Home

Results 1 - 10 of 549,252 for improvement targets. Search took 3.311 seconds.  
Sort by date/Sort by relevance
Remedial measures may include counselling, transfer to more suitable functions, additional training and/or the institution of a time-bound performance improvement plan [(“PIP”)], which should include clear targets for improvement, provision for coaching and supervision by the [FRO] in conjunction with performance discussions, which should be held on a regular basis. (...) If such methods do not work, a time-bound performance improvement plan may need to be considered. A [PIP] should include clear targets for improvement, provision for coaching and supervision by the [FRO] in conjunction with regular performance discussions. (...) UNDT/2018/043 Page 12 of 42 member to improve his or her performance. The duration of the performance improvement plan may vary depending on the nature of the performance issue.
Language:English
Score: 913402.8 - www.un.org/en/internalj...dt/judgments/undt-2018-043.pdf
Data Source: oaj
In particular, the Applicant’s first reporting officer advised him that improvement was urgently needed with regard to the processing and tracking of incoming and outgoing correspondence. (...) The Applicant was placed on a performance improvement plan (“PIP”) for a period of two months from 1 July 2019 to 31 August 2019. 8. (...) As the record shows, during the 2018/19 reporting cycle, the supervisors took remedial measures to address the performance shortcomings as required under sec. 10.1 of ST/AI/2010/5 by holding meetings during which his supervisors identified the Applicant’s performance shortcomings, provided clear targets for improvement, and established a performance plan for four months in order to assist him in improving his performance. 17.
Language:English
Score: 903262.7 - www.un.org/en/internalj...es/undt/orders/ny-2019-148.pdf
Data Source: oaj
Legend of symbols for assessing the current status Symbol Meaning General outcome +++ Target already met Positive ++ Very close to the target Positive + Close to the target Positive - Far from the target Negative -- Very far from the target Negative 1.2 Indicators without a numerical target In the case of indicators without a numerical target, the distance to the target cannot be calculated. (...) Quintiles are calculated only at the country level and not at the regional level. 3 | P a g e Annex 2 – Methods for trend assessment 2.1 Indicators having a numerical target A simple method for assessing the trend of numerical indicators having a numerical target (set by the 2030 Agenda) consists in comparing the actual growth with the growth required to reach the target. (...) Ratio actual vs. required: 𝐶𝑅 = 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑟 Indicators expressed as scores ranging from 1 (worst) to 5 (best) require a separate approach that basically consists in a categorization of all the possible combinations between the latest score and the score in the baseline year: Criteria for judging the trend by comparing the latest score with the previous score Rule Color Assessment category baseline>=1 AND latest=5 Dark green Target already met (TAM) (latest-baseline)>=2 AND latest<5 Green Improvement (>>) (latest-baseline)=1 AND latest<5 Light green Slight improvement (>) baseline=latest (both NOT equal to 5) Orange No improvement (stagnation) since baseline (=) Latest < baseline Red Deterioration/movement away from the target (<<) 4 | P a g e 2.2 Indicators without a numerical target In case of indicators without a numerical target, it is only possible to assess the actual growth (𝑡0 denotes the baseline year): 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 = ( 𝑥𝑡 𝑥𝑡0 ) 1 𝑡−𝑡0 − 1 Different criteria can be used to assess the CAGR, depending on the sign of the normative direction and also on the fact that for some indicators a situation that remains unchanged over time (not increase or not decrease) can be judged positively. 