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 \u201cowned\u201d at a grass-roots level. The finding in Salisbury was that such programmes \u201crisk being an extra pressure point for already over-stretched people, contributing to a crisis-like situation for those managing it\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 \u201clightning rod\u201d. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stacey\u2019s 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\u2019s diagnosis of the dearth of anthropology in church-growth literature, in which \u201cmost if not all attention is directed towards the strategic action of the Church.\u201d Is this the real failure at hand?<\/p>\n\n\n\n