Target

Around a score of 5, Awareness typically looks like:

• ·Suffering Detection: Disaggregated data, pattern analysis, independently audited
• ·Contextual Sensitivity: Co-designed processes, independent accessibility audit
• ·Blind Spot Mitigation: External audit found something significant, course correction followed
• ·Signal Amplification: Community confirms concerns reliably reach and influence decisions
• ·Anticipatory Awareness: Assessment has led to cancellation or major redesign, independent review

This is a level-5 reference ladder, not a claim about Target’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 5, Empathy typically looks like:

• ·Affective Resonance: Independent testimony confirms genuine care across all populations
• ·Perspective-Taking: Community members are decision-makers, not just consultants
• ·Non-Judgment: Independent audit, no significant disparities, findings public
• ·Validation: Community account treated as primary evidence
• ·Cultural Empathy: Core practices changed based on non-dominant cultural knowledge

This is a level-5 reference ladder, not a claim about Target’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 5, Action typically looks like:

• ·Responsiveness: Disaggregated by population, fastest to highest need, verified
• ·Proportionality: Resources demonstrably flow to highest-need, unmet need published
• ·Efficacy: Independent evaluation acted upon even when unflattering
• ·Resource Mobilization: 3-year budget trend toward highest-need, gap publicly disclosed
• ·Follow-Through: Multi-year longitudinal outcomes published, community confirms

This is a level-5 reference ladder, not a claim about Target’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 4, Equity typically looks like:

• ·Universality: Coverage disaggregated, documented reduction in gaps
• ·Priority for Vulnerable: Prioritization framework documented, higher-need get more
• ·Bias Awareness: Ongoing monitoring, investigations lead to corrections
• ·Access Design: Ongoing program, multiple barriers removed with evidence
• ·Historical Harm Acknowledgment: Co-developed with community, concrete reparative actions

This is a level-4 reference ladder, not a claim about Target’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 5, Boundaries typically looks like:

• ·Self-Sustainability: Independently assessed as sustainable, data public
• ·Autonomy Preservation: Community confirms increased self-determination
• ·Scope Clarity: Community confirms no surprises about scope
• ·Refusal Ethics: No one turned away without concrete alternative, verified
• ·Consent Orientation: Independently reviewed, low-literacy populations confirm understanding

This is a level-5 reference ladder, not a claim about Target’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 4, Accountability typically looks like:

• ·Harm Acknowledgment: Acknowledgment structurally prior to investigation
• ·Correction Willingness: Internal process reliably reaches leadership, correction documented
• ·Transparency: Annual report includes failures, gaps, corrective actions
• ·Systemic Learning: 3+ specific practices changed because of failure analysis
• ·Reparative Action: Co-designed with harmed parties, considered adequate

This is a level-4 reference ladder, not a claim about Target’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 5, Systemic Thinking typically looks like:

• ·Root Cause Orientation: Significant resources to structural change, downstream demand reduced
• ·Long-Term Impact: 10+ year impact model reviewed, longitudinal progress on structural change
• ·Interconnection Awareness: Joint planning with adjacent systems, cross-system outcomes tracked
• ·Structural Critique: Contributed to ≥1 structural change, acknowledges own model's role
• ·Coalitional Compassion: Has ceded leadership/credit/resources to better-positioned organization

This is a level-5 reference ladder, not a claim about Target’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 4, Integrity typically looks like:

• ·Consistency Under Pressure: Pattern of maintaining commitments, community describes trust
• ·Non-Performance: Community reports genuine care with no reputational stakes
• ·Internal Consistency: Staff culture broadly reflects stated values
• ·Values Alignment: Values alignment review part of major decision process
• ·Resilience of Care: Practices survive leadership change, this has been tested

This is a level-4 reference ladder, not a claim about Target’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).