any freedom to develop any direction within the church.

            The problems confronting these two churches are not unlike those confronting many small churches.  For a variety of reasons the small church often struggles in developing a team ministry between the board and pastor. The pastor often regards the board as uneducated and stubborn and the board views the pastor as insensitive to their specific setting.  However, small churches that are successful are those that not only develop a solid working relationship between the pastor and board, but they work together as a team, each understanding the importance and value of the other.

Defining team ministry:

Team ministry may be defined as the pastor and board working together to provide oversight of the spiritual growth and well being of the congregation and to develop a clear direction and purpose for the ministry of the church. This definition involves three aspects of team ministry.  First, it involves mutual and shared authority.  Instead of being in competition with one another concerning power, each learns to value and accept the input of the other. The authority vested to the board by the congregation does not intimate the pastor, and the board accepts the pastor as an equal with them.  Second, team ministry involves the recognition of mutual responsibility for the spiritual oversight of the congregation. Team ministry moves the leadership from the organizational priorities to the spiritual responsibilities.  They recognize that the spiritual care of the church is not just the charge of the pastor but equally belongs to the board.  Third, team ministry involves organizational oversight.  The board is to work with the pastor in the establishment of goals and direction of the church and in the implementation of those goals. 

Prerequisites for team ministry:

            To build an effective team ministry, the pastor and board need to understand the foundation for mutual cooperation.  They need to recognize that in order to develop teamwork, they must build upon the right relationship.

1.      Effective teams build upon a biblical theology of team ministry.  Working together as a team is not the latest management fad, but springs from the heart of the biblical concept of leadership within the church.  The sage, in Proverbs 11:14, recognizes the importance of multiple counselors when he wrote, "For lack of guidance a nation falls, but many advisers make victory sure" (see also 15:22, 24:6).  When the early church was founded, it was established under the leadership team of the twelve apostles.  In its first missionary venture, they sent out the team of Barnabas and Paul (Acts 13:2), following the pattern already established by Christ (Matthew 6:7).  When they appointed leaders in the churches they established, they appointed multiple elders (Acts 14:23). 

2.      Effective teams understand the nature of leadership within the small church.  They realize that leadership is not vested by position but by relationships.  The pastor is not threatened by the congregation or by the "tribal chiefs."  Instead, he strives to work with them and use their influence.  The team understands that the small church views leadership from a family perspective where relationships form the basis for all decisions. Rather than the corporate perspective where the organizational health determined the goals, budgets and programs, the small church evaluates everything from relational health.

3.      Effective teams understand the importance of mutual submission.  Paul commends all believers to submit to one another (Eph. 5:21).  The term implies that each person within the congregation (and leadership) voluntarily yields to one another in love.  Rather than pushing our agendas through, we are to be willing to set aside our personal desires, needs and plans for the benefit of the whole and the maintenance of unity within the church.

4.      Effective teams understand the importance of mutual trust.  The hallmark of love is continual trust in the other person (1 Cor. 13:7).  Just as God has entrusted the leadership of the church to selected individuals (1 Cor. 4:2), so also we must learn to trust one another.  We need to value others judgment and opinions, striving to see the best in others rather than seeing the worst.  Instead of quickly judging the motives of others, we learn to have confidence in each other's spiritual integrity.

5.      Effective teams love the church.  While Ephesians 5:25-33 has traditionally been used as a text on the husband's love for his wife, Paul makes it clear that the primary focus of his discussion is upon Christ's love for the church (verse 32).  Effective leaders love the church.  They are motivated to service, not to get more recognition or influence, but because of their passion to see the church become all God designed her to be.

6.      Effective teams are built upon spiritual maturity.  Paul, in addressing the qualifications of leadership, places the emphasis upon spiritual maturity (1 Timothy 3:17; Titus 1:5-9).  While the secular community looks for leaders who have multiple abilities, keen intellect and dynamic personalities, the church is to look for leaders who have a deep love for Christ, a passion for truth, and a consistent biblical lifestyle. 

