When to Use
Target setting is required whenever you need to define what success looks like for a specific indicator at a specific point in time. This is relevant for all performance monitoring systems, from simple project logframes to complex multi-donor results frameworks. Targets are the mechanism by which progress becomes measurable and accountability becomes specific.
How It Works
Step 1: Establish the baseline
Targets require baselines. A target without a baseline is either arbitrary or set after results are already known. The baseline is the pre-programme measurement of the indicator that the target is set against.
Step 2: Review available evidence on realistic change
Targets should be based on evidence about what is achievable in similar contexts over similar timeframes. Sources: comparable programme evaluations, sector norms (e.g., typical immunisation rate improvements per year in similar contexts), and expert consultation. Aspirational targets that are not grounded in evidence are not useful.
Step 3: Set targets at the right levels
Most programmes need targets at multiple levels:
- Annual targets: expected progress by end of each programme year
- Cumulative targets: total expected achievement by programme end
- Sub-group targets: disaggregated targets for women, youth, or geographic zones (where equity commitments require it)
Step 4: Ensure indicators measure the results statements
Targets on the wrong indicators are meaningless. Before setting numbers, confirm the indicator actually measures the result it is supposed to track.
Step 5: Document rationale
For every target, document: the baseline value, the source of the baseline, the rationale for the target level (comparable evidence, expert judgment, or beneficiary consultation), and who approved it.
Step 6: Build in a review process
Programme contexts change. Targets set at Year 0 may be unrealistic or too conservative by Year 2. Annual programme reviews should include a target review process with documented justification for any revisions.
Key Components
- Baseline value: pre-programme measurement of each indicator
- End-of-programme target: the intended final achievement level
- Annual targets: milestones tracking expected progress year by year
- Disaggregated targets: sub-group specific targets where equity commitments exist
- Target rationale: documented evidence basis for each target
- Target revision protocol: when and how targets can be changed with donor approval
Best Practices
Collect outcome data at the right frequency. Some outcome indicators cannot change measurably within 12 months; others can. Match target timelines to measurement realities.
Measure at multiple points. Baseline, mid-term, and final measurements allow trajectory assessment, not just end-point comparison.
Set targets that require effort to achieve. Targets set below the natural trend (what would happen anyway without the programme) have no accountability value. Targets set impossibly high create incentives for data manipulation. Calibrate against the baseline trajectory.
Avoid all-or-nothing targets. "100% of beneficiaries reached" targets create incentives to exclude hard-to-reach populations who would pull the rate down. Use realistic targets with performance bands (e.g., 80-90% is satisfactory, above 90% is excellent).
Assign ownership. Every target should have a named programme staff member accountable for the data collection and performance tracking needed to assess it.
Common Mistakes
Setting targets before baselines are collected. The most common and most consequential target-setting mistake. Targets without baselines are guesses, and they create perverse incentives (hit the target rather than measure actual change).
Targets at the wrong level of the results chain. Output targets (200 farmers trained) are easy to measure but low accountability. Outcome targets (180 farmers adopting improved practices) are harder to measure but higher accountability. Many programmes set output targets and report them as achievement.
No adjustment mechanism. Programmes that rigidly maintain Year 0 targets through year 3 in contexts that have fundamentally changed are doing accountability theatre, not performance management.
Unstated disaggregation. A target of "5,000 beneficiaries reached" without a disaggregated sub-target for women, in a programme with gender equity commitments, conceals whether the equity objective is being achieved.
Examples
Agricultural programme, East Africa. A USDA-funded programme in Malawi set output targets (farmers trained) and outcome targets (farmers adopting improved post-harvest practices) at baseline. The adoption target (60% of trained farmers adopting by Year 3) was based on a comparable programme evaluation in neighbouring Zambia. At Year 1, adoption was 35%; the team investigated and found that the recommended technology required capital investment beyond farmers' means. The Year 2 target was revised down to 45% with donor approval, and a microfinance linkage was added to the programme design to address the barrier.
Health programme, South Asia. A UNICEF-funded nutrition programme in Bangladesh set disaggregated targets for its primary indicator (child stunting rate) by wealth quintile. The top-level target was a 6 percentage point reduction in stunting by programme end; the poorest quintile had a separate target of an 8 percentage point reduction, reflecting the programme's equity priority. This disaggregated target prevented a scenario where improvements in wealthier households masked stagnation in the poorest.
Related Topics
- SMART Indicators, the indicator framework within which targets must be time-bound and measurable
- Baseline Design, the data collection process that provides the starting point for targets
- Disaggregation, setting targets that hold programmes accountable for equity
- Results-Based Management, the management framework that makes targets the anchor of performance accountability
- Milestone, intermediate targets tracking progress along the programme timeline