Banner
Planning Home | Diocese Home | Search | Site Map
Responses to Focus Groups and Interviews / Questions

Pastoral Planning for the New Millennium

Go directly to questions and answers or select specific questions from list below

Overall

  • Based on your experience, what worked best in Pastoral Planning for the New Millennium?
  • What didn't work very well at all?
  • In hindsight, what could have been changed to make the process more effective?
  • What aspects of PPNM should be retained at all costs for the next round of planning?
  • What aspects of PPNM should be dropped for the next round?
  • In your experience, how well did the parish/faith community assessment work?
  • In your experience, how well did the planning group process work?
  • How well do you think the "synod goals" will work to guide parish assessment in the future?
  • Do you think we need to formulate new goals?
  • Was the level of involvement/input from professional staff appropriate? helpful?
  • What changes (if any) do you suggest for next time?

    •  

    Information
  • In general, how helpful was the information provided as part of PPNM?
  • In general, what additional information would have been helpful?
  • In general, in what ways could the information have been provided in order to be more helpful?
  • How helpful did you find the financial and sacramental information provided for each parish?
  • What additional parish information would have been helpful?
  • How helpful did you find the financial and sacramental information provided for each planning group?
  • What additional planning group information would have been helpful?
  • What suggestions do you have for improving the information support for pastoral planning?

    • Communication

  • In general, how helpful was the communications material including the Frequently Asked Questions?
  • In general, how helpful were special editions of the Catholic Courier dealing with PPNM?
  • Did you find the pastoral planning web site to be useful/helpful?
  • Did you find the pastoral planning web site easy to use?
  • How helpful was the communication material aimed specifically at the parish or faith community?
  • How helpful was the communication material aimed at the planning group?
  • How helpful was the diocese in dealing with local media?
  • Do you have access to e-mail or the Internet?
  • If so, do you prefer electronic communication or written material?
  • What suggestions do you have for improving the communication support of the planning process?

    •  

    Overall
    1. Based on your experience, what worked best in Pastoral Planning for the New Millennium?

      2. The consensus was that PPNM had provided a mechanism for parishes and faith communities to work together and, at a minimum begin to build an infrastructure of collaboration. In general participants were satisfied with the process and with the outcomes of the process. Throughout the three years of the planning process, expectations that it would result in massive and dramatic changes seem to have moderated. Perhaps as lay people rather than staff became more heavily involved, a more realistic set of expectations guided the process. However, it could also be true that lay people do not bring the same understanding of the problems and potential solutions and thus they are unaware of the more dramatic changes possible.There was strong affirmation of the commitment by the Bishop to listen to the plans developed by the planning groups and to be guided by them in most cases. At the beginning of the process, there was wide spread skepticism that any of the planning would make any difference. There were constant references to a "secret plan." People often said, "Why bother doing all this? The Bishop [or Buffalo Road] already knows what he is going to do. Just tell us and let us get on with our lives."By the end of the process, even the most skeptical admitted, "this program is the only exception to top down authority. We really did make our own plans and now we have to make them work." Of course, the first part of that statement is not accurate, but the second represents a major achievement.

       