2.3 Legend and interpretation of symbols related to trend assessment Symbol Meaning General outcome Note TAM Target already met Positive ONLY for indicators having a numerical target explicitly defined by the 2030 Agenda >> Significant improvement Positive > Slight improvement Positive >= Slight or no improvement Positive Needed only for indicator where the no-change over time is a positive outcome (normative direction of the indicator is “NOT increase” or “NOT decrease” over time, i.e. the target of the indicator include terms like “maintain” etc.) = No improvement (stagnation) Negative < Slight deterioration Negative << Significant deterioration negative 5 | P a g e SDG 2.1.1 Target value: 2.5% Normative direction: decrease Last available data refer to 2019 for regions, 2018 for countries (3-year average 2017-2019) Assessment of the current status (last available data): distance to the target Criteria for judging the current distance from the target Bounds Group Symbol 𝑑𝑖𝑡 = 0 Target already met +++ 0 < 𝑑𝑖𝑡 ≤ 0.05 Very close to the target ++ 0.05 < 𝑑𝑖𝑡 ≤ 0.10 Close to the target + 0.10 < 𝑑𝑖𝑡 ≤ 0.25 Far from the target - 𝑑𝑖𝑡 > 0.25 Very far from the target -- Assessment of the trend from 2015 (baseline year): actual growth compared to the required growth to reach the target (CR) Criteria for judging the trend by comparing actual with the required growth Level or ratio CR Color Assessment category x ≤ x∗ Dark green Target already met (TAM) CR ≥ 0.95 Green On-track to achieve the target (>>) 0.10 < 𝐶𝑅 < 0.95 Yellow On-path, but too slow to achieve the target (>) −0.10 ≤ 𝐶𝑅 ≤ 0.10 Orange No improvement (stagnation) since baseline (=) 𝐶𝑅 < −0.10 Red Deterioration/movement away from the target (<<) 6 | P a g e SDG 2.1.2 Target value: 5% Normative direction: decrease Last available data refer to 2019 Assessment of the current status (last available data): distance to the target Criteria for judging the current distance from the target Bounds Group Symbol 𝑑𝑖𝑡 = 0 Target already met +++ 0 < 𝑑𝑖𝑡 ≤ 0.05 Very close to the target ++ 0.05 < 𝑑𝑖𝑡 ≤ 0.10 Close to the target + 0.10 < 𝑑𝑖𝑡 ≤ 0.25 Far from the target - 𝑑𝑖𝑡 > 0.25 Very far from the target -- Assessment of the trend from 2015 (baseline year): actual growth compared to the required growth to reach the target (CR) Criteria for judging the trend by comparing actual with the required growth Level or ratio CR Color Assessment category x ≤ x∗ Dark green Target already met (TAM) CR ≥ 0.95 Green On-track to achieve the target (>>) 0.10 < 𝐶𝑅 < 0.95 Yellow On-path, but too slow to achieve the target (>) −0.10 ≤ 𝐶𝑅 ≤ 0.10 Orange No improvement (stagnation) since baseline (=) 𝐶𝑅 < −0.10 Red Deterioration/movement away from the target (<<) 7 | P a g e SDG 2.5.1a Target value: NA Normative direction: not decrease Last available data refer to 2019 Assessment of the current status (last available data): quintiles of the distribution of country values (no assessment at regional level) Assessment of trend from 2016 (baseline year): actual growth (CAGR) Criteria to judge the actual growth (CAGR) Values of actual growth rate Color Assessment category 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 > 0.01 Dark green Improvement since baseline-year (>>) −0.005 ≤ 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 ≤ 0.01 Light green Slight or no-improvement since baseline-year (>=) −0.01 ≤ 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 < −0.005 Orange Slight deterioration since baseline-year (<) 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 < −0.01 Red Deterioration since baseline-year (<<) SDG 2.a.1 Target value: NA Normative direction: increase Last available data refer to 2018 Assessment of the current status (last available data): quintiles of the distribution of country values (no assessment at the regional level) Assessment of the trend from 2015 (baseline year): actual growth (CAGR) Criteria to judge the actual growth (CAGR) Values of actual growth rate Color Assessment category 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 > 0.01 Dark green Improvement since baseline-year (>>) 0.005 < 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 ≤ 0.01 Light green Slight improvement since baseline-year (>) −0.005 ≤ 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 ≤ 0.005 yellow No improvement since baseline-year (=) −0.01 ≤ 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 < −0.005 Orange Slight deterioration since baseline-year (<) 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 < −0.01 Red Deterioration since baseline-year (<<) 8 | P a g e SDG 6.4.1 Target value: NA Normative direction: increase Last available data refer to 2017 Assessment of the current status (last available data): quintiles of the distribution of country values (no assessment at the regional level) Assessment of the trend from 2015 (baseline year): actual growth (CAGR) Criteria to judge the actual growth (CAGR) Values of actual growth rate Color Assessment category 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 > 0.01 Dark green Improvement since baseline-year (>>) 0.005 < 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 ≤ 0.01 Light green Slight improvement since baseline-year (>) −0.005 ≤ 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 ≤ 0.005 yellow No improvement since baseline-year (=) −0.01 ≤ 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 < −0.005 Orange Slight deterioration since baseline-year (<) 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 < −0.01 Red Deterioration since baseline-year (<<) SDG 6.4.2 Target value: NA Normative direction: Decrease if baseline value >25% Last available data refer to 2017 Assessment of the current status (last available data): quintiles of the distribution of country values (no assessment at regional level) Assessment of the trend from 2015 (baseline year): actual growth (CAGR) (no assessment of the trend if the baseline value is below 25%) Criteria to judge the actual growth (CAGR) if baseline value <25% Values of actual growth rate Color Assessment category 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 > 0.01 Dark green Improvement since baseline-year (>>) 0.005 < 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 ≤ 0.01 Light green Slight improvement since baseline-year (>) −0.005 ≤ 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 ≤ 0.005 Yellow No improvement since baseline-year (=) −0.01 ≤ 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 < −0.005 Orange Slight deterioration since baseline-year (<) 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 < −0.01 Red Deterioration since baseline-year (<<) 9 | P a g e SDG 14.4.1 Target value: NA Normative direction: increase Last available data refer to 2017 Assessment of the current status (last available data): Not Applicable (data available only for global and marine zones) Assessment of the trend from 2015 (baseline year): actual growth (CAGR) Criteria to judge the actual growth (CAGR) Values of actual growth rate Color Assessment category 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 > 0.01 Dark green Improvement since baseline-year (>>) 0.005 < 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 ≤ 0.01 Light green Slight improvement since baseline-year (>) −0.005 ≤ 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 ≤ 0.005 Yellow No improvement since baseline-year (=) −0.01 ≤ 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 < −0.005 Orange Slight deterioration since baseline-year (<) 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 < −0.01 red Deterioration since baseline-year (<<) 10 | P a g e SDG 14.6.1 Target value: 5 (score) Normative direction: increase Last available data refer to: 2020 Assessment of the current status (last available data): distance to the target (𝑥∗ = 5) Criteria for judging the current distance from the target Bounds Group Symbol 𝑑𝑖𝑡 = 𝑥 ∗ − 𝑥𝑖,2020 = 0 Target already met +++ 𝑑𝑖𝑡 = 𝑥 ∗ − 𝑥𝑖,2020 = 1 Very close to the target ++ 𝑑𝑖𝑡 = 𝑥 ∗ − 𝑥𝑖,2020 = 2 Close to the target + 𝑑𝑖𝑡 = 𝑥 ∗ − 𝑥𝑖,2020 = 3 Far from the target - 𝑑𝑖𝑡 = 𝑥 ∗ − 𝑥𝑖,2020 > 3 Very far from the target -- Assessment of the trend from 2018 (baseline year): comparison of scores Criteria for judging the trend by comparing the latest score with the previous score Rule Color Assessment category Baseline=1 to 5 Latest=5 Dark green Target already met (TAM) (latest-baseline)>=2 AND latest<5 Green Improvement (>>) (latest-baseline)=1 AND latest<5 Light green Slight improvement (>) baseline=latest (both NOT equal to 5) Orange No improvement (stagnation) since baseline (=) Latesttarget (<<) 11 | P a g e SDG 14.7.1 Target value: NA Normative direction: increase Last available data refer to 2017 Assessment of the current status (last available data): quintiles of the distribution of country values (no assessment at regional level) Assessment of the trend from 2015 (baseline year): actual growth (CAGR) Criteria to judge the actual growth (CAGR) Values of actual growth rate Color Assessment category 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 > 0.01 Dark green Improvement since baseline-year (>>) 0.005 < 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 ≤ 0.01 Light green Slight improvement since baseline-year (>) −0.005 ≤ 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 ≤ 0.005 Yellow No improvement since baseline-year (=) −0.01 ≤ 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 < −0.005 Orange Slight deterioration since baseline-year (<) 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 < −0.01 red Deterioration since baseline-year (<<) 12 | P a g e SDG 14.b.1 Target value: 5 (score) Normative direction: increase Last available data refer to: 2020 Assessment of the current status (last available data): distance to the target (𝑥∗ = 5) Criteria for judging the current distance from the target Bounds Group Symbol 𝑑𝑖𝑡 = 5 − 𝑥𝑖,2020 = 0 Target already met +++ 𝑑𝑖𝑡 = 5 − 𝑥𝑖,2020 = 1 Very close to the target ++ 𝑑𝑖𝑡 = 𝑥 ∗ − 𝑥𝑖,2020 = 2 Close to the target + 𝑑𝑖𝑡 = 𝑥 ∗ − 𝑥𝑖,2020 = 3 Far from the target - 𝑑𝑖𝑡 = 𝑥 ∗ − 𝑥𝑖,2020 > 3 Very far from the target -- Criteria for judging the trend by comparing the latest score with the previous score Rule Color Assessment category Baseline >= AND latest=5 Dark green Target already met (TAM) (latest-baseline)>=2 AND latest<5 Green Improvement (>>) (latest-baseline)=1 AND latest<5 Light green Slight improvement (>) baseline=latest (both NOT equal to 5) Orange No improvement (stagnation) since baseline (=) Latesttarget (<<) 13 | P a g e SDG 15.1.1 Target value: NA Normative direction: NOT decrease Last available data refer to 2020 Assessment of the current status (last available data): quintiles of the distribution of country values (no assessment at regional level) Assessment of the trend from 2015 (baseline year): actual growth (CAGR) Criteria to judge the actual growth (CAGR) Values of actual growth rate Color Assessment category 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 > 0.001 Dark green Improvement since baseline-year (>>) −0.0005 ≤ 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 ≤ 0.001 Light green Slight or no-improvement since baseline-year (>=) −0.001 ≤ 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 < −0.0005 Orange Slight deterioration since baseline-year (<) 𝐶𝐴𝐺𝑅𝑎 < −0.001 red Deterioration since baseline-year (<<)
Language:English
Score: 883469.6 - https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/...ss-report/2020/pdf/methods.pdf
Data Source: un
Putting the Applicant outside of his area of expertise in a PIP is a strong indication that performance improvement was not desired and intended as a solid dismissal motive. (...) Remedial measures may include counselling, transfer to more suitable functions, additional training and/or the institution of a time-bound performance improvement plan, which should include clear targets for improvement, provision for coaching and supervision by the first reporting officer in conjunction with performance discussions, which should be held on a regular basis (emphasis added). (...) This shall be done in consultation with the staff member and the second reporting officer. The performance improvement plan may cover up to a six-month period. 52.
Language:English
Score: 878661.7 - www.un.org/en/internalj...dt/judgments/undt-2022-061.pdf
Data Source: oaj
Supervisors have an obligation to their staff to bring to their attention any areas where improvement is required and provide them with the opportunity to improve. The process for managing under-performance has two major parts: the informal improvement process and the formal improvement process. (...) Schedule regular performance improvement discussions to track the progress of the performance improvement plan.
