'At Risk', 'Feasible', 'On Track': A Field Guide to Government Target Labels

The Government runs nine public sector targets, due by 2030, covering everything from emergency department wait times to violent crime. Each quarter, the agency responsible for a target assigns it a status, and those statuses are the part of the exercise that reaches the public. This week’s instalment was the Jobseeker Support target, currently sitting at 218,500 people against a goal of 140,000 or fewer, and now carrying the label “at risk.” The number is stark enough on its own. The label is doing separate work.

The status scale runs from “on track” down to “unachievable,” with a couple of softer gradations in between, and each one means something more specific than it sounds. “On track” is the honest good news: the target has been hit early or the trajectory clearly gets there. “At risk” means the responsible agency now doubts the target will be met on schedule, which is a real concession, if a polite one. The interesting label is “feasible,” officially defined as still possible but facing “major risks and/or issues.” Read that definition twice. It is a status that concedes serious trouble while keeping the word “possible” in the sentence, which is precisely the part a headline will quote.

The current scoreboard shows the range in practice. Violent crime reduction, serious youth offending, and emergency housing have all been reported as “on track,” with the housing target and the youth offending target both already achieved ahead of the 2030 deadline; genuinely good results, no translation required. Reading, writing and maths proficiency sits at “at risk,” alongside Jobseeker numbers. Emergency department wait times and elective treatment within four months are both “feasible,” meaning still theoretically achievable while carrying major risks the agency has not resolved.

The grading is also, worth remembering, done by the agency being graded. There is no independent referee assigning these labels; the ministry running a target decides its own status, reports it quarterly, and the public sees the label before it sees the underlying methodology. That is not evidence of dishonesty. The raw numbers get published alongside the label, which is more transparency than many governments offer. But it does mean the adjective is chosen by the party with the biggest interest in which adjective gets chosen.

So treat the label as a translation prompt, not a verdict. “On track” can usually be taken at face value. “Feasible” means read the actual number, because the word was built to survive contact with a bad one. And “at risk” means the trend is currently pointed the wrong way, whatever gloss accompanies it. The target itself, refreshingly, is a fixed number that cannot be reworded. The four words wrapped around it can.