FIGURES Sample Clauses

FIGURES. Figure 1: Number of Children in DHS Custody at the End of SFY - 2004 to 2018 16 Figure 2: Children in Custody on June 30, 2018 by Age Group 17 Figure 3: Children in Custody on June 30, 2018 by Length of Stay 18 Figure 4 : Children in Custody on June 30, 2018 by Placement Type 19 Figure 5: New Xxxxxx Care Homes Developed by Month, July 2017-June 2018 20 Figure 6: New Xxxxxx Homes by Type, July 2017-June 2018 21 Figure 7: New Therapeutic Xxxxxx Homes by Month, July 2017-June 2018 33 Figure 8: Worker Caseloads: Percent of Workers Meeting Caseload Standards 43 Figure 9: Supervisor Workloads: Percent of Supervisors Meeting Workload Standards 48 Figure 10: Metrics 5.1 – Shelter-Nights, Children Ages 0 - 1 51 Figure 11: Metric 5.2 – Shelter-Nights, Children Ages 2 – 5 52 Figure 12: Metric 5.3 – Shelter-Nights, Children Ages 6 – 12 53 Figure 13: Metric 5.4 – Shelter-Nights, Children Ages 13 and Old 54 Figure 14: Number of Children Six Years and Older with a Shelter Stay Jan 2015 to June 2018 55 Figure 15: Metric 1a – Absence of Maltreatment in Care by Resource Caregivers 64 Figure 16: Metric 1b – Absence of Maltreatment in Care by Parents 66 Figure 17: Metric 3.1 – Frequency of Visits by All Workers 81 Figure 18: Metric 3.2 – Frequency of Primary Worker Visits 82 Figure 19: Metric 3.3b – Continuity of Primary Worker Visits Over Six Months 83 Figure 20: Metric 6.2a – Permanency within 12 Months of Removal 94 Figure 21: Reduction in Short-Term Removals 95 Figure 22: Metric 6.2b – Permanency within 2 years of Removal 100 Figure 23: Metric 6.2c – Permanency within 3 years of Removal 102 Figure 24: Metric 6.2d – Permanency within 4 years of Removal 104 Figure 25: Metric 6.3 – Re-entry within 12 Months of Exit 105 Figure 26: Metric 6.5 – Permanency Performance 106 Figure 27: Metric 6.6 – Permanency Performance 108 Figure 28: Metric 6.7 – Permanency Performance 110 Figure 29: Metric 6.4 – Permanency Performance 113 Table 1: Summary of Target Outcomes 8 Table 2: Traditional Home Closure Reasons, July 2017-June 2018 26 Table 3: Home Closure Reason Responses to Exit Survey Question #1? 28 Table 4: Pinnacle Plan Caseload and Workload Standard Commitments 41 Table 5: Caseload Compliance by Worker Type – June 30, 2018 44 Table 6: Caseload Compliance of Eight Struggling Districts 46 Table 7: Number of workers with a Caseload over 200%, 2014 to 2018 47 Table 8: Child-Nights in Shelters by Age, January 2018 to June 2018 54 Table 9: Pinnacle Plan 1.17: June 2017 to June 2018 56 Ta...

FIGURES. Covered Area showing the categories and current locations of DSL Habitat suitability derived from Hardy et al. (2018) that establish the areas to which Conservation Measures of the 2020 DSL CCAA would be implemented. 3

