The attached video is an interesting example of intentional prayer and also an interesting example of 12 Presbyterian Churches that work together for Bible Translation in Cameroon in a form of congregational mission.

COLLECTIVE IMPACT AND MISSION

Some issues are simply too complex to solve with any single approach.  Global humanitarian issues such as the HIV/AIDS crisis, large scale starvation, and drought are such issues.  Likewise, local issues with similar complexity cannot be addressed with a single approach.

There is a growing effort in the social sector to address complex issues in the U.S. such as vulnerable families with children, high school dropout rates, and related areas through what is being called “collective impact”.  An interesting phenomenon that I am noticing is that some congregations are beginning to take a similar approach to missions.  I have especially noticed this as churches are working to address the earthquake crisis in Haiti as well as the HIV/AIDS crisis throughout the continent of Africa as congregation’s partner with relief organizations, local Christians, government granting organizations, and a variety of other sectors.

Collective Impact, has been defined as “the commitment of a group of actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a complex social problem”[1]

Collective Impact is distinct from practices in the social and business sector which has practiced a paradigm of “isolated impact”.  The false notion of isolated impact is that a single organization can create large-scale, lasting impact on its own.  In the church this happens as denominations and Christian groups assume that they can make a large-scale, lasting impact on their own.   As they realize that many problems are more complex and systemic rather than mechanically solving a problem, many efforts have resulted in large scale expense efforts (human as well as financial) with limited or negative results.   The emerging paradigm of Collective Impact has not been applied to international missions to this point, but I would propose that an approach to holistic missions to address the complex social issues which Collective Impact is being utilized to address is an interesting option which has merit.

As I work to find some conditions that offer hope for meaningful results in congregational partnerships I find many similarities in the conditions which give success to collective impact approaches[2]:

1.       Common Agenda:  All participants have a shared vision for change including a common understanding of the problem and a joint approach to solving it through agreed upon actions.

2.       Shared Measurement:  Collecting data and measuring results consistently across all participants ensures efforts remain aligned and participants hold each other accountable.

3.       Mutually Reinforcing Activities: Participant activities must be differentiated while still being coordinated through a mutually reinforcing plan of action.

4.       Continuous Communication: Consistent and open communication is needed across the many players to build trust, assure mutual objectives, and appreciate common motivation.

5.       Backbone Organization: Creating and managing collective impact requires a separate organization(s) with staff and a specific set of skills to serve the backbone for the entire initiative and coordinating participating organizations and agencies.

Isolated Impact vs. Collective Impact

Isolated Impact	Collective Impact
Funders select individual grantees that offer the most promising solutions.	Funders and implementers understand that social problems, and their solutions, arise from the interaction of many organizations within a larger system.
Nonprofits work separately and compete to produce the greatest independent impact.	Progress depends on working toward the same goal and measuring the same things.
Evaluation attempts to isolate a particular organization’s impact.	Large scale impact depends on increasing cross-sector alignment and learning among many organizations.
Large scale change is assumed to depend on scaling a single organization.	Corporate and government sectors are essential partners.
Corporate and government sectors are often disconnected from the efforts of foundations and nonprofits.	Organizations actively coordinate their action and share lessons learned.

From a descriptive perspective, what I am noticing in congregational partnerships is a move away from isolated impact and a move toward collective impact. In ways that are probably similar to the business sector, there still exists a large degree of isolation, or organizations which are all working together but not entirely collectively.  To a large degree, however, there appears to be a movement toward congregations which are engaging a cross section of organizations to address major global issues.  This movement has various implications for congregations, for mission agencies as well as those with whom they partner.  Beyond that, for organizations which have moved strongly toward a model of church growth in which the measure of success is building the isolated organization, a collective impact model which focuses on the common good regardless of return to the organization will pose challenges to existing structures. 

---

[1] See www.fsg.org/OurApproach/WhatIsCollectiveImpact.aspx downloaded 4/9/2012

[2]  The list as well as comparisons come from HanleyBrown, Fay Kania John and Kramer Mark. 2012. Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work: An in-depth look at how organizations of all types, active in diverse settings, are implementing a collective impact approach to solve large-scale problems. In Stanford Social Innovation Review. Downloaded April 9, 2012 from http://www.fsg.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/PDF/Channeling_Change_SSIR.pdf