What Community Groups Achieve

An Overview of Dynamics & Outcomes

This study alone can’t quantify the actual success of certain groups—not without having great detail about what they did and how they operated, as well as community reports about how they were received. Further, metrics of success vary depending upon the unique purposes and contexts of groups—and likely upon whom you ask! Ultimately, perhaps only the neighborhoods in which groups gather, influence and act should determine their effectiveness. For the aims of this study, however, we’ll isolate several self-reported outcomes (both personal and public) that, on their surface, could be seen as positive and see if we can learn how to nurture these results.

As Barna set out to discover what makes a group effective toward its goals and in its neighborhood, we asked participants to keep their most successful group in mind during a specific portion of the survey. We wanted to learn what goes into these favored groups—their characteristics, organization, engagement and emotional climates—and what might keep participants involved for the long haul. The data show there are strong correlations between participation and things like spiritual growth, positive emotional responses, deeper community and new perspectives. Changing in these ways not only benefits an individual, but in turn may also flow out into the community, in a giving cycle.

In this chapter, we won’t focus much on compassionate and collaborative participants, but on all community participants, as there are actually very few significant differences among them when it comes to results and outcomes. This in itself, however, is worth noting: While the participant categories are helpful for identifying different types of participants and groups and the drivers of their involvement, in many cases, it appears individuals can begin at any point and arrive at impact, companionship or spiritual growth.

Group Growth & Retention

Thinking about the most successful group they’ve been engaged in, the plurality of practicing Christian participants (40%) places the size of that group between 10 and 20 members, in the middle of the range reported to Barna. At either end, about three in 10 say the group was either smaller than 10 members (29%) or exceeded 20 members (31%). Most groups (61%), particularly small ones with more room to grow (79%), see some increase in size, usually gaining up to 20 additional people (36%), though one-quarter (25%) reports more than 20 people joining their ranks. Another one in four recalls (27%) the group holding steady in size. Few respondents report that successful groups shrunk in membership (12%).

Granted, numerical growth on its own isn’t automatically a marker of effectiveness or progress for a group. There are, however, some common factors about groups that experience some level of reported growth, and many are seemingly positive: desires to change or create something, shared values, the financial support of grants, a desire to do good and act on religious beliefs, increased inspiration, more friends and spiritual growth.

Overlapping Outcomes

The gains of neighborhood engagement tend to hang together. That is, benefits beget benefits. Happiness is an obvious example, as either a contributor to or a consequence of other positive experiences. People who say their involvement in a successful group added to their personal happiness are more likely than the average to report every other good outcome. Perhaps of interest to church leaders is the fact that practicing Christians whose group engagement drew them closer to God show signs of increased strength in other relationships, like new friends, healthy communication, diverse perspectives and strong decision-making.

Perhaps of interest to church leaders is the fact that practicing Christians whose group engagement drew them closer to God show signs of increased strength in other relationships, like new friends, healthy communication, diverse perspectives and strong decision-making.

(79%), see some increase in size, usually gaining up to 20 additional people (36%), though one-quarter (25%) reports more than 20 people joining their ranks. Another one in four recalls (27%) the group holding steady in size. Few respondents report that successful groups shrunk in membership (12%).

Granted, numerical growth on its own isn’t automatically a marker of effectiveness or progress for a group. There are, however, some common factors about groups that experience some level of reported growth, and many are seemingly positive: desires to change or create something, shared values, the financial support of grants, a desire to do good and act on religious beliefs, increased inspiration, more friends and spiritual growth.

When practicing Christians were asked whether or not they were still a part of this group—the most successful one they’ve participated in—about six in 10 (62%) report continued involvement. For those who have moved on, the departure is often due to a literal move to a new location (13%) or having too many other responsibilities (13%). One in 10 (9%) says the group simply reached its goal and came to a natural end. As respondents are describing the most successful groups they’ve known, there are very few accounts of groups falling apart (2%) or participants losing interest (1%).

