Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.
Claims Review Methodology
a. C laims Review Population. A description of the Population subject to the Quarterly Claims Review.
Utilization Review NOTE: The Utilization Review process does not apply to Services that are not covered by Blue Shield because of a coverage determination made by Medicare. State law requires that health plans disclose to Subscribers and health plan providers the process used to authorize or deny health care services un- der the plan. Blue Shield has completed documen- tation of this process ("Utilization Review"), as required under Section 1363.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. To request a copy of the document describing this Utilization Review pro- cess, call the Customer Service Department at the telephone number indicated on your Identification Card.
Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.
Evaluation Procedure The procedural requirements set forth in this agreement which conform with and provide specificity to the statutory obligations established by Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.111 and § 3319.112.
AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by agreement, shall be reviewed by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration. Not later than thirty (30) calendar days after issuance of the final audit report, CONSULTANT may request a review by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration of unresolved audit issues. The request for review will be submitted in writing. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by ALAMEDA CTC will excuse CONSULTANT from full and timely performance, in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT and subconsultants’ contracts, including cost proposals and ICRs, may be subject to audits or reviews such as, but not limited to, an AGREEMENT Audit, an Incurred Cost Audit, an ICR Audit, or a certified public accountant (“CPA”) ICR Audit Workpaper Review. If selected for audit or review, the AGREEMENT, cost proposal and ICR and related workpapers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 and other related laws and regulations. In the instances of a CPA ICR Audit Workpaper Review it is CONSULTANT’s responsibility to ensure federal, state, or local government officials are allowed full access to the CPA’s workpapers including making copies as necessary. The AGREEMENT, cost proposal, and ICR shall be adjusted by CONSULTANT and approved by ALAMEDA CTC to conform to the audit or review recommendations. CONSULTANT agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into the contract by this reference if directed by ALAMEDA CTC at its sole discretion. Refusal by CONSULTANT to incorporate audit or review recommendations, or to ensure that the federal, state, or local governments have access to CPA workpapers, will be considered a breach of contract terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs.
Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.
Program Review The State ECEAP Office will conduct a review of each contractor’s compliance with the ECEAP Contract and ECEAP Performance Standards every four years. The review will involve ECEAP staff and parents. After the Program Review, the State ECEAP Office will provide the contractor with a Program Review report. The contractor must submit an ECEAP Corrective Action Plan for non-compliance with ECEAP Performance Standards. The Plan must be approved by the State ECEAP Office.
Classification Review (A) Reclassification Request
(a) An employee who has good reason to believe that they are improperly classified may apply, in writing by electronic mail, to their immediate out-of-scope Manager to have their classification reviewed. This may occur when there has been a substantive change in the job functions, when there has been a change in organizational structure that significantly impacts roles, or when a classification specification has been amended in a manner that alters the basis on which classification levels are differentiated. The employee making the request will indicate the reason(s) why they believe their position is inappropriately classified, including the changes that have occurred to the position, organization or classification specifications. In some circumstances, a classification review may be initiated in response to a long standing perceived inequity in how a position is classified. However, where a review has been previously conducted, employees should not request a subsequent classification review unless there has been a substantive change as described above. Submissions must include an approved job description, in the event that a current job description is not available an employee can initiate their written request so as to establish a potential effective date as per article 40.04(a). The manager shall send a copy of the employee’s request to Human Resources without delay, and shall confirm in writing to the employee and the Union that the employee’s request has been received. The manager shall advise the employee of the results of the classification review within ninety (90) calendar days of receiving the request. The notification shall be in writing and include rationale for the decision, specifically addressing the reasons for the review provided by the employee.
(b) When reviewing a request for reclassification, the Employer shall follow the guidelines included in the Classification Specification User Manual. Requests are reviewed by the Employer. The evaluation of the role may include an audit of the role, including interviews with the Employee and the Employee’s Manager as needed.
(c) Should the employee feel that they have not received proper consideration in regard to a classification review, they may request that the matter be referred to the Internal Appeal Process.
Exclusion Review Notwithstanding any provision of Title 42 of the United States Code or Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the only issues in a proceeding for exclusion based on a material breach of this CIA shall be whether Good Shepherd was in material breach of this CIA and, if so, whether:
a. Good Shepherd cured such breach within 30 days of its receipt of the Notice of Material Breach; or
b. the alleged material breach could not have been cured within the 30-day period, but that, during the 30-day period following Good Shepherd’s receipt of the Notice of Material Breach: (i) Good Shepherd had begun to take action to cure the material breach; (ii) Good Shepherd pursued such action with due diligence; and (iii) Good Shepherd provided to OIG a reasonable timetable for curing the material breach. For purposes of the exclusion herein, exclusion shall take effect only after an ALJ decision favorable to OIG, or, if the ALJ rules for Good Shepherd, only after a DAB decision in favor of OIG. Good Shepherd’s election of its contractual right to appeal to the DAB shall not abrogate OIG’s authority to exclude Good Shepherd upon the issuance of an ALJ’s decision in favor of OIG. If the ALJ sustains the determination of OIG and determines that exclusion is authorized, such exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the ALJ issues such a decision, notwithstanding that Good Shepherd may request review of the ALJ decision by the DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of OIG after an ALJ decision adverse to OIG, the exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the DAB decision. Good Shepherd shall waive its right to any notice of such an exclusion if a decision upholding the exclusion is rendered by the ALJ or DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of Good Shepherd, Good Shepherd shall be reinstated effective on the date of the original exclusion.
