monitoring and evaluation n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Monitoring and Evaluation PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and Evaluation

9 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Monitoring and Evaluation

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Monitoring and Evaluation West Virginia’s Review of Funded Projects, Services and Activities

  2. Focus on the “3 R’s” • Recovery • refers to a process in which people are able to live, work, learn, and participate fully in their communities. For some individuals, recovery is the ability to live a fulfilling and productive life despite a disability. For others, recovery implies the reduction or complete remission of symptoms. There is substantial scientific and anecdotal evidence that hope is necessary for an individual’s recovery. • Resilience • means the personal and community qualities that enable people to rebound from adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats, or other stresses – and to go through life with a sense of mastery, competence, and hope. Research and first-person accounts show that resilience is fostered by a positive childhood and close-knit communities which provide support for their members • Reimbursement • refers to a process of purchasing those mental health services for children and adults which foster recovery and resilience. If science and experience demonstrate the value of these approaches, it would seem necessary to support (reimburse) only those services which facilitate recovery and resilience

  3. Review Process • Recipients of funds for projects, services, and activities (PSA) are provided a copy of the review criteria • Written responses are forwarded to the Planning Council • A team of up to five reviewers, composed of all representatives of all stakeholders, read the responses and agree on comments and questions • Intent is for Peer Consultative Review Process

  4. Review Process • Representatives of the PSA meet with the review team • The PSA is discussed • The review team’s comments are discussed • Some modification may occur, based on the PSA representatives’ responses • A summary report is provided to the mental health authority

  5. Review – Part 1 • Quantitative • How much service did the Grantee provide? • How many people did the Grantee serve? • Does the Grantee have any plans to continue the PSA if funding is not forthcoming from this source?

  6. Review – Part 2 • Qualitative • How similar is the PSA to what other providers in West Virginia – or other States – are doing? • To what extent are stakeholders involved in designing, delivering, directing the PSA? • Are there anticipated outcomes? Are they achieved?

  7. Review – Part 2 • Qualitative (continued) • To what extent does the Grantee inform the community and stakeholders about the PSA and how to access services? • Does the PSA support and promote community integration and recovery? • How does the Grantee help staff understand the importance of recovery and resilience?

  8. Nine Criteria – Questions for Reviewers • How do you know the program, service or activity (PSA) which has been funded produces and maintains reports which indicate the amount of service provided and the number of persons served? • How do you know the program, service or activity (PSA) which has been funded produces and maintains reports which provide demographic information on people served?

  9. Nine Criteria – Questions for Reviewers • How do you know the program, service or activity (PSA) which has been funded might be sustained in the absence of current funding? • How do you know that the program, service or activity (PSA) which has been funded will achieve the outcomes that have been predicted? • To what extent are programmatic decisions made by the people who are most directly affected by the program’s implementation?

  10. Nine Criteria – Questions for Reviewers • How well does the accomplishment of the program’s goals and objectives result in meaningful, life-enhancing outcomes for its consumers? • How available is information about the program to stakeholders, potential stakeholders and the community-at-large?

  11. Nine Criteria – Questions for Reviewers • Is the program’s environment integrated into the community and how clearly does the program promote, support and demonstrate the philosophy of recovery? • Does staff behavior reflect a correlation among their respective, individual values, knowledge, skills and attitudes and the value-based operating principles of the program?

  12. Logistical Data • Over 60 PSA to review • Four teams • Two review sites • Total of five days at each site • Review of responses and consensus building • 2 days • Meet with PSA representatives • Total of 3 days