Tracking Oregon's Progress: A Report of the Tracking Oregon's Progress (TOP) Indicators Project

In 1989, Oregon embarked on a novel experiment to track the progress of the state toward a set of economic, social and environmental goals embodied in the state strategic plan Oregon Shines. The task of tracking a set of indicators to measure progress was assigned to a new state entity: the Oregon Progress Board. For two decades, the Progress Board measured the state's progress using a set of social, economic and environmental indicators. After the 2009 report was completed however, the state decided not to continue funding the Progress Board and discontinued the tracking of state and county indicators.This 2014 report is a report to the people of Oregon. It identifies trends in the state that suggest both progress toward prosperity as well as issues that may be a source of future barriers and concerns. Like those who led previous indicator efforts, we hope that the report and website will be used by policymakers, government analysts, the press, business and civic leaders and the civically-engaged population to better understand the current social, economic, and environmental condition of the state

Adaptive planning for distributed systems using goal accomplishment tracking

Goal accomplishment tracking is the process of monitoring the progress of a task or series of tasks towards completing a goal. Goal accomplishment tracking is used to monitor goal progress in a variety of domains, including workflow processing, teleoperation and industrial manufacturing. Practically, it involves the constant monitoring of task execution, analysis of this data to determine the task progress and notification of interested parties. This information is usually used in a passive way to observe goal progress. However, responding to this information may prevent goal failures. In addition, responding proactively in an opportunistic way can also lead to goals being completed faster. This paper proposes an architecture to support the adaptive planning of tasks for fault tolerance or opportunistic task execution based on goal accomplishment tracking. It argues that dramatically increased performance can be gained by monitoring task execution and altering plans dynamically

Tracking progress of tobacco control in Pakistan against the MPOWER package of interventions : challenges and opportunities

MPOWER is an evidence-based package of the six most effective demand reduction interventions to reduce tobacco use. Global evidence shows that introduction of this package has accelerated and strengthened tobacco control worldwide with over 5 billion people living in 136 countries covered by at least one of these key interventions. This paper comments on how tobacco control laws in a low and middle income country, Pakistan, are meeting the MPOWER package provisions and what the challenges and opportunities for tobacco control are in the country. Pakistan is home to over 24 million tobacco users consuming a variety of tobacco products including 10 million smokeless tobacco users. Pakistan has introduced several laws to meet its international commitments under the framework convention against tobacco control and MPOWER package. However, gaps in existing policies, poor law enforcement, and a conflicting political economy of tobacco in the country pose major challenges for effective tobacco control. The changing political environment with renowned public health activists in current government, an active and independent judiciary, increasing use of social media, and a dynamic civil society offer opportunities to strengthen its efforts for effective policy actions against tobacco use

Tracking and mixed-ability grouping in secondary school mathematics classrooms: a case study

This paper reports the findings of a retrospective study of ‘tracked’ grouping in a mathematics department in a co-educational comprehensive school in Greater London. Tracking consisted here of just two tracks, a 'fast track' for the top 25-30% of a cohort, and 'mixed tracks' for the remainder. The paper outlines the reasons for introducing tracking and explores the effects of this through analysis of interviews with teachers and data on the progress of students from age 14 to age 16. The teachers reported that tracking impacted differently on different students, and this is borne out by the quantitative data. It was not possible to provide for ‘setting’ across all the mathematics classrooms in the focal cohort, and one mixedability class was created. The use of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models shows that fast-track students were not significantly advantaged by their placement in these tracks, but the progress of students in the mixed-ability group showed a significant interaction between progress and prior attainment, with placement in the mixed-ability group conferring a significant advantage on lower-attaining students, while the disadvantage to higher attaining students was much smaller

Delivery System Reform Tracking: A Framework for Understanding Change

Proposes a framework for tracking progress on delivery system reforms such as patient-centered medical homes and accountable care organizations by assessing structures, capabilities, incentives, and outcomes. Outlines challenges for data collection

Tracking Oregon's Progress: A Focus On Income Inequality

Inequality in income, consumption, education, and quality of life across populations has become a growing concern in the United States. As the nation's attention shifts toward issues of inequality, it is important to understand the prevalence of inequality in Oregon. However, studying income inequality alone is not sufficient; counties with low income inequality can have high poverty, among other challenges. County and state variations in income inequality are partially due to differences in the population, their earning potential and their access to high-wage work. By examining poverty and inequality together, it is possible to gain a fuller understanding of the economic well-being of communities. Findings from this study reveal that:Oregon has consistently ranked 22nd in the nation for its level of income inequality since the mid-2000s, meaning that just over half of the states in the nation have more income inequality than Oregon.Within the western region of the U.S., Oregon has above average levels of income inequality.Within Oregon, counties vary in levels of income inequality.Multnomah, Benton, and Lane counties have consistently high income inequality. High income inequality is not unexpected in urban areas or small counties with large populations of university students.Hood River and Morrow counties maintain consistently low levels of income inequality. Low income inequality can indicate that an economy is providing a mix of jobs that support middle income earners, as in the case of Hood River. However, low income inequality can also result from a lack of high wage earners, as in Morrow and other rural counties in the state

Paying for College: Availability of Need-Based Financial Aid for New Jersey's Working Adults

Examines barriers to low-income working adult students' access to Education Opportunity Fund and Tuition Aid Grants; challenges such as childcare needs; and lack of data for tracking the state's progress in making college affordable. Recommends reforms

Traveling Upstream: Improving Water Quality of the Mississippi River

In 2004, McKnight hired Headwaters Group Philanthropic Services, LLC, (Headwaters) to research and assess water quality issues on the Mississippi River. In an iterative process that included a literature review and confidential interviews with 19 state and federal agencies and 24 nonprofits (Appendix A), Headwaters: Assessed water quality tracking data that could possibly be used as a tool for measuring progress in water quality efforts.Identified successful strategies for improving water quality or its precursor conditions.Identified systemic challenges to improving water quality on the mainstem of the River.Highlighted inter- and intra-state inconsistencies in the application of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and associated regulations. The results of these efforts are summarized in the following findings: 1. Water quality tracking data cannot adequately measure progress. 2. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) fails to address interstate inconsistencies and shortcomings. 3. CWA focus misses critical pollutant sources and remedies. 4. Lack of coordinated, strategic water quality focus by Mississippi River institutions