Language:English
Score: 877169.4 - www.un.org/en/internalj...at/judgments/2019-UNAT-900.pdf
Data Source: oaj
AM had written to the Applicant on 24 November 2010 on the subject of targets for 2011. He stated that the targets and administrative budget allocation for the Region had been reduced and that JMOC had been allocated USD100,000. (...) The Respondent makes reference to the Applicant’s lack of improvement notwithstanding a performance improvement plan that was allegedly put in place at the end of 2010. The Applicant was under no impression that these exchanges with FS starting on 21 December constituted a performance improvement plan. The normal procedures of the United Nations require such an improvement plan to be prepared by a supervisor and specifically agreed upon in writing with the staff member.
Language:English
Score: 873451 - www.un.org/en/internalj...dt/judgments/undt-2014-128.pdf
Data Source: oaj
Satellite images are available with adequate quality Indicator 4 (GEF Core indicator 4 Area of landscapes under improved practices (hectares) Mid-term Target: 300Ha End of Project Target: 1,000Ha Based on potential cocoa producers from APPTA (which amount to a total of 1000 Ha in Costa Rica). (...) Indicator 5 (GEF indicator 7) Number of shared water ecosystems under new or improved cooperative management. Mid-term Target: 3 End of Project Target: 4 (one improved cooperative management instrument) Baseline (level 2) refers to the current Operative Regulation of the CBCRS. (...) Annex 3: Monitoring Plan Project Outcome 3 Demonstrative pilot interventions generate global environmental benefits in the Binational Sixaola River basin Indicator 10 Improved solid waste management in local municipal governments in Talamanca and Changuinola, Mid-term Target: Number of management guidelines for improved solid waste management developed: 2 End of Project Target: Number of management guidelines for improved solid waste management developed: 4 Rating on a scale of 1 to 4: 1 = No guidelines for improved solid waste management in selected municipalities. 2 = Guidelines for improved solid waste management under development in selected municipalities. 3 = Guidelines for improved solid waste management developed. 4 = Guidelines in use by target municipalities.
Language:English
Score: 857746.1 - https://www.undp.org/sites/g/f...-Annex-03.-Monitoring-Plan.pdf
Data Source: un
Indicator: Baseline: Target: Data source: Output 1.2.2: Marginalized and vulnerable populations have improved access to quality, integrated, shock responsive and inclusive protection and social protection systems and services. (...) Indicator: Baseline: Target: Data source: Output 2.2.1: Inclusive access to skills development services and assets is increased, contributing to improved employability and socio-economic status. (...) Indicator: Baseline: Target: Data source: Output 3.2.2: Community-based mechanisms promoting individual and community engagement and dialogue are improved for quality, equitable, gender-sensitive and rights-based access to services.
Language:English
Score: 854503.6 - https://www.undp.org/sites/g/f...endorsedbyUNCT%2019%20Aug.docx
Data Source: un
The proportion of first prenatal visits exhibits the same pattern of variation over time, putting in question whether Albania will reach the 2015 target (70 percent). Are maternal health improvement reduction targets ambitious enough? (...) Agreeing on a new, more ambitious target will quite likely motivate more ambitious policies to progress faster towards the improvement of maternal health. (...) Data from 2005 shows that an exponential trend is necessary for Albania to meet its improved governance targets. 16 Is a monitoring system in place for tracking progress towards achieving governance targets?
Language:English
Score: 853524.7 - https://www.undp.org/sites/g/f.../fr/Albania_MDGReport_2005.pdf
Data Source: un
The proportion of first prenatal visits exhibits the same pattern of variation over time, putting in question whether Albania will reach the 2015 target (70 percent). Are maternal health improvement reduction targets ambitious enough? (...) Agreeing on a new, more ambitious target will quite likely motivate more ambitious policies to progress faster towards the improvement of maternal health. (...) Data from 2005 shows that an exponential trend is necessary for Albania to meet its improved governance targets. 16 Is a monitoring system in place for tracking progress towards achieving governance targets?
Language:English
Score: 853524.7 - https://www.undp.org/sites/g/f...ons/Albania_MDGReport_2005.pdf
Data Source: un