    2. What didn't work very well at all?
      3. The greatest frustration was with the lack of real change achieved by many of the pastoral plans. In some cases, parishes or faith communities did not effectively engage in a self-assessment and thus their contributions to the group planning process was minimal or ineffectual. This could lead to collaborative plans that were inconsequential. In addition, plans were often unrealistic and over optimistic.While there were difficulties and frustrations in almost every group, there does not appear to be any particularly aspect of the process which did not work in general. This is not to say that the same process should be used or that the process could not be improved in many ways. However, the fundamental design and approach was both consistent with the mission and values of the Diocese, was workable, and was well supported by staff
    3. In hindsight, what could have been changed to make the process more effective?
      4. There were many suggestions including the following:
    4. Simplify and reduce the amount of paperState expectations more clearlyBe more assertive in the evaluation of plans rather than affirming practically everything and anythingProvide more accurate and relevant informationProvide trained facilitators for every planning group leadership teamCommunicate more effectively with members of parishesDesire for Bishop Clark to offer his vision of the future in a way that responds to declining number of priests and the impact of that fact on parishes and faith communities.
    5. Given the difficulty of the issues to be faced, the process and the Bishop need to be more directive while respecting the autonomy of parishes. There appears to be a growing willingness to accept this kind of direction as long as it is not "heavy handed." It may be easier to accept a more directive approach for someone else’s parish.
  • What aspects of PPNM should be retained at all costs for the next round of planning?
  • Respect and value decision making at the planning group level
  • Continue focus on information
  • What aspects of PPNM should be dropped for the next round?
  • Reduce paperwork and the bulk of the planning notebook
  • In your experience, how well did the parish/faith community assessment work?
  • The parish assessment process worked well for those parishes that used the process.
  • Some parishes did not use the process because they had recently completed planning and assessment processes.
  • Some parishes did not use the process because the leadership felt it knew what the issues and concerns were.
  • Some parishes did not use the process because they were focused solely on the continuation of the parish in light of possible reductions in the number of priests.
    •
  • In your experience, how well did the planning group process work?
    1. In general people felt that the group process worked reasonably well.
    2. The quality of lay and ordained leadership within the group was a major factor in the success of the group process.
  • How well do you think the "synod goals" will work to guide parish assessment in the future? Do you think we need to formulate new goals?
    1. Most people felt that the synod goals worked very well as criteria for the assessment of parishes and faith communities.
    2. Some people felt that the synod goals—with reworked criteria or vitality indicators—should continue to be used for assessment.
    3. A few who wanted to keep the synod goals thought that the goals themselves could be restated.
    4. At a minimum if different criteria were used, there should be a clear map from the synod goals to the new criteria. Some people were concerned about changing for the sake of change and thus confusing people.
    5. Some people felt that the synod goals had served their useful life as assessment criteria and that the next round should look to more generic and comprehensive criteria. Some observed, for example, that social justice concerns were never fully addressed even though a major component—"consistent ethic of life"—was included.
    6. The use of the four pillars—word, worship, community building, and service—along with temporalities should be used. These would be consistent with the policies on parish pastoral councils as well as with policies in Evangelization and Catechesis.
    7. Almost everyone agreed that the criteria or vitality indicators should be improved and some felt that explicit norms should also be included.
  • Was the level of involvement/input from professional staff appropriate? helpful? What changes (if any) do you suggest for next time?
    1. While most lay participants felt that staff involvement was appropriate, some staff and pastors felt that parish staff were not sufficiently involved and thus were not able to be as helpful in the process as they could have been. Sometimes lay members were developing responses to pastoral concerns that were inconsistent with current pastoral programs. Sometimes these responses were developing without knowledge of the current pastoral practice.
    Information
    1. In general, how helpful was the information provided as part of PPNM?
      1. The typical comment was that the information was helpful when it was accurate.
      2. Several people noted that even though the parish and faith community information/data came from the parishes, it was often not accurate and thus not very helpful
      3. The socioeconomic information was also found to be very helpful when it was accurate but often it was either inaccurate or confusing.
    2. In general, what additional information would have been helpful?
      1. Accurate information
      2. Where appropriate information on catholic schools.
      3. Diocesan information to help set local information into context
      4. National information to also help set local information into context
    3. In general, in what ways could the information have been provided in order to be more helpful?
      1. No substantial additional suggestions
    4. How helpful did you find the financial and sacramental information provided for each parish?
      1. No substantial additional suggestions
    5. What additional parish information would have been helpful?
      1. No substantial additional suggestions
    6. How helpful did you find the financial and sacramental information provided for each planning group?
      1. No substantial additional suggestions
    7. What additional planning group information would have been helpful?
      1. No substantial additional suggestions
    8. What suggestions do you have for improving the information support for pastoral planning?
      1. No substantial additional suggestions
    Communication
    1. In general, how helpful was the communications material including the Frequently Asked Questions?
      1. People noted that the FAQ’s were especially helpful.
      2. Those who used the communications materials found them to be helpful and easy to use.
    2. In general, how helpful were special editions of the Catholic Courier dealing with PPNM?
      1. Those who recalled the special editions found them very useful.
      2. Some pointed out that fewer than 40 percent of the registered Catholics receive the Catholic Courier
      3. In fact, one special edition was mailed to 100 percent of registered households.
    3. Did you find the pastoral planning web site to be useful/helpful?
      1. Most typically people did not use the web site. Those that did found it helpful and useful.
    4. Did you find the pastoral planning web site easy to use?
      1. See above
    5. How helpful was the communication material aimed specifically at the parish or faith community?
      1. No specific response
    6. How helpful was the communication material aimed at the planning group?
      1. No specific response
    7. How helpful was the diocese in dealing with local media?
      1. There were very few times when this situation arose. When it did, the diocese was seen as helpful and effective.
    8. Do you have access to e-mail or the Internet?
    9. If so, do you prefer electronic communication or written material?
    10. What suggestions do you have for improving the communication support of the planning process?
      1. There should be more attention to communications to parishioners and members of faith communities.
      2. There should be more attention to communications to members of the public.
      3. Communications processes within parishes, among parishes, and between PGLT’s and parish pastoral councils should be strengthened.
      4. A process of communication/education around the major issues should be provided prior to the beginning of pastoral planning.