Avoiding the Team Killers:

            While building upon the right foundation for team leadership is critical, it is also important to identify and avoid those things that will destroy an effective team.

            Team Killer #1: Pastoral Pride.   While education and training is critical for effective ministry, the danger is that we can equate training and biblical knowledge with spirituality.  The pastor then views the board as untrained and uneducated in spiritual leadership.  When this happens, the pastor can develop an attitude that the board members have less insight into the will of God.  Consequently, when the board disagrees with the direction and goals of the pastor, he can begin to view the board as carnal.  This establishes a rift between them that undermines effectively working together as a team.  When the pastor fails to understand and value the board, tensions arise as the pastor regards the board members to be unwilling to change and accept new methodologies that he deems to be essential to the growth and well being of the church.  For there to be teamwork, it is vital that the pastor learn to value the spiritual insight and sensitivity of the board.

            Team Killer #2:  Lack of Acceptance.  The board sees the pastor as an outsider.  There are several reasons why the congregation will view the pastor as an outsider.  First, because the small church has often experienced a rapid turnover of pastoral leadership, the lay leaders begin to develop the mentality that the pastor will be temporary.  Consequently, they do not fully entrust themselves to his leadership for he will soon be gone. 

            A second reason is the cultural differences that can exist between the background of the pastor and those of the congregation.  When a pastor comes from a different cultural setting (such as from the city to the county or from one geographic region to another) he may discover that people are reluctant to accept him into the inner circle of the church.  Although they value his spiritual and biblical instruction, they are hesitant to accept any changes because "he does not understand us."  They view the pastor as someone who comes in with all kinds of new ideas and programs but lacks sensitivity to the issues and culture of the congregation.  They see him as someone who brings in his agenda rather than listens to their agenda. 

            In both these cases, it is critical that the lay leadership takes the lead in setting the example for the congregation in following the pastor's leadership.  The laity must work to help people learn to accept the new pastor with his cultural differences.  On the other hand, it is important for the pastor to seek to understand the specific culture of the area and to manifest a strong commitment to the church.

            Team Killer #3:  Suspicion. The people become suspicious of the leadership.  If the congregation has experienced problems in the past with the pastor or even the lay leadership, mistrust for new leadership can develop. Instead of rallying around the new individuals in leadership positions and working with them to fulfill the great commission, the people question any new idea or change they bring to the table.  When a pastor and board are working within this environment, they need to recognize the importance of gaining trust before attempting to implement new strategies.  Furthermore, they need to keep all communication channels open and operate under the assumption that it is better to over communicate than under communicate. If they are not clearly communicating what they are doing and why, people will develop serious doubts and questions about the motives and intent of the leaders.

            Team Killer #4:  Inflexibility.  When the pastor or any individual board member always says "no" to any new idea or proposal, the teamwork within the board breaks down.  The board needs individuals who are open to new ideas and who are willing to openly evaluate change.  People who are inflexible are those who refuse to accept any opinion or proposal that is not in full agreement with their personal concept of what things should be. Effective teams are built upon people who are open, who evaluate ideas and listen carefully to others before formulating their decisions.  They are willing to "agree to disagree" and will support issues and proposals even if they are not in full agreement.

            Team Killer #5:  Docility.  In sharp contrast to the inflexible person is the one who always goes with the flow and is always a "yes" person.  This is the individual who never expresses his own ideas but always agrees with the pastor.  Teamwork is built upon individuals who are not afraid to disagree, who raise objections to issues in order to protect the congregation from poor decisions. While they do not demand that everyone agree and follow their opinions, they are not afraid to express their ideas and give their input. 

