About
Why it is built this way.
The thinking behind Congregate: our theory of change, what it borrows from models that already work, the questions people ask first, and who it owes thanks to.
Our theory of change.
A theory of change says what we are trying to change, and the chain of steps we think will get us there. Read it in order, from what we put in to the change we want to see. The assumptions below are what we are betting on between the steps.
Inputs
What we need in order to run the work.
- A volunteer lead and three pillar leads, each with a co-lead
- Partner masaajid and community spaces, so no new buildings
- A free tool stack: Notion, WhatsApp and Google Drive
- About £2,500 to £5,000 for a first pilot (a UK reference), and ideally a part time funded coordinator
- The open playbooks, templates and self-audit on this site
Activities
What the team actually does.
- Educate: share the playbooks, and orient every new volunteer and mentor
- Facilitate: one shared calendar, shared venues and bookings, common templates
- Integrate: self-audits, 90 day plans, peer audits between hubs, and handoffs between life stages
- Run intergenerational sessions that bring young people, mentors and elders into one room
Outputs
What the activities directly produce.
- A founding group, a map of what already exists, and a named lead for each starting pillar
- A signed memorandum with each host masjid, a safeguarding lead and a data sharing agreement
- Weekly sessions run, with registers kept
- A completed self-audit and a published 90 day plan
- A version 1.0 playbook, published openly
Short-term outcomes
What changes first, within about six months.
- Organisations that worked apart know each other and share one calendar
- Overlaps and gaps in the area are visible
- Young people, mentors and elders meet regularly
- Volunteers hold defined posts at about two hours a week, and stay
Medium-term outcomes
What has to be true next, over one to three years.
- 10 institutions using at least two playbooks in year 1, and 50 by year 3
- 60% of registered organisations moving from Level 1 to Level 3 within 12 months
- 100 or more documented handoffs per hub each year, from youth to mentor to elder adviser
- 40% less duplicated local service within 36 months
These are aims from the original plan, not results.
Long-term impact
The change we want to see.
- A community where every person is nurtured and handed on, from the first days of life to the last, and holds a post well
- Local organisations coordinating under one standard, each keeping its own name, with no new umbrella body
- What each hub learns flowing back into the open framework
Assumptions
Why we think each step will cause the next.
- Young people drift away mostly because nobody owns the handover at eighteen. A written pathway and a named person will change that.
- Organisations will adopt a shared standard if they keep their name, their governance and their donors.
- A small group can keep going at about two hours a week each, if every lead has a co-lead.
- A peer audit by another hub is a credible check, because no central body runs it.
- Real activity in one place persuades more than a plan does.
- People stay longer in a post that fits their skills and meets a real local need.
Risks and context
What could stop it, and what to keep in mind.
Context
- The evidence so far is one early, informal pilot. The results are qualitative and have not been independently audited.
- The pilot and the money figures are UK based.
- The national shura is planned for phase 2, so until it exists nobody can award Congregate Alignment.
Main risks
- A masjid committee pushes back or tries to take control
- A failure of child safeguarding or insurance
- Volunteers and mentors burn out
- Young people drop off
- Friction between masaajid or factions
- Being seen as an umbrella body
We check this against what we find, and change it when the evidence says so. The self-audit and the pilot kit are how each hub tests it for itself. The thinking behind the work is set out in an article of its own.
Tested against eight models.
We did not start from nothing. For each model that already works somewhere, we asked what to borrow, where the design fell short, and what we changed.
What we borrowed
The gap we found
What we changed
Collective Impact
What we borrowedShared measurement from day one: the audit and maturity matrix.
The gap we foundThe coordinating role is under-resourced in phase 1.
What we changedA funded coordinator, even part time, from the start.
Asset based community development
What we borrowedMap what already exists before looking at what is missing.
The gap we foundIt maps institutions, not individual residents' skills.
What we changedA person level skills sign up sits beside the activity map.
Rothman's three models
What we borrowedLocality development and social planning (the audits).
The gap we foundAlmost no social action. Advocate is advisory, not power building.
What we changedAdvocate adds relational one to ones and public accountability actions.
Citizens UK
What we borrowedA UK alliance that already counts mosques among its members, and builds power through the number and variety of people it represents.
The gap we foundNo dues, and no organising tactics inside Advocate.
What we changedA small partner contribution, and organising methods in Advocate.
Jewish federation system
What we borrowedA federated local hub with a national umbrella, proven over 130 years.
The gap we foundNo single pooled giving campaign across all eight pillars.
What we changedOne shared annual campaign funds all eight pillars.
AA's Twelve Traditions
What we borrowedAn open standard, a protected name and no central control.
The gap we foundNo firewall against money and prestige capturing leadership.
What we changedA money and prestige firewall in the governance rules.
Social franchising
What we borrowedA tested way to license quality without owning anyone's brand.
The gap we foundNo funding for the body that keeps the standard.
What we changedPartner contributions fund the coordinating role.
Social capital (Putnam, Woolcock)
What we borrowedStrong bonding ties by design, through the mentoring pipeline.
The gap we foundWeak bridging to other groups, and almost no linking to public bodies.
What we changedLinking partners (council, health, schools, police) are part of the model.
Questions people ask first.
Who stops someone misusing the name?
Congregate is a quality standard, not just free material. Claiming alignment means passing a peer reviewed audit against criteria the shura holds. A self-audit can show you are ready to apply, but it never awards the status.
What happens when two pillars disagree?
Overlap is expected, because real problems cross pillars. Each cross-pillar initiative gets a lead and support matrix up front (who is responsible, accountable, consulted and informed), so nobody has to guess who holds the final say.
Won't this burn out the same few volunteers?
The eight pillars are the destination, not the starting line. Begin with two or three, such as Elevate and Consolidate, cap commitments at about two hours a week, pair every lead with a co-lead, and add pillars only as capacity grows.
Why would an established masjid join?
It does not have to rebrand or report to anyone. Congregate is a back end utility of playbooks, audits and succession templates. A masjid can adopt it quietly, keep its own name and its own donors, and let the results speak.
Credits.
Congregate stands on other people's work. Their ideas are theirs, and the way they are applied here is ours.
Finding Your Thaghr
Al-Harakah, The Thughr Series, part 1
The thaghr idea, the what, why and how commitment, the skills, passion and need questions, the twelve frontiers and the five step path used in the finder are adapted from this work.
The Emerging Model
Zahed Ahmed, Purpose Partners (purpose-partners.co.uk)
The five stances (builder, guardian or gatekeeper, self-server, underminer and bystander), and the principle of judging behaviour, not the person, are adapted from this model. The article on the person as the unit of change also draws on this advice. It sits alongside the framework and is not part of it.
Comparison models
Collective Impact (Kania and Kramer), asset based community development (Kretzmann and McKnight), Rothman's three models, Citizens UK, the Jewish federation system, Alcoholics Anonymous's Twelve Traditions, social franchising, and social capital theory (Putnam, Woolcock)
Used as benchmarks to test the design. Their ideas are theirs; the way they are applied here is ours.
Using this material.
Please credit Congregate and the sources above when you share or adapt it, and tell us what you change, so the next version improves.