Domain: Government
Question:
A Community Action Agency (CAA) is in the middle of Step 5 (Establish Goals) of its strategic planning process. The workgroup has developed draft goals with output and outcome measures for each. However, during review, significant disagreement has emerged about target-setting for a key employment outcome (90-day job retention).

The agency's recent data shows that 25% of participants achieved 90-day job retention last year. The Program Director proposes setting the strategic plan target at 28% for Year 1 and scaling to 35% by Year 5, arguing this reflects demonstrated capacity. The Executive Director argues the targets should be 40% by Year 3 and beyond, citing peer CAAs in similar communities that report 38-42% success and asserting that ROMA outcomes must be meaningful.

The Finance Director supports the Program Director, warning that unachievable targets will harm morale and force annual updates that "walk back" projections. The board's strategic planning committee chair supports the Executive Director, arguing that relying only on historic performance locks in underperformance.

Given that Step 5 requires SMART goals (including "achievable") and that ROMA outcome indicators are projected performance measures tied to organizational capacity (not purely aspirational benchmarks), how should the workgroup resolve this disagreement in a way that:

Uses a ROMA-consistent methodology to explain what the target is "projecting" (and why), including diagnosing why the agency is at 25% when peers reach 38-42% (program design, staffing, partnerships, or measurement).
Sets phased targets that are achievable in Years 1-2 but become more ambitious in Years 3-5 once specific capacity-building strategies are implemented (e.g., additional case managers and/or an employer network).
Documents the rationale in the strategic plan narrative and clarifies how annual updates can adjust targets based on actual performance without making the plan look ineffective.

Require the workgroup to draft a one-page "target-setting rationale" that explicitly defines the ROMA projected outcome indicator as a projection (projected # achieving ÷ # expected to be served = projected %), and that documents the baseline (25%), the assumptions behind each year's targets, and which planned capacity-building strategies must be in place before higher-year targets are considered achievable. Do this in 50 words or fewer.

Also require the workgroup to specify an annual-update decision protocol that states how Year 1-2 actual results will trigger upward or downward adjustments for Years 2-5 (including how to communicate those adjustments to staff and the board so the targets are seen as evidence-based rather than arbitrary, preserving morale while still driving improvement). Do this in 50 words or fewer.

Expected points in a correct answer:
States the ROMA framework requires a projected outcome indicator from Step Five's Logic Model for Planning and Evaluation.
States the projections is based on the singular organization's capacity from ROMA checklist.
States the workgroup should analyze why the agency currently achieves only 25% 90-day job retention
States the workgroup should analyze why the agency currently achieves 25% when peers achieve 38-42%
States staffing constraints can lower the projected percentage of success to 25% against peers
States lack of partnerships can lower the projected percentage of success to 25% against peers
States measurement issues can lower the projected percentage of success to 25% against peers
States the strategic plan should include strategies to address root causes, with outcome targets reflecting what is achievable when those improvements are implemented
States that Years 3-5 targets should reflect performance after capacity building, in the range of 35-40%
States program design is a potential root cause for the agency's 25% performance
Refers to root cause analysis for goals to determine core issues. Step 3 recommends SWOT to identify weaknesses.
States step 3 recommends SWOT to identify weaknesses.
States the workgroup should adopt a middle-ground approach to target-setting
Defines SMART criteria as specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-oriented
Recommends strategic plan update form for target adjustments highlighted in the ROMA framework.
States that annual target adjustments should be based on actual performance data (e.g., if Year 1 achieves 32%, Year 2 targets adjust upward; if only 26%, targets adjust downward)
References ROMA reassessment phases using the strategic plan update form.
States that annual reassessments demonstrate the agency is being responsive and updating goals as needed
States Finance Director's concern about unachievable targets is valid.
States that the concern about demoralizing targets is valid but misplaced, because targets grounded in analysis with supporting strategies can be motivating
Provides recommendation to hire more staff to hit percentage target.
Provides recommendation to use employer partnerships to hit percentage target
Recommends phased targets with Years 1-2 reflecting near-term achievable improvement (28-30%) and Years 3-5 reflecting performance after capacity building (35-40%).
Keep to 50 word limit for phased approach.
Keep to 50 word limit for target setting rationale.
Provides specific examples of how actual performance results trigger target adjustments (e.g., if Year 1 achieves 32%, Year 2 adjusts upward; if only 26%, adjustments are made downward)
Defines the projected outcome indicator formula as "projected # of clients achieving the outcome ÷ # expected to be served = projected % of success."
States that the projected outcome indicator is "projected, not aspirational, not based on other agencies."
States that Years 1-2 targets should be 28-30% reflecting near-term achievable improvement.
States that communicating "every community is unique" helps the public understand performance differences and allows staff to explain improvement efforts.
States that demoralizing targets are those perceived as arbitrary or impossible, and that targets grounded in analysis with supporting strategies can be motivating.
States that the strategic plan narrative should document the basis for targets, showing that 35-40% is achievable with planned improvements, not arbitrarily defined.
States that adjustments should be communicated as evidence-based and responsive rather than as failures, to preserve morale while driving improvement.
States program design as a potential root cause for the 25% performance gap.