Monitoring versus evaluation Sample Clauses

Monitoring versus evaluation. Application in CHC program Although often mentioned together, monitoring and evaluation are two distinct activities that are related but not identical. The common connection is that they seek to capture information about what a program is doing and how it is being done. Monitoring involves tracking your CHC progress by systematically gathering and analyzing information about what the program is doing and whom the program is reaching. CHC will use monitoring data to troubleshoot if activities are being carried out as originally planned, and any needs for review. MER team will process the data and report emerging insights timely to the implementation team to facilitate strategy on measures to correct problems and adjust activities or the workplan where applicable for optimal results. Evaluation involves a more in-depth assessment of performance and activities than monitoring. CHC evaluative studies aim to assess activity progress, quality and outcomes against program strategy, targets, and workplan. CHC monitoring and evaluation data will complement each other to increase knowledge for both the program and stakeholders in the following areas; 18 InProgress Monitoring Manual xxxx://xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/sites/default/files/resource/files/inProgress_Monitoring_Manual_v1.pdf • Establish the extent activities were implemented as planned. If there were deviations, were these planned adaptations, or were they unplanned? What evidence and processes were used to inform adaptation, if any? • Answer questions about accountability and inform management decisions i.e. did the program complete what was set in the cooperative agreement and approved workplans? • Answer questions about accomplishments: what was accomplished, what is working, what may not be working, and what remedial actions are we taking (see illustration below: Tracking what we are doing with a focus on results)
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Monitoring versus evaluation

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and xxxx them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. No response TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Yes - No Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • Monitoring and Evaluation a. The AGENCY shall expeditiously provide to the COUNTY upon request, all data needed for the purpose of monitoring, evaluating and/or auditing the program(s). This data shall include, but not be limited to, clients served, services provided, outcomes achieved, information on materials and services delivered, and any other data required, in the sole discretion of the COUNTY, that may be required to adequately monitor and evaluate the services provided under this Contract. Monitoring shall be performed in accordance with COUNTY’S established Noncompliance Standards, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Attachment “C”.

  • Program Monitoring and Evaluation (c) The Recipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, and furnish to the Association not later than six months after the Closing Date, a report of such scope and in such detail as the Association shall reasonably request, on the execution of the Program, the performance by the Recipient and the Association of their respective obligations under the Legal Agreements and the accomplishment of the purposes of the Financing.”

  • Focused Evaluation The Focused Evaluation is used when a teacher is not evaluated using the Comprehensive Evaluation process, and will include evaluation of one of the eight state criteria (student growth impact required). If a non-provisional teacher has scored at Proficient or higher the previous year, they may be moved to Focused Evaluation. The teacher may remain on the Focused Evaluation for five (5) years before returning to the Comprehensive Evaluation. The teacher or the evaluator can initiate a move from the Focused to the Comprehensive Evaluation. A decision to move a teacher from a Focused to a Comprehensive Evaluation must occur by December 15.

  • TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order.

  • Project Monitoring Reporting Evaluation A. The Project Implementing Entity shall monitor and evaluate the progress of its activities under the Project and prepare Project Reports in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.08(b) of the General Conditions and on the basis of indicators agreed with the Bank. Each such report shall cover the period of one

  • TEACHER EVALUATION A. All monitoring or observation of the work performance of a teacher shall be conducted openly and with full knowledge of the teacher.

  • Self-Evaluation Each regular faculty member shall provide a self-evaluation. It shall address, among other items, the faculty member's fulfillment of professional responsibilities as referenced in Section 18.2.3 and an assessment of his or her own performance. The faculty member will share the self-evaluation with the Faculty Evaluation Committee and the first-level manager or designee. The self-evaluation will become part of the evaluation report.

  • Annual Evaluation The Partnership will be evaluated on an annual basis through the use of the Strategic Partnership Annual Evaluation Format as specified in Appendix C of OSHA Instruction CSP 00-00-000, OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health. Xxxxxxxxx & Xxxxxx will be responsible for gathering required participant data to evaluate and track the overall results and success of the Partnership. This data will be shared with OSHA. OSHA will be responsible for writing and submitting the annual evaluation.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.