 Conclusion:

            Healthy churches operate with a team.  Instead of the pastor and board struggling against one another for power and authority, they learn the value and importance of shared authority.  While they have different functions and roles within the life of the congregation, they also recognize that only by working together can they lead the church in the fulfillment of its biblical responsibilities.

http://www.smallchurchleaders.org/the-small-church-shepherd/developing-a-ministry-team.html

Global Sporting Events and the Urban Poor

By Glenn Smith 

July 2008

Next month the Summer Olympics will be held in Beijing. In this issue on ministry with slum communities we are highlighting the poor in Chinese cities.

Working Definitions and Facts  “Urban poor” defined: Those living on  less than US$1 or US$2 per day  (Millennium Development Agenda).  Those living with inadequate income,  shelter and access to infrastructure  and basic daily services. Those who  have an unstable asset base, little to  no access to their rights as citizens,  and are voiceless and powerless in  their communities. Number of urban poor: est. 2 billion “Slum community” defined: Communities  with inadequate access to safe drinking  water and sanitation, poor structural  housing, overcrowding, and insecure  residential status (UN-Habitat). Number of people living in slum  communities: est. 924 million

Dr. Peter Foggin of Lanzhou University in northwestern China explains the massive and rapid urbanization that is going on in China today. When you compare his figures with global figures (see sidebar), you understand the magnitude of the changes taking place in the twenty-first century. Two practitioners tell stories of the plight of the urban poor. Y. Lee describes how the Olympics are affecting the poor in Beijing.

The story of God’s Spirit at work in China in general, and in cities in particular, is being increasingly documented. I invite you to read Rob Moll’s informative article in the May issue of Christianity Today. However, it is far from obvious how the whole Church will take the whole gospel to the eight hundred thousand slum dwellers in Beijing. These mangliu are caught in the hukou system (see Foggin’s article for details). They are captives within the exploding global economic and sporting system that has taken over China’s cities. Due to the precarious situations of these congregations, it was difficult to put these articles in this section of LWP together.

United Christian outreach efforts at Summer Olympics go back to Montréal in 1976. At the Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization in 1974, Canadian church leaders decided to work together for the games of the XXI Olympiad to be held in Montréal. The 7th Lausanne Occasional Paper, “Cooperating in World Evangelisation,” documents these initiatives. Ramez Atallah of the Egyptian Bible Society has recounted how his involvement in the executive Committee of Aide Olympique (the organizing committee) influenced his life. I orchestrated all the youth outreach and saw firsthand how the Church united is a powerful force used by the Spirit to touch lives during a global event.

But we all saw what happens to the poor in a city during these events. As the games of the XXIX Olympiad draw near, pray for the united outreach. Even more, pray for the poor who suffer because of events like this.

---

Glenn Smith is senior associate for urban mission for the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization and is executive director of Christian Direction in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He is a professor of urban theology and missiology at the Institut de theologie pour la Francophonie at the Université de Montréal and at the Université chrétienne du Nord d’Haïti. He is also professor of urban missiology at Bakke Graduate University in Seattle, Washington, USA. Smith is editor of the Urban Communitees section.

---

Comments on this article

Add a comment

Disunity is KILLING Your Outreach Efforts

by Eric Geiger

Email Share On Facebook Twitter

One of the greatest hindrances to a church making an impact on the community around her is a lack of unity — a lack of Christian love and passion focused together in the same direction. Jesus said, “By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).
By the love that you have for one another … not by the great facilities, incredible music, powerful teaching, excellent programs, etc.
The apostle Paul wrote four biblical letters from prison: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon. A common thread that runs through each letter is a challenge for the believers to be unified, to recognize that their new standing with God must deeply impact how they relate to others in the family of God. While enduring difficult persecution and facing an uncertain future, Paul wanted to be sure that the churches lived as one. Unity was not a tertiary issue in his mind; rather, it was essential for the advancement of God’s kingdom.
Sadly, many local churches are plagued with disunity that confuses a watching world and hurts those inside the body. Sometimes the disunity manifests itself in overt fighting over preferences, such as style, dress, programming and even facility decisions. Other times the disunity manifests itself more subtly in competing directions. Instead of “contending as one man for the sake of the gospel,” the church runs in a plethora of directions driven by multiple ministry philosophies that subtly compete with one another. Whether disunity rears its head overtly or subtly, the disunity reveals a spiritual sickness deep beneath the surface.
Paul challenged the church at Ephesus to “diligently [keep] the unity of the Spirit” (4:3). He did not challenge them to “create unity” because they were already unified by the “one hope at your calling — one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (4:4-6). A church’s unity reflects the Godhead (He is one God, yet three Persons) and the salvation He has given us (He has made us one with Himself and each other). Thus, not to live as a unified body of believers is to drift from the foundation of our faith and the character of our God. A drift in unity reveals a deeper drift — a misplaced priority and a mistaken enemy.

