Program Evaluations a. In order to monitor the performance of services and compliance with the provisions of this Provider Agreement by the PROVIDER, employees of the DEPARTMENT or State and Federal agencies which have provided funds under this Provider Agreement, or their duly authorized representatives, shall be allowed to visit without interference or delay the offices and service locations of the PROVIDER to examine the PROVIDER’S operations and records. Client records shall be reviewed in accordance with the ARTICLE 16
Program Evaluations. The job share participants, the principal, appropriate instructional staff, parents and students (optional) will evaluate the effectiveness of the program annually in writing.
Program Evaluations. States, State agencies, institutions, facilities and contractors must cooperate in studies and evaluations conducted by or on be- half of the Department, related to pro- grams authorized under the Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966.
Program Evaluations. ARC shall develop and implement an annual evaluation plan of Child Care Programs by Advisory Councils, DPR staff, and participant parents and guardians through customer satisfaction surveys in a manner consistent with the requirements and procedures of the Master Services Agreement.
Program Evaluations. The Charter School must submit a proposed draft of a formalized program evaluation plan prior to the first school day of the 2014-2015 school year. The Charter School must work with the District to finalize the program evaluation plan by December 1, 2019.
Program Evaluations. By signing the Agreement, the Alberta Applicant agrees to participate in Program evaluations that may be undertaken by Alberta Innovates from time to time at the Alberta Applicant’s cost, both during the Project and after the Project Completion Date.
Program Evaluations. A paucity of literature exists on evaluations of mentoring programs. The evaluations that have been completed vary widely on the methodology used and outcomes measured. Most mentoring programs target “at risk” youth, which is generally defined as youth engaging in risky behavior or living in risky environments that “increase the likelihood of adverse psychological, social and health consequences”(13). Behavioral risk includes early sexual activity, truancy, tobacco, alcohol or drug use, gang involvement, etc. Environmental risk includes poverty, dangerous neighborhoods, family dysfunction, ethnic/racial minority, etc (2, 13). Most reviews found some positive benefits of mentoring programs though the magnitude of effects were often small, and some benefits manifested through indirect pathways. This section will discuss the evaluations in order of strongest methodology from randomized evaluations to descriptive longitudinal studies. The most recent randomized-controlled study was the impact evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education’s student mentoring program that funded local organizations to implement school based mentoring targeting at-risk youth in grades 4-8 (2). The study randomly assigned students to receive program services (intervention group n=1,271) or not to receive services (control group n=1,301). Interestingly, the control group were free to seek community mentoring services. The study estimated the impact after one school year (mentor pairs met 4.4 times a month for an hour for 5.8 months) on three outcome domains: interpersonal relationships and personal responsibility, academic achievement and engagement, and high-risk or delinquent behavior. They utilized school records and pre and post student surveys. They did not find any statistically significant differences in the outcomes measured between the intervention and control group. They did find some gender differences, where the program improved academic outcomes for girls with statistically significant positive impacts on self-reported scholastic efficacy and school bonding for girls in the intervention group compared to the control group. The program negatively affected positive social behavior for boys compared to girls, and it improved truancy rates for children younger than 12 years old, but not older children(2). The results of this study seem to be discouraging, but there are several weaknesses in the design that could have masked positive outcomes. The study included 32 differe...
Program Evaluations. An additional set of principles has been developed by the Department of Ecology, the other Region 10 states, and EPA Region 10 to further clarify expectations for program evaluations – “Compliance Assurance Program Evaluation Principles - 1998.” These principles address (1) Program Evaluation Goals and Objectives, (2) Frequency of Evaluations, (3) Evaluation Areas, (4) Information Sources, (5) Communications and (6) Process Management. These principles were applied to NPDES and RCRA focused program evaluations conducted in 1999. An additional broader evaluation of the Air Quality Program (Contextual Review) was piloted in 1999. Ecology and EPA are committed to implement agreed upon corrective measures as a result of these evaluation findings, recognizing that adjustments to work plans and resource allocations may be necessary. Plans for additional focused program evaluations in accordance with these principles are identified in the respective media program workplans.
Program Evaluations. The Servicing Agency must notify USAID promptly in writing of any audits of activities financed by this Agreement initiated by or at the request of the Servicing Agency, its Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, or the Government Accountability Office. At the option of either USAID or the Servicing Agency, the Servicing Agency will undertake or cause to be undertaken, within the total budget specified in Attachment A to this Agreement, an external evaluation of the Program. The Servicing Agency and USAID must agree on the terms of reference for the evaluation and an appropriate schedule for conducting it. Evaluations may include:
Program Evaluations. The Department of Ecology has led an effort involving several other states and EPA to establish a set of Principals by which state programs would be evaluated. The EPA agreed upon evaluation principals and the 4 states in Region 10 and are based upon and pursuant to, the Compliance Principals included above in item I. of this Section. The Department of Ecology and EPA have concurred on evaluations involving the Air Program and specific areas of the Water and Waste Program. Ecology and EPA are developing schedules for completing these evaluations consistent with agreed upon Evaluation Principals.
