Big goals are easy to state and easy to doubt. "100,000 Kingdom leaders over five years" sounds like a slogan until someone asks the obvious follow-up question: how, exactly?
We built a formal theory of change to answer that question honestly — for ourselves as much as for anyone evaluating whether to invest in this work. You can read the full version with our logic model here. This post is the short version of why we believe the chain holds together.
The Chain, in Five Links
Our model runs in five stages: inputs (what we invest — curriculum, staff, partners, funding) lead to activities (the 9-month Groundwork cohort, mentorship, missions trips), which produce outputs we can actually count (leaders formed, service hours logged, trips completed), which drive outcomes in the individual leader (healed identity, clarified calling, whole-person health), which compound into impact at the scale we're aiming for (formed leaders who reproduce formation in others).
Each link has to hold for the next one to matter. A curriculum with no community behind it doesn't produce outcomes. Outcomes that don't multiply don't produce impact at scale.
The Assumption Doing the Most Work
The assumption we lean on hardest is this: formed leaders multiply. We are not trying to personally form 100,000 people. We are trying to form a smaller number of leaders deeply enough that formation itself becomes something they pass on — to the people they disciple, lead, and mentor after Groundwork ends.
This is why Phase 3 of Groundwork isn't just an internship or a missions trip. It's a deliberate transition from being formed to forming others. If that transition doesn't happen, the whole model breaks down into something much smaller and much slower.
How We'll Know If We're Wrong
A theory of change is only useful if it's falsifiable. As our first cohort launches in Spring 2027, we're building measurement into the program from day one: pre- and post-cohort assessments across all six formation pillars, completion and placement tracking, and alumni surveys at six and twelve months to see whether formation actually held.
If the data says leaders aren't multiplying formation into their own communities, that's not a footnote — it's a sign we need to change the model, not just the marketing around it.
Why We're Publishing This Now
We're a young organization. We don't have five years of outcomes data yet — we have a model, a founder with a story worth trusting, and a plan for how we'll hold ourselves accountable. We'd rather be transparent about exactly what we believe and how we'll test it than wait until the data is impressive enough to publish.
If you're evaluating whether to partner with us — as a donor, a board member, or an institution — our theory of change is the most honest answer we can give you to "how does this actually work?"