A Misplaced Priority

While unity is not the ultimate goal of a church, it reflects our commitment to the One who is ultimate. A lack of unity shows that personal preferences have taken priority over the Lord and His mission. When Paul challenged the Philippians to be one, he essentially said, “If you have any joy at all in being a Christian, any mercy at all in your hearts, then think the same way and focus on one goal” (2:1-2). A lack of unity reveals that, for some, personal kingdoms have taken precedence and priority over His.

A Mistaken Enemy

A church fighting is as heartbreaking and appalling as an army turning and shooting its own people. Surely the Enemy, the Devil who prowls around like a roaring lion seeking to devour, is pleased and present in such circumstances. Instead of uniting to advance God’s kingdom, a church that fights within herself wastes countless amounts of energy and time devouring her members.
Christians throughout history have been recognized as a group who love each other well. Aristides, who wrote scornfully of the early Christians, admitted that they loved each other deeply. He said, “If these Christians hear that any one of their number is in distress for the sake of Christ’s name, they all render aid in his necessity.” For a local church to forsake unity is to forsake the great history we claim. Thus, a drift in unity reveals a deeper drift — a drift away from our Lord and the mission He has given His Church.
Unity is kept when we view others as better than ourselves (Philippians 2:3), and the only way we are empowered to do so is if our minds and hearts are continually reminded of how Christ served us (2:5-8). Church leaders must join the apostle Paul in greatly valuing the unity of a local body of believers and continually encouraging people to live the unity that Christ has already graciously given His people. 

• Print version

Rate this article

0

Eric Geiger serves as the Vice President of the Church Resource Division at LifeWay Christian Resources. Prior to LifeWay, Eric served local churches, most recently investing eight years as the executive pastor of Christ Fellowship Miami. Eric received his doctorate in leadership and church ministry from Southern Seminary. He is also a teaching pastor and a frequent speaker and consultant on church mission and strategy. Eric authored or co-authored several books including the best selling church leadership book, Simple Church. Eric is married to Kaye, and they have two daughters: Eden and Evie. During his free time, Eric enjoys dating his wife, playing with his daughters, and shooting basketball.More from Eric Geiger or visit Eric at ericgeiger.com/

Please Note: We reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, uncivil and off-topic. Read a detailed description of our Comments Policy.

Copyright © 2013 ChurchLeaders.com Privacy Terms of Use AdvertiseAbout Us Newsletter Signup Contact Us feedback

Show

7 Reasons You Should Move to Washington, DC

Posted in All Posts, City Life, Everyday Life, Misc., Washington DC Places

Do you ever have those mornings where you realize you have absolutely nothing interesting to say? Nothing smart or witty or even remotely entertaining?  Even this intro has taken me five minutes to write and I’m not even joking.

Apparently it’s going to be one of those days so I’m just going to embrace it and do what I always do whenever I have nothing else to do – I’m going to make a list.  So without further ado, allow me to present to you:

7 reasons why you should Move to Washington, DC (or at least come visit)

1.  No building is above 10 stories.  Yeah, I’m not sure why that is a benefit either, but it’s interesting.  And it makes for a very level skyline.


