Staying True in a Changing Landscape

In recent years, the humanitarian landscape has shifted in profound ways. Responses to poverty, hunger and deprivation are no longer shaped by compassion alone, but by constraints, donor priorities and political realities. These shifts are deeply felt within World Vision and require us to reflect carefully on who we serve, where we work and how we remain faithful to our mission in a changing environment.

Those of us who work in World Vision are here because we want to help. When we encounter suffering, injustice and vulnerability, our instinct is to act, to restore dignity, security and wellbeing, especially for children, their families and communities. This instinct reflects the heart of our faith: love expressed through action.

Yet I wonder whether, alongside this impulse to respond, we give sufficient and deliberate attention to how and when we will exit.

We invest enormous energy in proposal writing and strategies to enter contexts. Do we apply the same prayerful discipline to our exits, ensuring that what remains is not dependent on our presence, but on resilience, capability and local ownership? In a sector marked by rising need and finite resources, are we sometimes prioritising continuation over discernment, and activity over impact?

Donor priorities matter, and partnership is essential. But World Vision’s primary accountability is not to funding cycles or institutional longevity. Our calling is to serve children and families in pursuit of “life in all its fullness,” witnessing to God’s desire for justice, restoration and flourishing. That calling should remain our compass, especially when external pressures push us toward safer or easier options.

There is also a persistent tension between breadth and depth of engagement. Reaching more people with lighter‑touch interventions can feel aligned with urgency and scale. Yet deeper, more holistic work, often with fewer people and over longer timeframes, is more likely to lead to lasting transformation. Scripture reminds us that growth and fruitfulness take time; quick outcomes are not always the truest measure of faithfulness[1]

In striving to meet perceived demands from donors and communities, have we spread ourselves so broadly that our impact is diluted? Are we known for a few things done well, or for many things done adequately? B.H. Liddell Hart once observed that removing old ideas can be harder than introducing new ones. That insight may be worth holding as we examine long‑held assumptions about how we work.

This moment invites reflection across two dimensions: where we work, and who we prioritise.

When it comes to where, we must ask whether there are contexts in which World Vision risks overstaying its mandate. Our desire to help can, if we are not careful, undermine the very resilience and self‑reliance we seek to foster. Faithful service must include the humility to let go. In contexts where markets are developing and social safety nets are strengthening, are we aligning our work with intentional and dignified exit strategies? Could we focus our legacy on livelihoods, financial capability and strong market systems that honour local agency long after we leave?

The second question concerns who we serve. Too often, large‑scale programs gravitate toward communities that are poor, but not the poorest. These households are more likely to succeed when opportunities are offered, producing encouraging results and compelling stories. Yet we must ask whether they are truly the most vulnerable. Jesus consistently directed attention toward those with the least power, the fewest choices and the weakest voice, those easily overlooked because the work is slow, complex and uncertain[2]

If World Vision were to orient more deliberately toward extreme vulnerability, we would find ourselves in harder places, with fewer easy wins. But accompanying people at their most exposed is at the core of our Christian witness. It reflects a God who does not step in only when outcomes are assured, but who remains present in fragility and suffering.

We have approaches that reflect this commitment. Models such as Ultra Poor Graduation intentionally address immediate needs while building capacity, dignity and economic viability, with exit designed in from the start. By combining compassion with rigor, they reflect a theology that takes both justice and sustainability seriously.

- Colin Dyer, GC Livelihoods