Status Substantial Compliance Analysis The Compliance Officer found that PPB is in substantial compliance with Paragraph 80. See Sections IV and VII Report, p. 17. COCL carefully outlines the steps PPB has taken—and we, too, have observed—to do so. Id. We agree with the Compliance Officer’s assessment. In 2018, the Training Division provided an extensive, separate analysis of data concerning ECIT training. See Evaluation Report: 2018 Enhanced Crisis Intervention Training, Training usefulness, on-the-job applications, and reinforcing training objectives, February 2019. The Training Division assessed survey data showing broad officer support for the 2018 ECIT training. The survey data also showed a dramatic increase in the proportion of officers who strongly agree that their supervisors are very supportive of the ECIT program, reaching 64.3% in 2018, compared to only 14.3% in 2015: The Training Division analyzed the survey results of the police vehicle operator training and supervisory in-service training, as well. These analyses were helpful in understanding attendees’ impressions of training and its application to their jobs, though the analyses did not reach as far as the ECIT’s analysis of post-training on- the-job assessment. In all three training analyses, Training Division applied a feedback model to shape future training. This feedback loop was the intended purpose of Paragraph 80. PPB’s utilization of feedback shows PPB’s internalization of the remedy. We reviewed surveys of Advanced Academy attendees, as well. Attendees were overwhelmingly positive in response to the content of most classes. Though most respondents agreed on the positive aspects of keeping the selected course in the curriculum, a handful of attendees chose options like “redundant” and “slightly disagree,” indicating that the survey tools could be used for critical assessment and not merely PPB self-validation. We directly observed PPB training and evaluations since our last report. PPB provided training materials to the Compliance Officer and DOJ in advance of training. Where either identified issues, PPB worked through those issues and honed its materials. As Paragraph 80 requires, PPB’s training included competency-based evaluations, namely: knowledge checks (i.e., quizzes on directives), in-class responsive quizzes (using clickers to respond to questions presented to the group); knowledge tests (examinations via links PPB sent to each student’s Bureau-issued iPhone); demonstrated skills and oral examination (officers had to show proficiency in first aid skills, weapons use, and defensive tactics); and scenario evaluations (officers had to explain their reasoning for choices after acting through scenarios). These were the same sort of competency-based evaluations we commended in our last report. In this monitoring period, PPB applied the same type of evaluations to supervisory-level training as well as in-service training for all sworn members. PPB successfully has used the surveys, testing, and the training audit.
Gold Open Access Articles May be shared according to the author-selected end-user license and should contain a CrossMark logo, the end user license, and a DOI link to the formal publication on ScienceDirect. Please refer to Elsevier's posting policy for further information.
Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention and Control (a) The Hospital in consultation with the Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC) shall develop, establish and put into effect, musculoskeletal prevention and control measures, procedures, practices and training for the health and safety of employees.
FERPA Compliance In connection with all FERPA Records that Contractor may create, receive or maintain on behalf of University pursuant to the Underlying Agreement, Contractor is designated as a University Official with a legitimate educational interest in and with respect to such FERPA Records, only to the extent to which Contractor (a) is required to create, receive or maintain FERPA Records to carry out the Underlying Agreement, and (b) understands and agrees to all of the following terms and conditions without reservation:
Project Monitoring Reporting Evaluation A. The Project Implementing Entity shall monitor and evaluate the progress of its activities under the Project and prepare Project Reports in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.08(b) of the General Conditions and on the basis of indicators agreed with the Bank. Each such report shall cover the period of one
CEQA Compliance The District has complied with all assessment requirements imposed upon it by the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resource Code Section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”) in connection with the Project, and no further environmental review of the Project is necessary pursuant to CEQA before the construction of the Project may commence.
GAAP Compliance Contractor maintains an adequate system of accounting and internal controls that meets Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Contractual and Operational Compliance Audits (a) ICANN may from time to time (not to exceed twice per calendar year) conduct, or engage a third party to conduct, contractual compliance audits to assess compliance by Registry Operator with its representations and warranties contained in Article 1 of this Agreement and its covenants contained in Article 2 of this Agreement. Such audits shall be tailored to achieve the purpose of assessing compliance, and ICANN will (a) give reasonable advance notice of any such audit, which notice shall specify in reasonable detail the categories of documents, data and other information requested by ICANN, and
Project Monitoring Reporting and Evaluation The Recipient shall furnish to the Association each Project Report not later than forty-five (45) days after the end of each calendar semester, covering the calendar semester.
Requirement to Utilize HUB Compliance Reporting System Pursuant to Texas Administrative Code, Title 34, Part 1, Sections 20.285(f) and 20.287(b), TFC administers monthly administration HSP-PAR compliance monitoring through its HUB Compliance Reporting System commonly known as B2G. PSP and PSP’s subcontractors/subconsultants shall submit required PAR information into the B2G system. Any delay in the timely submission of PAR information into the B2G system will be treated as an invoicing error subject to dispute under Texas Government Code Section 2251.042.