2. A Car is optional.  Unless, of course, you need to carry something big, otherwise you’re good to go.  Need to get groceries you say?  No problem.  Everyone uses one of these handy-dandy little carts.  They’re the latest fashion accessory for all city-dwellers.

And if you need to get from one place to another, just hop on the Metro and you’ll be there in no time.  Unless it’s stuck due to an outage or there’s a delay on one of the lines and then you’re on your own.


3. Historical sites.  The Washington Monument.  The Lincoln Memorial.  The Jefferson Memorial.  The National Cathedral.  The World War II Memorial.  Need I say more?


4.  Everything is free.  Okay, maybe I should clarify that a bit because it is, after all, a city and we all know that things in the city aren’t cheap.  But there are loads of free entertainment, however.  All of the above sites, for example, are completely free.  Weekly concerts at the Kennedy Center are completely free.  Sitting in the park at Dupont Circle and watching people go by won’t cost you a dime. (Picture courtesy of Wikipedia.)


5. Feeling hungry? Then you’re in luck because DC offers a bit of everything.  Craving Ethopian food?  No problem.  Looking for Mid-Eastern cuisine?  Search no further.  Anything you want to eat and more is offered here and often times until the late hours of the night.


6. Political Junkie Haven.  If you’re into politics (which surprisingly, I’m not) then this is the town for you.  And chances are good that you’ll run into a Congressman or Senator during your jaunts about town so be sure that you have your handy dandy “who’s who” book with you.  If you’re really lucky, you just might be able to get your picture taken with one.


7.  Fireworks.  I think it’s a given that the Capitol of the United States is going to have the best firework display EVER on Fourth of July.  I realize that you can see them only once a year, but they really are that good so start planning now.  (Image courtey of wikipedia.)


Okay… I was going for 10 reasons but, as I mentioned earlier, I’m having “issues” this morning so I’m going to have to stop at seven.  Suffice it to say though, it’s a great place to live/visit and I give it two thumbs up.

http://www.fromsingletomarried.com/2010/10/15/7-reasons-you-should-move-to-washington-dc/

New Arundel police chief says job begins with 'building trust'

Kevin Davis looks to remove 'cloud' over department

July 19, 2013|By Andrea F. Siegel and Pamela Wood, The Baltimore Sun

"I don't breathe fire. I love my mom," said Kevin Davis, breaking the ice as he introduced himself to a group of Anne Arundel officers in Pasadena.

It was the Eastern District's 3 p.m. roll call Thursday, one of many rounds he's been making in his new role since he left his job as assistant police chief in Prince George's County to take over the troubled Anne Arundel department barely a week ago.

His priorities include getting out to listen to what Anne Arundel County police officers and district commanders have to say, getting the lay of the land from his staff and evaluating everything from the people to the facilities where they work. There will also be meetings with county neighborhood groups and organizations.

It's all in an effort to rebuild trust, he said.
"There's a cloud over the government and a cloud over you, all that you did not cause. And that overshadows your good work," he told the officers.

Minutes earlier, speaking with the district's commander, Frank Tewey, Davis acknowledged that he'd gotten lost the previous day in the department's headquarters in Millersvllle. The good part was that he landed amid evidence technicians, where he learned that they love their schedule, which keeps them on shifts with the officers and dispatchers they regularly deal with. "I'm learning too," he said.

Davis' priorities include improving the atmosphere in a department in which frustrated workers have taken to venting allegations in anonymous letters to politicians and news media. He said he wants to stress community policing strategies, improve community relations and make sure public safety issues are professionally addressed.

The department is also struggling with aging facilities, including a police academy in need of replacement, and old police cars that require constant repair.

Davis said officers and resources — the department is authorized for 679 officers and 240 civilian employees, though some positions are vacant — must be used to make a difference. The focus should not be on the number of traffic tickets, he said, but rather are tickets being written in areas where there are a lot of crashes?
"Quality trumps quantity every day of the week," he said. "I'm not a crime accountant."

