Rational Target Setting
Zirps, 2012
A Rational Target Setting (RTS) Methodology
Better Target Setting – The History
In many settings targeted performance levels are set by external stakeholders. Often these
stakeholders have not considered past performance or available resources when setting targets.
The targets are often socially desirable rather than realistic.
When targets are set at high levels, far from actual performance, they can lead to frustration and
feelings of being ineffective among staff. Or they may just be ignored and viewed as
unreasonable. And community members may wonder how it is that goals and performance are
so far apart.
On the other hand when targets are based on achievable assessments of past performance and
possible improvements they can be empowering for staff. Being aware of what resources and
system priority setting can lead to better outcomes also assists with planning and resource
management and this is empowering to leadership and stakeholders.
These considerations lead to the development of Rational Target Setting (Zirps, 1998). Dr Zirps
was working in a public human services setting with legislative targets set annually. These
targets were not based on performance or resources. The agency was required to report on
performance against these targets, also annually, leading to a great deal of frustration on the
parts of stakeholders and staff. Dr Zirps developed a strategy, RTS, to help stakeholders
understand what might be possible for growth each year and what systemic factors would need
to be addressed. While the agency was mandated to report on the targets each year, internally
the staff utilized the rational targets for both planning and as a gauge of success.
What Is a Target and Why it Matters
When thinking about goals it is important to quantify them so progress can be measured and
assessed. But we need to be realistic about the goals we set and not put employees in the
position of never being able to achieve them. The goals should be based on knowledge and
rationality rather than emotion.
In this paper a proposal for a rational target setting methodology is provided. It is designed to
more efficiently and effectively gain results for clients.
A target (goal in numeric terms) is set reflecting what an entity is striving to achieve. The target
gives staff something they can aspire towards. The targets also helps set program priorities and
make a reasonable case for resources needed.
A rational approach uses past performance, an assessment of the current environment and sets
an ambitious, yet realistic trajectory for improvement. The methodology, in addition to providing
a logical, justifiable approach assists leadership in understanding what resources are needed to
achieve desired outcomes.
Aspects to Consider:


The clients’ needs
Past performance
1
Rational Target Setting
Zirps, 2012









Change in performance over time
Policy (federal, state, local and agency shifts in how and what is done)
Targets mandated (by funders and regulator)
Desired targets (our internal aspirations)
Focus (strategic and programmatic)
Resources (dollars, staff, facilities, equipment)
Capacity (training, supervision and leadership)
Benchmarks from other agencies
Environmental pressures (what is working against the target)
Example:
Our goal is to improve the rate of placement with siblings. In this case, we determine
that the standard of success is that the child is placed with at least one sibling that
the court has allowed. We have some data from the past two years on this variable.
In 2010 children were placed with at least one sibling 48% of the time. In 2011,
they were placed with a sibling 47% of the time (a 1% fluctuation downward – in
our assessment we believe it to be a random fluctuation).
In 2012, our stakeholders (board or legislature) have decided that family connections
are a priority. But there are no few resources for insuring that siblings are together
(we should avoid at all costs the classic unfunded mandate). In our strategic plan,
we emphasize the need for case managers to try to find homes that will accept
sibling groups and to make extra effort. We add a training module on placing siblings
together – for both case managers and foster parents. But the agency is having
trouble keeping foster homes and many homes are already over capacity. In
addition, we know that the federal goal is 90%. And it is our agency’s desire to
achieve and ultimately exceed the federal goal. Finally we have a rather large gap
between current performance (51%) and desired performance (90%, a gap of
39%).
So what do we do? We start with the facts:









Past performance: 48%, 51%
Change over time: - 1%
Policy: emphasized in policy
Targets mandated: 90%
Desired targets: 90%
Gap: 39%
Priorities: High in rhetoric, only minimal in resources
Resources: A small number of additional resources allocated
Capacity: Training was provided to workers and foster parents
We can apply a mathematical formula for thinking about closing the gap, based on this
information.
2
Rational Target Setting
Zirps, 2012
Policy (methodology, program model, clarity of purpose)
0 = not discussed at all (even if written)
1 = low priority
2 = moderate priority
3 = high priority
Resources (dollars, personnel, equipment)
0 = no change in resources
1 = small amount of resources added
2 = moderate amount of resources added
3 = many resources added
Focus (strategy, priority, mandate)
0 = not on the radar screen at this time
1 = low priority
2 = moderate priority
3 = high priority
Capacity (training, supervision, leadership)
0 = not on radar screen at this time
1 = limited increase in capacity
2 = moderate increase in capacity
3 = high increase in capacity
Obviously the above require a somewhat subjective selection. But this is at least a start at a
rational approach and can be justified at each level. The next step is to calculate the changes
and to add the weights together. The possible range of points is 0-12.
Example:
With no additional effort the agency decreased in outcomes between 2003 and 2004.
It is believed that the fluctuation was random. The following are true:
It is a low priority for stakeholders (score 1)
There are a small number of new resources (score 1)
It is a moderately important strategic priority (score 2)
There is a small amount of new training (score 1)
If we add these together we have 2+0+2+1=5
Now we take this number to the table below. These ranges are based on a review of the
literature and professional experience.
Added weights
0-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
Suggested Change Range
0 to 10% improvement
11-20% improvement
21-30% improvement
31-50% improvement
Note that it is almost impossible (based on a review of the literature and many years of
experience) to close a gap at a rate greater than 50% in a year! Hence large gaps require multi-
3
Rational Target Setting
Zirps, 2012
year commitments and efforts.
Example:
If we take our 5 points to the table, we see that a change of 11-20% is possible. We
can use the midpoint of 15% as a reasonable target change. Hence we propose to
move from 51% to 66% in the coming year. If we choose to sustain this commitment
or add more resources we can continue in our desired direction over a three year
trajectory (66% in 2012, 81% in 2013 and 95% in 2014). It is important to
remember that our progress toward our goals will be proportional to the resources
and efforts we direct.
This method is logic-based and at provides a basic rationale for setting reasonable targets. But
what happens when you have no data on a given outcome. It would be best if you collected
baseline data first. At least 6 months to a year is ideal. But as we reside in the real world we
know that sometimes it isn’t possible because stakeholders demand a target now.
The next best thing is to get benchmark data from other programs providing the same service.
For the federal child welfare (ASFA) goals you can check other performance in communities
similar to yours. In terms of placing siblings, perhaps you serve in a metropolitan area that is
culturally diverse. You may choose to look at data from Detroit, Miami, and New York City. In
the online reports the data can be broken by place.
Because those we serve matter so much it is important to set our goals high, yet keep them
realistic. We need tools to support our advocacy for changes in strategy, resources, policy and
capacity. RTS provides some basic tools to start these discussions. Please contact me if you
would like to discuss these ideas or test them in your setting. I can be reached at
fzirps@prodigy.net or 850-212-6415.
4