Jodi Blackham Samaritans Purse Background Samaritans Purse started church mobilisation programming in 2005 In response to HIV problem in African countries Grew to incorporate OVC and developed ID: 600210
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Review of SP’s Church and Community Mo..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Review of SP’s Church and Community Mobilisation Programme
Jodi Blackham
Samaritan’s PurseSlide2
BackgroundSamaritan’s Purse
started
church
mobilisation
programming in 2005
In response to HIV problem in African countries
Grew to incorporate OVC and developed “
My Family
”
Became boarder to address economic challenges, “
Livelihoods Lens
”
Piloted “open-ended” in Swaziland and Kyrgyzstan (e.g. church respond to any need they identify)Slide3
Church Mobilisation PartnershipsBelarus
Kyrgyzstan
Kenya
Liberia
Rwanda
SwazilandUgandaSlide4
The ModelSlide5
Simplified Results ChainSlide6
Review of CCMP ProgrammeConducted in Rwanda, Swaziland and Kyrgyzstan
Assessed the
p
rogramme
from different perspectives:
SP – funderPartner – implementerChurch action groups – local faith communityConducted with local churches that the partners had stopped supporting at least 18 months previouslyStructured interviews and a scalar toolsSlide7
Sample of the Research QuestionsIs the
programme
effective
in
addressing root causes of poverty in a number of holistic areas not just treating the symptoms?
Does the model continue to evolve and impact at consistent levels after the end of external assistance? What are some of the facilitator or inhibitors for continuing
impact? To what extend, after SP’s engage ceases, is the model being replicated effectively by the local church and community?Slide8
Preliminary findings
COUNTRIES:
Kyrgyzstan
and Swaziland
FOCUS: Capacity of Church Action Groups and Sustainability of ActivitiesSlide9
Functioning church action groups
After min. of 18 months
without any external
trainings/mentoring, majority of churches still have an active functional action group:
SW: 95
%
(47% thriving, 35% ticking over, 18% struggling)
KG: 59% (80% thriving, 20% ticking over)KG: continuing after six months lead to 90% chance of long-term activityVarying impact of senior pastor/leader moving on:
SW: 15% senior
pastors
moved
on,
but no
association
with ceasing
of
activities
KG: 18% of senior pastors moved on, higher amongst churches that subsequently stopped activitiesSlide10
Facilitators
Swaziland
Kyrgyzstan
Improvement of livelihoods
Consistent and supportive
leadership
Success of savings and loans schemes
Consistency in group members
New initiatives undertaken
“SP
didn’t promise us anything and after a while we knew they meant it. SP promised nothing and now we have learned that we have what we needed all along.”
– church memberSlide11
Inhibitors
Swaziland
Kyrgyzstan
Drought
Leadership
changes
Financial
constraintsExternal pressures/discouragementFinancial
constraintsSlide12
The ModelFidelity: recognizable as the original model
SW: 67% ‘clearly
recognisable’
and 33% ‘partly
recognisable’
KG: 90% “clearly
recognisable”Vision: majority maintain the visionReplication: those that thrive are likely to multiply
SW: 69% birthed at least one other groupKG: 80% birthed at least one other group
SW
KG
Holistic support of
specific vulnerable families
50%
90%
More aid-related
37%
General community services
13%
10%Slide13
Impact on the ChurchChurch action groups impact the church beyond their activities: almost all church leaders state the action groups have positively impacted the church:
SW: 95%
KG: 90%
“Spiritually
our people are seeing themselves as ministers because they are visiting homes more than they ever have in the past.” –
pastorSlide14
Perception of the Community
“We have people
who come to our churches who used to spend Sundays at the local drinking spots who have told us they came after seeing what we have done for their families
.”
– action group member
*previous research from CCMP in Uganda 2006 - 2010Slide15
ConclusionsModel is successful in changing the perspective of the churches in their ability to reach the vulnerable and influence change
D
ifferent inhibitors and facilitators in the different contexts:
Livelihoods gains important in Swaziland
External pressures influencing factor in Kyrgyzstan
Continuing activities in the short-term good indication of long-term success
Model has a positive impact on the church Slide16
Next stepsComplete data analysis and consolidate learning from other countries
Disseminate findings
Adapt model based on findings
Further research
Livelihoods component in SW?
External factors in KG?
Length of programming cycle?