Rating Overall Group Health

As a more holistic approach to assessing the strength and success of groups engaging and influencing their communities, Barna created a score for healthiness based on combinations of some of the experiences already reported on in this chapter. Specifically, this rating for group health takes into account a participant’s level of agreement with the following statements, when considering the most successful group they’ve been a part of:

• I became closer to God as part of the group
• I made friends as part of the group
• People in the group had a variety of perspectives
• People in the group trusted each other
• There was a bully in the group (the health score noted disagreement, rather than agreement, with this statement)
• People in the group talked about their disagreements in a healthy way
• The group members helped each other become better
• The group was well-organized
• The group was able to make effective decisions

Those in very healthy groups at least somewhat agreed with more than seven of these items. Overall, nearly half—47 percent—of practicing Christians who have been in successful groups that left some sort of impact on their community provided responses that suggest these were very healthy associations. Though that means a slight majority were involved in moderately or less healthy environments, only 16 percent selected five or fewer of the statements above.

Comparing practicing Christian participants in very healthy groups to practicing Christians in other environments, some general learnings do emerge, many affirming themes already explored in this report.

For instance, doing good is a top motivation for participants (66% practicing Christians in very healthy groups vs. 55% of practicing Christians in moderately and less healthy groups), as well as—expectedly— faith (73% vs. 52%) and personal passions (56% vs. 39%).

Feeling inspired (79% vs. 51% agree) and happy (83% vs. 66% agree) and being stimulated to change one’s mind (39% vs. 29% agree) are more common personal experiences for participants in healthy groups.

These strong groups, though they often start small and grow from there, rarely suck participants into becoming busier (62% vs. 52% strongly disagree)—or, perhaps, they are healthy enough environments that respondents do not perceive them as consuming too much of their time.

What Should the Church’s Role Be?

Who do you think is best suited to solve problems in your community?

Respondents look first to the government (about one in three rank this as their number one choice). About one in four says churches and Christian organizations should take the lead, followed by actual members of the community, then charities, businesses and other religious organizations.

Practicing Christians, unsurprisingly, favor the leadership of churches and Christian organizations more (33%), though not much more than the government (31%). Meanwhile, very few non-Christians select the Church as their first option (7%), or even in their top three. They are more likely to identify the government (42%) or citizens (26%) as suitable local problem-solvers.

Among practicing Christians who are participants in groups that impact their communities, a group we can assume has a level of initiative themselves, more than onefifth (22% vs. 18% of all practicing Christians) thinks members of the community are best suited to help.

Though the government emerges as the perceived authority on addressing community problems, some openness to the Church’s help may be due to the fact that, overall, the majority of U.S. adults are Christians and say people of faith and religious organizations are responsible for the majority of good works in the country. About a quarter of all respondents says good works would still happen without these faith groups. Non-Christians, however, are flipped on this point; just 27 percent attribute charitable works to people of faith, while half (48%) feel these efforts would continue without them. Again, practicing Christians (70%), including those participating in groups that might carry out charitable services (72%), are more inclined to see religious organizations as crucial to good works in the nation.

There are, unsurprisingly, gaps in what, exactly, practicing Christians or nonChristians feel churches and Christian organizations could provide. According to practicing Christians, services for the homeless are seen as the primary offering, though generational programs, either for youth or elderly, are also valued. Many think churches could offer counseling, meet needs for single parents, help fundraise for other charities, support those in addiction recovery or provide other practical services for the community. There is less of a public invitation for the Church to be involved in schools, healthcare, prison reform, refugee care, financial services, sports programs or local advocacy. Consistently, non-Christians are less likely than Christians to seek the Church’s provision for community needs. One in four non-Christians (24%) doesn’t think churches are needed in any of these areas.

Pastors’ responses give us a picture of what churches actually offer and their practical ability to meet some of these community needs. Their primary focus is, expectedly, on key services and programs within the congregation: children’s ministry, Sunday school, youth and women’s ministries and so on. Offering prayer and hospitality is also a common offering. From there, the focus begins to shift outward, including community services and “mercy ministries,” something nearly seven in 10 pastors say is provided, and which might account for some of the problems adults hope churches might address. Singles and marriage ministries, longterm missions and pre-school are more specialty offerings, selected by a minority of pastors, about one in four.