County Executive Laura Neuman called Davis the "perfect candidate," someone who can tackle the job of restoring "faith and integrity to the department."
Davis said how people feel about safety and their police department is crucial: Working with residents routinely helps police "put some goodwill in the bank" when crises arise. A key way of building relationships will be getting officers out to meet residents more often, and he said police should include other county agencies in dealing with neighborhood issues.

Davis' interest in working with residents was spurred when he was a district commander in Prince George's from 2005 to 2009. One success in building community relations, he said, was devising a "graffiti wagon" and going out on weekends with residents to clean up graffiti in his district.

He said he sees Anne Arundel's four district commanders as chiefs of their districts, deciding what works best for their neighborhoods in a diverse county of about 540,000 residents.

Anne Arundel's department has had a tumultuous few years. An investigation of County Executive John R. Leopold culminated in his conviction five months ago for offenses that included misusing his executive protection officers for personal and political tasks.

Davis is the fourth police chief within 12 months for a force that became embroiled in the scandal that led to Leopold's conviction and resignation. James Teare Sr. retired last summer before Leopold's trial, ending a state investigation into his role in the misconduct case involving his boss. Teare was not charged with any offense. His replacement, Larry W. Tolliver, a former state police superintendent, left after 10 months, admitting that he used an anti-gay slur and saying that constant questioning of his leadership was taking a toll. Deputy Police Chief Pamela Davis — no relation — has been serving as acting chief since late May, while Neuman appointed an outside task force to evaluate the department.

The tumult aside, the new chief said he jumped at the opportunity to lead his hometown police force after 21 years in Prince George's County, where he had worked his way up from beat cop to assistant chief.

Davis has lived in Crofton since 1995 and said he knows many Anne Arundel officers from working in an adjacent county. He coaches youth football in Crofton. His children swim with County Councilman Jamie Benoit's kids, and he went to DeMatha High School in the 1980s with O'Brien Atkinson, president of the union that represents rank-and-file police officers.

Davis "dealt with scandals of his own in Prince George's County," Benoit said, adding that he is "very, very comfortable with both his experience and his character" and thinks he can right the Anne Arundel department.
Atkinson said Davis was the only candidate during the previous search for a chief to contact him about his ideas for the department. "I think that speaks volumes for what kind of chief he would be," Atkinson said.

Davis "dealt with scandals of his own in Prince George's County," Benoit said, adding that he is "very, very comfortable with both his experience and his character" and thinks he can right the Anne Arundel department.
Atkinson said Davis was the only candidate during the previous search for a chief to contact him about his ideas for the department. "I think that speaks volumes for what kind of chief he would be," Atkinson said.

"He said he thought a chief should be more involved with the County Council and other elected officials," Atkinson recalled. "He described a more collaborative style and said he'd like to involve the rank and file in decision-making."

Davis said Prince George's and Anne Arundel have similar policing challenges: They are large, suburban counties adjacent to big cities.

Yet along with success, Davis' record in Prince George's also includes two lawsuits in which he was a defendant. He was cleared of wrongdoing by his department in both incidents.

In 1993, a young man alleged that Davis threw him to the ground and handcuffed him without explanation. He won a $12,500 jury award against Davis, according to court records.

In 2002, a federal jury awarded about $90,000 to a teenager who said he was taken from his home without a warrant in 1999 by undercover officers, then interrogated for hours about the whereabouts of his girlfriend, the niece of the agency's deputy chief. According to published reports at the time, a jury found the constitutional rights of the 19-year-old were violated but rejected his claims of excessive force. Soon after the lawsuit was filed, the deputy chief, who gave the officers their assignment, retired.

Davis said that assignment was given under "false pretenses," as the girl willingly left her home and a missing-person report did not classify her as critically missing, though officers were led to believe she was in danger.

"The fact that a deputy chief gave it to me, I had no reason to doubt its veracity," he said this week recalling the case. But it was "quite a lesson for me as a young sergeant."