FIGURES. Figure 1 Air Quality and Noise Monitoring Stations for HKBCF Figure 2.1 Water Quality Monitoring Stations (construction phases) before 22 December 2017 Figure 2.2 Water Quality Monitoring Stations (construction phases) after 22 December 2017 Figure 3 Dolphin Monitoring Transect Line and Layout Map TABLE Table 1.1 Contact Information of Key Personnel Table 2.1 Air Quality Monitoring Locations Table 2.2 Action and Limit Levels for 1-hour TSP Table 2.3 Action and Limit Levels for 24-hour TSP Table 3.1 Construction Noise Monitoring Locations Table 3.2 Action and Limit Levels for Construction Noise Table 4.1 Water Quality Monitoring Stations (construction phases) Table 4.2 Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality Table 4.3 Number of Exceedance for Water Quality Monitoring Table 5.1a Action and Limit Levels for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring – Approach to Define Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL) Table 5.1b Action and Limit Levels for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring - APPENDICES Appendix A Location of Works Areas Appendix B Project Organization for Environmental Works Appendix C Construction Programme Appendix D Event and Action Plan Appendix E Monthly Summery of Waste Flow Table & Monthly Summery of Marine Sediment Appendix F Environmental Licenses and Permits Appendix G Implementation Schedule for Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) Appendix H Statistics on Environmental Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions Appendix I Environmental Site Inspection Schedule Appendix J Investigation Reports on Action Level or Limit Level Non-compliance This Monthly Environmental Monitoring and Xxxxx (EM&A) Report is prepared for Contract HY/2013/02 “Hong Kong–Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) – Infrastructure Works Stage I (Western Portion)” (hereafter referred to as “the Contract”) for the Highways Department of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). The Contract was awarded to China Harbour Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereafter referred to as “the Contractor”) and ETS-Testconsult Limited was appointed as the Environmental Team (ET) by the Contractor. The Contract is part of Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macao Bridge HKBCF which is a “Designated Project”, under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap 499) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) was prepared for the Project. The current Environmental Permit (EP) No. EP-353/2009/K for HKBCF was i...

FIGURES. Figure S1. Inclusion of patients with a clinical MI diagnosis. The target was to include the first 100 patients with ICD-code I.21 at discharge reported to the Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART) from each site. However, data had been collected in slightly less than 100 patients with ICD-code I.21 from three of the sites. As a next step, all patients with ICD-code I.21 at discharge not reported to SWEDEHEART, within the same dates as the SWEDEHEART reported patients, were included from each site. Figure S2. Departments of care after hospital admission among patients without a clinical myocardial infarction diagnosis. Figure S3. Caring department among adjudicated type 2 MI patients with (left) and without (right) a clinical myocardial infarction diagnosis. Figure S4. Caring department among adjudicated myocardial injury patients with (left) and without (right) a clinical myocardial infarction diagnosis.

FIGURES. Figure 1 – SNPLMA Business Processes Flow Chart 6 Figure 2 – Joint Selection Process for Land Sales 19

FIGURES. This appendix provides figures referred to in the paper. Figure A-1. Game Tree (Γ1) Note that only equilibrium profits from sales are shown in the nodes. The final payoffs include also litigation costs and AG costs as indicated along the branches. Note that only equilibrium profits from sales, P4D payments and licensing fees are shown in the nodes. The final payoffs also include litigation costs and AG costs as indicated along the branches. Figure A-2. Game Tree (Γ2) Figure A-5. Profits and Payment to Second Challenger

FIGURES. Figure 1 - Sketch of a Reference Platform 2 Figure 2 - Typical Reference Platform Robot – Front (left) and Back (right) 4 Figure 3 - Wheel Geometry – Underside of a robot 8 Figure 4 - Key Power System Components (Rear view) 9 Figure 5 - Power Switches (Rear view) 10 Figure 6 - Battery Mounting under the robot 11 Figure 7 - Proximity Sensors 12 Figure 8 - Robot IO Controller and Associated Electronics 13 Figure 9 - Kinect Sensor 14 Figure 10 - Kinect Infrared Dot Pattern 15 Figure 11 - Software Architecture 18 Figure 12 - Orchestration of DSS Services 19 Figure 13 - Robot Dashboard 23 Figure 14 - Simulated Reference Platform Robot with Kinect Sensor 25 Figure 15 - Robot with Lights 27

FIGURES. Decision analysis model for tuberculosis screening and diagnosis among patients at Ethiopian HIV clinics.

FIGURES. Figure 1 SMA-2 & 3 Recovery Test Well Locations Figure 2 SMA-4 & 5 Recovery Test Well Locations Figure 3 SMA-5 & 6 Recovery Test Well Locations Table 1 Product Recovery Investigation Summary of Results Appendix A Recovery Test Well Construction Logs

FIGURES. Northeast Water Policy Boundary Monitorxxx Xells and TCE Plume 11 2. Hydraulic Monitoring Network 14