1. PATCH-WORLd Project Monitoring System May 25th, 2009 Qawra, Malta 4 th Meeting This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein PATCH-WORLd – PArenTs and CHildren Working, ORganising and Learning together 135285-LLP-1-2007-1-IT-KA3-KA3MP Grant Agreement 2007- 3620/001-001

2. LevelNarrative Summary Measurable Indicators Means of VerificationImportant Assumptions Goal -Project Monitoring System - Evaluation Purpose A Output A.1 Output A.2 Output A.3 Purpose B Output B.1 Output B.2 Output B.3

3. Outputs 1 2 3 Key Delivery Performance Indicators: 1 2 3 Classification of Outputs HSSUVU Assumptions Related to the Implementation of each outputs 1 2 3 Probability HighLow Implementation Progress Summary Classification (IP): (A satisfactory or higher classification indicates, among other things, that the project will reach the foreseen outputs during the currently approved period) [ ] Highly Satisfactory (HS) [ ] Satisfactory (S) [ ] Unsatisfactory (U) [ ] Very Unsatisfactory (VU)

4. This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein Implementation Progress: Highly Satisfactory (HS): Implementation of all project outputs is on schedule as envisaged in the original or revised project implementation and sequencing plan and the quality of the outputs is good. Satisfactory (S): Implementation of the significant outputs is on schedule as envisaged in the original or revised project implementation and sequencing plan and quality is adequate. Implementation of outputs may require remedial actions, but they will not seriously (less than 15% of the existing timetable) affect or delay overall project implementation. Unsatisfactory (U): Significant outputs are not in compliance with the original or revised project implementation and sequencing plan or there is a problem with the quality of the outputs. A serious delay in implementation of the project may be occurring (over 15% of the existing timetable). Corrective actions are being applied which may produce results. Very Unsatisfactory (VU): Most significant outputs are not in compliance with the original or revised implementation and sequencing plan and/or there is a problem with the quality of the outputs. No feasible corrective action has been identified or there is no agreement within the partnership on appropriate corrective actions.

5. This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein Highly Probable (HP): The project is expected to achieve or exceed its development objective(s) Probable (P): The project is expected to achieve most of its development objective(s) Low Probability (LP): The project is not expected to achieve a significant portion of its development objective(s) Improbable (I): The project is not expected to achieve its development objective(s) Assumptions:

6. Purposes 1 2 3 Key Delivery Performance Indicators: 1 2 3 Classification of Purposes indicators HSSUVU Assumptions Related to each Development Objectives 1 2 3 Probability HighLow Expected Achievement of Development Objective Classification (DO) [ ] Highly Satisfactory (HS) [ ] Satisfactory (S) [ ] Unsatisfactory (U) [ ] Very Unsatisfactory (VU) Briefly explain major factors taken into account to justify the DO Classification:

7. This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein Check key reasons for Unsatisfactory/Very Unsatisfactory IP Classification or Low Probability/Improbable DO Classification and explain in the second part of the table [ ] Organizational changes [ ] Subcontractor inefficacy [ ] Partner withdraw [ ] Partner not collaborative [ ] Inefficacy in management procedure [ ] Inefficacy in communication strategies [ ] Supplier/contractor performance [ ] Project/component design [ ] Contract condition compliance delays [ ] Procurement difficulties [ ] Cost overrun [ ] Insufficient budget [ ] Delay (explain) [ ] Technical issues [ ] Organizational changes [ ] Other EXPLANATION

8. This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein Progress to date in implementing each outputs (Include reference to IP assumptions, if applicable) 1 2 3 Current Status of each Assumption 1 2 3 Timeliness of Compliance with contractual conditions Reformulation (If applicable): Date of last reformulation ……………. Briefly describe: Lessons learned (If applicable): Potential Problems (If applicable):

9. This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein IssueActionResponsibleDate Action to be taken Completed 123123

13. Thank you for your kind attention! May 25th, 2009 Qawra, Malta 4th Meeting PATCH-WORLd – PArenTs and CHildren Working, ORganising and Learning together 135285-LLP-1-2007-1-IT-KA3-KA3MP Grant Agreement 2007- 3620/001-001 This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein