One finding concerns the impact of setting targets in the first place. A recurrent theme of the evaluations is a feeling that many targets were unrealistic, or not “owned” at a grass-roots level. The finding in Salisbury was that such programmes “risk being an extra pressure point for already over-stretched people, contributing to a crisis-like situation for those managing it”.
Such evaluations are relatively scarce in the public domain, and this fact coincides with the identification by reviews of a crisis of trust in the Church, for which Sir Robert Chote observed that the SDF programme had served as a “lightning rod”. Anxiety about the reaction to a transparent account of projects, including missed targets, is hardly misplaced: those involved may find it hard not to take criticism personally. Nuances may be missed amid the broader angst about the distribution of resources.
Stacey’s public reckoning with results included the suggestion that it might be the underlying approach (resources = output) that deserved attention. It finds a contemporary echo in Dr Stefan Paas’s diagnosis of the dearth of anthropology in church-growth literature, in which “most if not all attention is directed towards the strategic action of the Church.” Is this the real failure at hand?