1. Jodi Blackham Samaritan’s Purse
Evaluation of Samaritan’s Purse Church and Community Mobilisation Programme
Jodi Blackham
Samaritan’s Purse

2. Background
Samaritan’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)

3. Church Mobilisation Partnerships
Belarus
Kyrgyzstan
Kenya
Liberia
Rwanda
Swaziland
Uganda
In each location we have a local partner. These partners are different in each country.
E.g. Rwanda: Anglican church
Rwanda: Local NGO
Uganda: Samaritan’s Purse local field office
The partners also will work differently with the local faith based communities.
E.g. Uganda works in a geographical area with all denominations of churches
Rwanda has historically worked solely through the Anglican diocese. However now expanding to other denominations.

4. The Model Step One Step Two Step Three Step Four Step Five Step Six
Pre-Process
Step Two
Envisioning and Empowering
Step Three
Action Group Formation
Step Four
Planning and Sector Training
Step Five
Outreaches Begin
Step Six
Further Capacity Building and Support
Typical three year process
Steps 4, 5 and 6 are interchangeable

5. The Evaluaiton Conducted in Rwanda, Swaziland and Kyrgyzstan
Assessed the programme from different perspectives:
SP – funder
Partner – implementer
Church action groups – local faith community
Conducted with local churches that the partners had stopped supporting at least 18 months previously
Structured interviews and a scalar tools
Based on a TEARFUND tool used in Cambodia

6. Sample of the Research Questions
Is 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?

7. Preliminary findings COUNTRIES: Kyrgyzstan and Swaziland
FOCUS of findings presented here: Capacity of Church Action Groups and Sustainability of Activities
Preliminary findings

8. 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 activity
Varying 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 activities
Sample = 20 churches

9. Facilitators/Motivators
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 member

10. Inhibitors Swaziland Kyrgyzstan Drought Leadership changes
Financial constraints
External pressures/discouragement

11. The Model Fidelity: recognizable as the original model Vision:
SW: 67% ‘clearly recognisable’ and 33% ‘partly recognisable’
KG: 90% “clearly recognisable”
Vision:
majority maintain the vision
Replication: those that thrive are likely to multiply
SW: 69% birthed at least one other group
KG: 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%
The purist vision of the programme and its training is more aligned to the first answer, i.e. the holistic support of specific vulnerable families.

12. Impact on the Church
Church 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.” – pastor

13. 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

14. Conclusions
Model is successful in changing the perspective of the churches in their ability to reach the vulnerable and influence change
Different 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

15. Next steps
Complete 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?