5. How will you measure success on this mission trip?
Typically, churches evaluate their service projects and mission trips by the number of volunteers involved, the activities performed and the impact on participating members. Less attention is paid to the results on the receiving end of charity. If, however, preserving the dignity and self-esteem of recipients is important to you, then you will want to assess the amount of mutual collaboration, leadership sharing and reciprocity structured into your event.
If your goal is to actually empower those you serve, you will focus less on volunteer activities and more on measurable, longer term outcomes such as leadership development, increased self-sufficiency, and educational and economic advancement.
6. Is it cost-effective?
The money one campus ministry spent on a spring break mission trip painting an orphanage in Honduras was enough to hire two unemployed local painters, two full-time teachers and supply new uniforms for every child in the school. The cost of most mission trips is out of all proportion to the return on investment (ROI) when comparing it against the actual value of the service being performed.
The billions spent annually on such junkets might be justified as a legitimate cost of spiritual development for church members, but it lacks integrity if billed as effective mission strategy. Wise stewardship requires thoughtful assessment of the cost effectiveness of mission investments.
A few suggestions to avoid mission trip toxicity.
Mission projects can be genuinely redemptive. The best ones are joint ventures with mature, indigenous ministries that understand both the culture and healthy cross-cultural partnering. A few reality tested principles provide a “code of conduct” to guide invited volunteer guests toward sensitive, mutually transforming relationships:
a. Never do for others what they can do for themselves (teach a man to fish).
b. Limit one-way giving to emergencies (most needs are chronic, not crisis).
c. Employment, lending and investing are best (use grants sparingly as incentives).
d. Subordinate self-interests to the interests of the poor (is this for our good or theirs?).
e. Listen to what is not being said (many needs are not immediately voiced).
f. Above all, do no harm.
