AEP Funding Process Sample Clauses

AEP Funding Process. MOE and Consortia Formula Allocation Each AEP Regional Consortium receives the same allocation for the current year as they did in the prior year. The majority (67%) of the AEP allocation is made up of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) as certified by K-12 and County Offices of Education (COEs). The MOE certification process was based on 12/13 adult education related expenses in the ten adult education program areas as submitted by K-12 districts and COEs. This 12/13 certification was used to form the K-12/XXX base for the MOE. The MOE funding amount does not change unless funding is reduced based on the criteria as specified in AB104 legislation (84914 (b)). The remaining amount of AEP funding (33%) was allocated based on a regional allocation formula. According to the Adult Education Program language, the California Community College Chancellor and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction are charged with determining the statewide need for adult education and the funding allocation of each consortium. More specifically, sections 84911 and 84908 (2) (A)(ii), respectively, address these obligations. Section 84911 states, “To determine the need for adult education, the chancellor and the Superintendent shall consider, at a minimum, measures related to adult population, employment, immigration, educational attainment, and adult literacy.” Additionally, Section 84908 (2) (A)(ii) states that, “The chancellor and the Superintendent shall determine the amount to be allocated to each consortium pursuant to this paragraph based on that adult education region’s share of the statewide need for adult education.” Given the above language, key state agencies (the California Department of Education, the State Board of Education, the California Community College Chancellor’s Office, and the Department of Finance) met to develop a funding formula for adult education regional consortia. They used various combinations of variables, including minimum funding levels. After thorough analysis of the permutations, it was determined that the variables correlated very closely. Consequently, all variables were equally weighted. In addition, it was determined that the minimum grant award amount was appropriate and reasonable, in that it allows the smaller consortia (which in most instances are rural) to make a larger impact in their respective regions. The list below depicts the variables used to determine adult education consortia funding amounts. • Educational Attainment (No High ...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to AEP Funding Process

  • Program Funding Upon entry into force of this Compact, MCC will grant to the Government, under the terms of this Compact, an amount not to exceed Four Hundred Eight Million Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand United States Dollars (US$408,850,000) to support the Program (“Program Funding”). The allocation of Program Funding is generally described in Annex II to this Compact.

  • Bidding Process 3.1. Bidding shall generally commence based on the sequence of the lot being shown on the PAH Website. However the Auctioneer has the right to vary the sequence without having to give prior notice to the intended bidders.

  • Joint Network Implementation and Grooming Process Upon request of either Party, the Parties shall jointly develop an implementation and grooming process (the “Joint Grooming Process” or “Joint Process”) which may define and detail, inter alia:

  • Hiring Process i. School District and Teach For America will collaborate in good faith to facilitate the efficient hiring of individual Teachers, in accordance with the School District’s established District hiring practices.

  • Benchmarking Process 2.2.1 The Supplier shall produce and send to the Authority for Approval, a draft plan for the Benchmark Review.

  • Implementation Program 1. The Borrower shall:

  • Abortion Funding Limitation Contractor understands, acknowledges, and agrees that, pursuant to Article IX of the General Appropriations Act (the Act), to the extent allowed by federal and state law, money appropriated by the Texas Legislature may not be distributed to any individual or entity that, during the period for which funds are appropriated under the Act:

  • Other Funding It may be appropriate for funding to be provided to the awardee by other organizations, including Federal agencies in support of their missions or in support of mission-related staff research. It is also recognized that it may be appropriate for personnel or facilities to be used for other NSF and non-NSF projects that are deemed consistent with the scope of the federal award. Such activities, however, must be coordinated in advance with NSF and not impact negatively on NSF sponsored activities to be performed under the award. Accordingly:

  • Drug Testing Procedures a. The testing procedures and safeguards provided in this policy shall be adhered to by any laboratory personnel administering departmental drug tests.

  • Issue Resolution Process Section 1001:

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!