PROGPP%NL REVIL-@@ CRITERIA These revised criteria constitute the major factors to be taken into account in the national revic-,q process, including site visits, in assessing or evaluating Regional '%Iedic,-l Programs. They are aimed at assessing a Region's overall progress -ind current status -- in short, its performance to date -- and only secondarily the'Dierits of its overall proposal or the Region's future prospects except insofar as directly reflected by its past performance and present strengths. Moreover, their focus is essentially on program rather than projects. Those criteria are in large measure a synthesis of several earlier but similar efforts, including those of individual Review Committee members. An earlier version of them i@as utilized and tested in the course of the several site visits made in Dece@er. These criteria are being incorporate d as an integ ral element of the national -review process. A critical assessment floiqing from that process, in turn, is uthether a given Regional Medical Program has: (1) Demonstrated outstanding proc,-ram quality and maturity as reflected by its performance eral-1 progress to date. (2) Sho,.qn satisfactory program progress. (3) Performed poorly and reflects unsatisfa pro,-res5 and program status. -The review criteria to be employed are as folloiqs: (1) Goals, Objectives and Priorities. Are these *explicitly stated? *specific? -reasonable and relevant? * *based on assessment of regional needs, problems and resources? *congruent with national priorities? un erstood a@d accoDtod by tlios as Qiated with !Z%IP in th region? c ħLL@2incysoot operational proposals a @actor in Determining ti-i (2) Organizational Effectiveness. a. Coordinator. Has he been successful in developing and main- fa-ining a . strong sense of program CFrection and cohesion? . effectively functioning core staff? b. Core Staff. Does it reflect a * broad -range of professional and discipline cometence? * adequate administrative and management capability? * balanced relationship between central, field, and insti- tutional components? C. Cyantee Or@,,3iiizati--on (or Orcanizational Base). Does it provide including administrative and housekeeping adequate support, services? <-uffici ecially in distinguishing -ent dc,,Tree of freedom, esp b-t%%Teonits administrative role and the RAG's policy- making one,? d. ional @clv including the corollary planning, review, other c oes this advisory structure have . participation of key regional groups and interests? . policy control over the progrqm? . creditability within the program and region? . adequate technical review structure and process? e. Subi-egionalization. Is an adequate, comni-inity organization and a@i ii@g Eap-a6Y l@ beina developed by the region, separately or in conjtlnction with CHP and others, at the local or sub-regional) level? (3) Involvement of Recyional Resources. To what extent are the Region's heal i -,old ituti.ci@ , groups, and agencies actively involved in and co,@iLnited to R@IP; or, conversely, has the RNIP in effect been captured or co-opted by a single major interest-? Among others .practicing physicians and organized medicine? .community hospitals, including their boards as well as staff? .nursing and allied health professions? .medical schools and centers? volunta and official health auencies? ry GP and other related health and planning programs? consumer:5 and community groups? region's political and economic power structure? (4) Assessment of Nee Problems and Resources. To what extent arb these .the result of a systematic identification and analysis based on data? 4related to Region's objectives and priorities? .reflected bv the scope and nature of core and operational activities' (5) Prog-ram Implementation and Accomplishments. a. Core Activities. Have t@'ese resulted in * action-oriented planning? * development of co=nity org anization and planning at the local level? * coordinated, cooperative, and conjoint activities with others (e.g., OEO, CFIP, Appalachia)? * adequate surveillance of ongoing operational activities? b. Ooor,,:itiona ects. Hlve these .reflected Re ion's present objectives and priorities? .st-renglitoned or utilized linl-aucs bo'ciieen and among iiisti- -id agencies? tutioji.9, groups ,u h d (,cneral'Ly productive? been of Iii@ quality an rcsulted in a turnover of funds? been phased out iqlaere unsuccessful or now irrelevant? (6) Evaluation. Is (or are) there . a formal evaluation plan or strate .adequate staff and other -resources available? 4assessment of the-overall pi-ooj,am as well as evaluation of projects? .a feed]-)ack mechanism relatin program and project evaluation to the 9 RAG? .ongoing monitoring and surveillance of projects?