ARCHIVED - Annex B: ISHLCD Surveillance Component Evaluation Plan

RMAF Questions	Indicators	Data Sources
A. Relevance – Does the component continue to be consistent with departmental and government-wide priorities, and does it realistically address an actual need?
A.1 Is there a continued need for the ISHLCD Surveillance Component and specific elements?	Presence of: Validated logic model Adequate sources of program authority Consistency between approach of component and current policy priorities	Document review to determine the program logic and sources of program authority Interviews with surveillance managers and policy leaders
A.2 Is there overlap and duplication across (functional) components or with other healthy living and chronic disease initiatives?	Surveillance Functional Component is cohesive yet maintains strategic relationships the other Functional Components	Document review to identify elements of program design of ISHLCD Interviews to explore cohesion and strategic relationships
B. Success / Progress – Is the Component effective in generating outputs, given its resources, and without unintended consequences?
B.1 What have been the key activities and outputs achieved?	Description of the outputs described in ISHLCD component logic models	Document review Interview with Surveillance Section Associate Director Interviews with surveillance system managers and policy leaders
Gs&Cs B.1 What have been the key activities and outputs achieved by Gs&Cs within the ISHLCD component?	Gs&Cs projects by fiscal year including information on dollar value, activity and planned or completed output(s) Gs&Cs projects by fiscal year and purpose of enhanced surveillance # of projects funded among: P/Ts, NGOs, academics, and Aboriginal Organisations	Interview with Gs&Cs Coordinator Summary table of Gs&Cs records
Gs&Cs B.4 To what extent have target groups been reached with Gs&Cs?	# target groups	Summary table of Gs&Cs records Interview with Gs&Cs Coordinator
B.4 To what extent have target groups been reached?	Assessment of target groups as described in the logic model	Document review Interviews with surveillance system managers and policy leaders
B.5 To what extent has progress been made on the immediate outcome of improved engagement with target groups?	Development and pilot of a measure of engagement Assessment of engagement with key informants	Interviews with policy leaders and surveillance system managers
B.6 To what extent has early progress been made on intermediate outcomes?	Gain an assessment of early outcomes	Interviews with policy leaders and surveillance system managers
B.8 What have been the unintended outcomes (either positive or negative) of any of the components to date?	To the extent possible issues will be identified where they have occurred in the attempt to increase engagement	Interviews with surveillance system managers and policy leaders
C. Design and Delivery – Are the most appropriate means being used to achieve objectives?
C.1 Are there any key gaps in the resourcing, design or delivery of the Surveillance Component?	Gaps in implementation or design identified by database managers, committee members and stakeholders	Interviews with surveillance system managers and policy leaders
C.3 What have been the key lessons learned to date?	Exploration of lessons learned with key informants	Interviews with surveillance system managers and policy leaders
C.4 Is the current monitoring system for the Component effective?	Review of processes for receiving and reviewing Gs&Cs applications Identification of formal or informal program monitoring practices of PHAC surveillance managers and policy leaders	Interviews with surveillance system managers and policy leaders
C.5 As the Component continues, how could its efficiency improve?	Assessment will be provided by key informants	Interviews with surveillance system managers and policy leaders

Page details

Date modified:: 2009-10-12