RATIONAL TARGET SETTING Katrina Brewsaugh, MSW Fotena A. Zirps, PhD

RATIONAL TARGET SETTING Rational Target Setting was designed: By Fotena Zirps while working for the FL DCFS in 1998 To create balance between unrealistic targets and performance And an expectation that great gaps could be closed without investment Which lead to ongoing frustration And precluded a rational method of determining what resources could potentially lead to what realistic changes in a year’s time frame Katrina Brewsaugh became interested in this methodology working with Dr. Zirps at One Hope United and presented it at AEA where there was some enthusiasm about it

RATIONAL TARGET SETTING This method is almost entirely theoretical at this time We did some testing at FL DCFS Believe it has some legs But I encourage anyone who wants to try it , especially research it, to do so My only requirement is that I am credited for the approach (Zirps, 1998)

RATIONAL TARGET SETTING The methodology requires a rating (yes at this point fairly subjective) on 4 variables which include: Change in FOCUS (strategy, priority, mandate) Change in RESOURCES (dollars, personnel, equipment) Change in POLICY (methodology, program model) Change in CAPACITY (training, supervision, leadership) You would need to define these for your environment

RATIONAL TARGET SETTING Thoughts about logistics Who? Stakeholders who understand the history, goals and available resources and priorities When? Annually during the planning and target setting process. Or when there is a significant change Why? To set reasonable, achievable goals Where? Included in published materials regarding targets and planning How? Consensus or averaging

RATIONAL TARGET SETTING An example. Current performance is 51%. It has grown 1% each year over the past 3 years The new director has emphasized it is a priority – but only rhetoric, not resources. She does mention it from time to time however The policy has been sent out to all staff – it is discussed at monthly staff meetings Desired target is 90% A moderate amount of training was provided to staff 6

RATIONAL TARGET SETTING FOCUS 0 = not on the radar screen 1 = low priority 2 = moderate priority 3 = high priority RESOURCES 0 = no change in resources 1 = small amount added 2 = moderate resources added 3 = many resources added

RATIONAL TARGET SETTING POLICY 0 = not discussed at all (even if written) 1 = low priority 2 = moderate priority 3 = high priority CAPACITY 0 = no change in capacity 1 = small growth in capacity 2 = moderate growth in capacity 3 = significant increase in capacity

RATIONAL TARGET SETTING The points are tallied to create a total which translates into a percent of possible change 0-3 0 – 10% potential improvement 4-6 11-20% 7-9 21-30% 10-12 31- 50% Note that it is almost impossible (based on literature review and experience) to close a gap of 51% + in a year. Hence large gaps require multi year commitment and effort 9

RATIONAL TARGET SETTING So, how does this all add up for our example? 1 policy + 2 capacity + 0 resources + 1 priority = 4 11-20% potential improvement 62-71% possible this year Striving for 62% is realistic and attainable given these resources. Staff feel that achievement is possible. Stakeholders can expect growth. There is a way discuss what else could be added.

RATIONAL TARGET SETTING Katrina will discuss items that arose during the AEA session Requires an honest appraisal If circumstances change, revise ratings Useful as a starting point to facilitate discussion

RATIONAL TARGET SETTING Thanks for your attention. Let’s spend the next 10 minutes on Q&A By the way, I can be reached at fzirps@prodigy.net, 850-212-6415 Katrina can be reached at katrina@katrinalee.com 239-989-7160