Page 533 - Area X - G
P. 533

OPCRform
 Reviled February 2016

 Perceniape of beneficiaries who rete ihe training courtei*
 4 end advisory servicet as satisfactory or higher in terms   98%  96%  100%  100%  s
 oiaualitv and relevance......................................
 No  of TNAI crafted and implemented with analysis  1 per  i
 5  priority  l                       5
 oroaram     l
 6 Number of persons treired (extension services) on
 a  GAD end GAD-releted SWTs  300  400  S
 b  Other SWTs  300  400              5
 T No  of IEC packaged  e  12         5
 • No  of collaborate attention proposal* prepared &
 submitted  ................ ......... ....................  0  30  8
 9 No  of collaborative extension proposals implemented  «  12  S
 e  No  ol demo projects with IRR  1  3  8
 b  Number of adopters engaged rn viable profdable
 l
 I
 f
 fflUKM _______  6  12                 8
 e  % ol request lot technical advice that ara responded to   S
 within 3 aavt of request_______________________  98*  100%
 GASS: Common Functions
 No  of planning  monitoring and related activities
 1 proposed/eonducted/implemented in the area of   1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1
 operation   _
 Budget Utilization Rate  obligation  80-9015   80*90%
                                        ,
 2  of alloted   o* alloted            i •a
 budoet
 Budget Utilization Rate- disbursement  A m  80-90%
 of     of                            4T
 3
 obligated  obligated                  3
 No  of feeulty/stetf who attended SWT onGAOGAD  80 90%   8C-90%   j


 r
 4 related and/or any SWT related to fund of speciatlzation   of faculty   of faculty   Vs
 of facultu/staff............... ......................  and staff  '
                    ”...  :L„:zE:.y^.._.
 Quarterly Report Submieeron:   |Retina Scale for the Fine! Scores
 First Quarter  Second Quarter  4 .5 1 -   5,00Outstanding
 •

 Submitted by         iirbmdtttf by
 Submitted by;  3 .51-   4,50 Very Setisfectory
 -
 2 .5 1 -   3.50Satisfactory                    tifck.
 1.51- 2.50   -  fair
                                                        t
 (Head of Delivery Unit)                             Pi vV  r'tvitvr
 (Head of Delivery Unit)   1,00-1.50  -  Poor
 i
 r
 Approved:  Approved:  Appov  Assessment  Assessed by
 I  Strategic Priorities            PMT              y  .Ivwt  i r
 It  Compunctions                                    t       fla
 EVA MARK C. DUGVON, PhD  It)  Support Functions       -'npji   CCti
                      Final Rating by:
 Total Score
                                                              wo,
 University President  University President  Unlveriity President  Average (Total Scote/No  of Pis)  4«*  3.vs#  EVA MARIE C  DUG VON, PhO  ftar

 Adjective! Rating  VS                                       » r,
                                                      M<0> tlv
   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537   538