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

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. RATIONAL TARGET SETTING
The points are tallied to create a total which translates into a percent of possible change
– 10% potential improvement % % %
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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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 Katrina can be reached at