Davis said the incident stuck with him. "It made me a better cop. It made me a better leader. It made me a better person."

"You will never see Kevin Davis make that mistake," said David Mitchell, a former Prince George's police chief and Maryland State Police superintendent.  Mitchell said he's known Davis since he was child, because Davis' father, Robert, was a Prince George's officer.

Most recently, Mitchell was Davis' professor in a class at the Johns Hopkins University when Davis was working toward a master's degree in public safety leadership. He said Davis has learned from everything, including his and others' mistakes.

"He will not betray his department," Mitchell said.
Prince George's County Police Chief Mark Magaw said he was disappointed to lose his right-hand man to Anne Arundel.

Magaw praised Davis' experience, particularly his efforts in community outreach. He noted that Prince George's has seen several years of reduced violent crime and said "a lot of that is because of Kevin Davis."

Davis dealt with training, use of force issues and other concerns as the Prince George's department emerged from Justice Department oversight several years ago, which stemmed from police shootings and other incidents. According to Prince George's police spokesman Lt. Bill Alexander, Davis was among those credited with addressing community and federal concerns.
Cpl. Vince Canales, president of the Fraternal Order of Police in Prince George's County, said Davis is a "policeman's policeman" who is a smart pick for Anne Arundel.

"He's come up through the ranks; he's worked the streets of Prince George's County," he said. "He's a hands-on type of manager."

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-07-19/news/bs-md-ar-new-chief-20130719_1_police-department-police-academy-anne-arundel-county/2

Lots of New People Coming to D.C., But Who Stays?

The District has seen surprising and encouraging population growth over the last few years. In 2011, in fact, D.C. grew faster than any other city in the country, adding 16,000 new residents from April 2010 to July 2011.

The Post touches upon migration patterns to D.C. today, noting that we're getting plenty of young new residents from all over the country:

More people relocate to the District each year from Manhattan than from Fairfax County. The District gains more residents from Chicago and Los Angeles than from Alexandria, with newcomers from Philadelphia and San Diego close behind. Eight of the top 15 places that people have left for the District are outside the region. Census data released Wednesday show that migration patterns reflect a revitalized District that has been gaining residents for the first time in more than half a century. Most of the new arrivals are young adults who move here to attend college and stay, or arrive fresh from graduation to land their first professional jobs.

Of course, for every new resident coming to the city for their first job, there's invariably someone who leaves because they want to buy a house, start a family or rely on more consistent public schools. According to Census data, for every 6,000 Prince George's County residents that move to D.C. on a yearly basis, 14,000 D.C. residents make the trip out to the county. The same goes for Fairfax County, albeit on a smaller scale.

City officials note that the exodus to Maryland and Virginia has slowed, but that doesn't change the reality that D.C. can be a tough place to stay over the long term. Additionally, these increases in population also spur the city's changing demographics—the number of African American residents dropped some 11 percent over the last decade.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@dcist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Martin Austermuhle in News on Mar 29, 2012 1:30 PM

Poverty rates higher for blacks and Hispanics than whites and Asians

By Carol Morello,February 20, 2013

Blacks and Hispanics in Maryland and Virginia are much more likely to be poor than whites or Asians there, but their poverty rates are still lower than the national average, the Census Bureau said Wednesday.

A census report on poverty rates for various racial and ethnic groups found poverty widespread among American Indians, blacks and Hispanics.

Nationwide, during 2007 and 2011, which encompasses the recession and the immediate aftermath, 43 million Americans — or slightly more than 14 percent — lived in poverty. But not every group was impacted equally. The poverty rate was 27 percent for American Indians, 26 percent for African Americans and 23 percent for Hispanics. Among whites and Asians, less than 12 percent were poor. The federal threshold for poverty is about $11,500 in annual income for an individual and about $23,000 for a family of four.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-20/local/37193481_1_poverty-rates-blacks-hispanics