Domain: Government
Question:
A CAA's strategic planning workgroup has completed Steps 1-4 and is beginning Step 5 (Write Goals), but is getting stuck on how to design a manageable set of goals that still meets overlapping requirements. They know they must include family, agency, and community goal types (O.S. 6.3), ensure the plan addresses poverty reduction, community revitalization, and self-sufficiency (O.S. 6.2), and document ROMA elements (identified need → intervention/strategy → outcome → projected indicator → measurement tool → data procedures → frequency).
The complication is volume and usability: the Community Needs Assessment identified 8 needs, and the Program Director proposes 24 goals (8 needs × 3 goal types) to "cover everything." The Executive Director argues this will be impossible to implement and oversee, recommending 6-8 total goals instead. Meanwhile, the board chair says the ROMA logic model template feels too technical and wants goals written in plain language.
How should the workgroup structure the goal-development process so the final strategic plan is compliant and implementable--without becoming a dense checklist document--by doing all of the following:
Use Step 4's prioritization concept ("key strategic issues" / master priorities) to narrow the CNA's 8 needs into a smaller set the agency can realistically own, explicitly identifying which needs will be addressed by partners rather than new agency goals.
Create an integrated set of ~6-10 goals that collectively satisfy O.S. 6.2 while also meeting O.S. 6.3 (i.e., goals span family/community/agency levels without multiplying into 24).
Limit agency-level goals to the 2-3 highest-leverage capacity items that enable multiple family/community outcomes (e.g., measurement infrastructure, staffing, partnership systems), rather than one agency goal per need.
Propose a two-layer document structure: a board-friendly "main plan" with plain-language goals and a technical appendix containing full ROMA logic model details and a crosswalk showing where O.S. 6.2/6.3 requirements are met.

Expected points in a correct answer:
States that O.S. 6.2 requires the strategic plan to address reduction of poverty as a source for community-level objectives
States that O.S. 6.2 requires the strategic plan to address revitalization of low-income communities as a source for community-level objectives.
States that O.S. 6.2 requires the strategic plan to address empowerment of people with low incomes to become more self-sufficient as a source for community-level objectives.
States that O.S. 6.3 requires the strategic plan to include family-level goals.
States that O.S. 6.3 requires the strategic plan to include agency-level goals.
States that O.S. 6.3 requires the strategic plan to include community-level goals.
States that Step 4 of the TDHCA Strategic Plan Guide requires the workgroup to identify key strategic issues from the Community Needs Assessment as the basis for goal development.
States that Step 4 of the TDHCA Strategic Plan Guide requires the workgroup to develop a master list of strategic priorities from the identified key issues.
States that Step 4 of the TDHCA Strategic Plan Guide provides guidance to limit the number of priorities the agency pursues, directing the workgroup to select the top priorities rather than addressing all identified CNA needs.
Recommends that the workgroup narrow the CNA's 8 identified needs down to 3–5 highest-priority items that the agency has the capacity and mandate to address, rather than creating goals for every identified need.
CNA-identified needs outside the CAA's programmatic scope must be excluded from the agency's strategic goal set.
States that CNA needs better handled by partners should be handled through partners rather than added as new agency goals.
States that pursuing too many goals stretches resources thin and makes it difficult to achieve measurable success, arguing for a smaller, focused goal set.
States that the Executive Director's recommendation of 6–8 total goals is more implementable and overseeable than the Program Director's proposal of 24 goals.
States that managing 24 goals would create an unsustainable operational burden.
Attributes the operational burden to the ongoing management work (monitoring/updating/trend analysis) compared to a smaller goal set.
States that O.S. 6.2's self-sufficiency requirement can be addressed through a family-level goal rather than a standalone O.S. 6.2 goal category.
Provides a concrete, measurable example of a family-level self-sufficiency goal with specific targets and timeframes
If providing a self-sufficiency definition, includes employment-related criteria
If providing a self-sufficiency definition, includes income threshold criteria
If providing a self-sufficiency definition, includes reduced reliance on emergency assistance as a criterion
Demonstrates through example or explanation that a single family-level goal can simultaneously address both self-sufficiency and poverty reduction requirements of O.S. 6.2
States that the sample family goal qualifies as a family-level goal satisfying O.S. 6.3.
States or demonstrates that family-level goals should be linked to relevant ROMA indicators
Provides a concrete example of a community-level goal that addresses a CNA-identified need
States that the sample community goal addresses community revitalization as required by O.S. 6.2
States that the sample community goal qualifies as a community-level goal satisfying O.S. 6.3
States or demonstrates that goals should trace back to specific needs identified in the Community Needs Assessment
States that goals should be crafted using SMART criteria as referenced in Step 5 of the TDHCA Strategic Plan Guide.
States that goals should be prioritized by feasibility
States that goals not selected as current priorities can be archived and pursued in the next five-year planning cycle.
Recommends that goals be written in plain language accessible to a general audience, as directed by the board chair's concern about technical jargon.
Recommends goals should be easy to understand by experts.
States that plain-language goals are easier to measure and can generate data that is more accessible through visual formats such as graphs, charts, and statistics.
States that goals should be updated annually to reflect changes in market conditions, community development, and demographic shifts as required by the ROMA framework.
States that Step 6 of the TDHCA Strategic Plan Guide distinguishes between what must be included in the strategic plan for compliance versus how the plan is presented, supporting the two-layer document structure recommendation.
Recommends developing 3–4 family-level goals addressing top CNA needs and emphasizing self-sufficiency and poverty reduction outcomes.
Recommends developing 2–3 agency-level goals focused on the most critical capacity issues that enable multiple family and community outcomes.
Recommends developing 2–3 community-level goals addressing systemic barriers and community revitalization needs.
States that each goal in the strategic plan must document an identified need as the starting point of the ROMA logic model chain.
States that each goal documents an intervention/strategy as part of the ROMA logic model chain.
States that the intervention/strategy is linked to (derived from) the identified need in the ROMA logic model chain.
States that each goal in the strategic plan must document an expected outcome linked to the intervention in the ROMA logic model chain.
States that each goal must document a projected indicator as part of the ROMA logic model chain
States that each goal must document a measurement tool as part of the ROMA logic model chain
States that each goal must document data procedures as part of the ROMA logic model chain
States that each goal must document the frequency of data collection as part of the ROMA logic model chain
States that goals should be prioritized by potential return on investment / community impact
States that the workgroup's confusion stems from treating each requirement (O.S. 6.2, O.S. 6.3, ROMA) as a separate checklist rather than viewing them holistically as an integrated framework.
States that O.S. 6.2's three requirements (poverty reduction, community revitalization, self-sufficiency) are outcomes that should stem from family and community goals, not be treated as separate goal categories.
States that agency-level goals should not be created for every family or community goal, but instead should address 2-3 critical capacity issues that affect multiple programs.
Recommends structuring the written plan with a main document written in plain language and a technical appendix with full ROMA details.
States that the two-layer document structure satisfies compliance (all required elements present) while maintaining usability (board can understand and oversee without technical jargon).
States that the agency-level goals create measurement infrastructure that enables multiple family and community goals.
Recommends that the technical appendix include a crosswalk showing where O.S. 6.2 and O.S. 6.3 requirements are met.
States that not every CNA-identified need requires an agency goal, and strategic plans must prioritize.