Indirect Benefits Sample Clauses
The Indirect Benefits clause defines how benefits that are not directly received by a party, but arise as a consequence of the agreement, are treated. In practice, this clause clarifies whether compensation, liability, or performance obligations extend to advantages or gains that are not explicitly stated in the contract but occur incidentally, such as increased business opportunities or reputational gains. Its core function is to set boundaries on what constitutes a benefit under the agreement, thereby preventing disputes over unintended or unforeseen advantages and ensuring that only direct, intended benefits are considered in contractual obligations.
Indirect Benefits. Indirect benefits include greater public confidence and program support. Automation promotes cost efficiencies and program integrity, increasing the taxpaying public’s confidence in and support for these public assistance programs. Reductions in erroneous payments and increased collections enable States and the Federal Government to devote more dollars to intended recipients. All fifty States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (hereafter referred to collectively as states) participate in PARIS. Comparative Data for the four previous matches indicate a substantial amount of PARIS match activity: File (out of 52 states) SSNs submitted Matched SSNs Interstate (50 states) 64,666,326 512,525 Veterans (32 states) 7,855,563 303,923 Federal (42 states) 9,310,471 58,856 Total matched SSNs 875,304 File (out of 52 states) SSNs submitted Matched SSNs Interstate (48 states) 62,350,570 503,013 Veterans (39 states) 9,479,423 315,844 Federal (34 states) 9,317,190 56,364 Total matched SSNs 875,221 File (out of 52 states) SSNs submitted Matched SSNs Interstate (48 states) 63,171,967 555,030 Veterans (42 states) 9,380,600 393,993 Federal (27 states) 7,150,333 32,234 Total matched SSNs 981,257 File (out of 52 states) SSNs submitted Matched SSNs Interstate (49 states) 65,937,519 673,945 Veterans (42 states) 9,290,415 405,337 Federal (0 states) 0 0 Total matched SSNs 1,079,282 Note: The Federal match was not conducted in February 2019. DoD Civilian Personnel 750,840 DoD Civilian Pay 785,233 Active Duty Personnel 1,373,120 Military Active Duty Pay 1,367,323 Military Reserve Pay 978,112 Reserve Personnel 1,241,552 Non-Appropriated Fund Civilian Monthly 117,574 Military Retired Pay 2,363,691 Military Retiree Survivor Pay 333,026 Total: 9,310,471 Reported experiences received by ACF from states with regard to benefits accrued from participating in PARIS and utilizing the Veterans Match include some of the following: New York State, in State Fiscal Year 2018 (April 2018 through March 2019), closed or removed active individuals from 8,593 Public Assistance cases identified on the PARIS Match. The cost savings for these individuals was $49,351,452. These savings are calculated by determining the average annual cost of an individual in each of the following case types - Federally funded Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) PA cases (which can include Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits), New York funded Safety Net PA cases (which can...
Indirect Benefits. Greater Public Confidence and Program Support. Automation promotes cost efficiencies and program integrity, increasing the taxpaying public’s confidence in and support for these public assistance programs. Reductions in erroneous payments and increased collections enable states and the Federal Government to devote dollars to intended recipients. All fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico participate in PARIS. Comparative data for the four previous quarterly matches shows the following substantial match activity: File SSNs submitted Matched SSNs Interstate (51 states) 67,113,342 603,1155 Veterans (38 states) 9,098,732 385,617 Federal (44 states) 9,247,604 62,407 File SSNs submitted Matched SSNs Interstate (45 states) 65,478,597 563,326 Veterans (34 states) 9,004,569 340,835 Federal (35 states) 11,230,678 70,612 File SSNs submitted Matched SSNs Interstate (49 states) 71,428,973 618,949 Veterans (45 states) 8,908,310 427,898 Federal (35 states) 11,341,098 75,609 File SSNs submitted Matched SSNs Interstate (50 states) 65,461,419 553,611 Veterans (42 states) 8,815,613 399,480 Federal (41 states) 11,322,110 85,589 The August 2018 federal file breakdown was: DoD Civilian Personnel 732,079 DoD Civilian Pay 764,610 Active Duty Personnel 1,340,374 Military Active Duty 1,334,635 Military Reserve Pay 978,085 Reserve Personnel 1,259,240 Non-Appropriated Fund Civilian 123,300 Military Retired Pay 2,379,471 Military Retiree survivor Pay 335,810 Total SSNs Submitted 9,247,604 In 2007, ACF contracted with Altarum Institute (Altarum) to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of PARIS. The study’s purpose was to develop and populate cost-benefit models for possibly assessing the potential impact of PARIS on state program expenditures and integrity. The PARIS Cost-Benefit Analysis Final Report is posted on the PARIS website. The diversity of states’ approaches to PARIS, combined with a lack of tracking results, made it difficult to create a single uniform approach to calculating PARIS costs and benefits. However, models were developed to allow states to use a consistent approach to calculating costs and benefits for specific PARIS activities, such as managing clients moving from one state to another but not reporting the move, or clients not reporting income from federal sources. The analysis’ conclusion is, at a national-level, the PARIS project will produce a positive return on investment (ROI), and this conclusion appears robust under varying conditions designed ...
Indirect Benefits. These are services performed by the concessionaire that benefit the public or improvements made to the Federal estate by the concessionaire.
Indirect Benefits. To further expand upon consideration of indirect or secondary benefits, another key component is the connection between our mission and the economic well-being of the communities in the region. Some of the benefits to underserved communities associated with our work may not be able to be tracked and measured in accordance with established funding guidelines and tracking mechanisms. We believe it should be acknowledged as part of the overarching Equity Strategy that there will be indirect and secondary benefits to all the communities that rely upon the natural resources of the region, not only for economic, but also social and cultural well-being. APNEP plans to explore ways to leverage new and existing data sources to make the best possible predictions of how projects focusing on indirect benefits may provide direct benefits to underserved communities. An economic valuation report commissioned by APNEP estimated economic benefits exceeding $475 million for commercial sectors that depend directly on the region’s natural resources, including agriculture, forestry and commercial fishing. In addition, these sectors directly employ approximately 36,000 workers in the region, generating more than $672 million in wages each year. Benefits to households were measured in terms of outdoor recreational activities and the aesthetic value of natural resources. The report estimates benefits of more than $3.7 billion from activities such as fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing and visits to national seashores and state parks. Indirect benefits such as the removal of air pollutants by tree cover in the watershed were also evaluated and estimated to save $81 million in human health costs each year. As mentioned previously, we anticipate the use of NEPORT data for the baseline that EPA Headquarters is developing will present challenges in comparing new projects and developing and tracking metrics associated with the benefits of BIL funds. Not only were many of these projects not created or implemented with benefits to disadvantaged communities in mind, but many were implemented with non-320 funds, are partner led, and developed with different goals and objectives in mind. In fact, many of the projects APNEP has been engaged with that would fit would not have been reported in NEPORT, since community engagement and coordination would not necessarily have included a habitat protection and restoration component that meets the NEPORT reporting requirements. In addition, though all...
Indirect Benefits. Subject to certain thresholds, the Japanese Government procurement market will be open to Australian exporters. Services providers will benefit through receiving treatment equal to Japanese firms and steps being taken to develop frameworks for mutual recognition in respect of professional services qualifications. Download the full JAEPA text HERE. Apart from JAEPA, Japan currently has 13 other free trade agreements in force with other nations. These are:
Indirect Benefits. For purposes of this Agreement, the term “Indirect Benefits” means and includes the following: (a) non-cash compensation or other non-cash benefits, gifts, promotions, consideration or other advantages received by Manager or an affiliate of Manager from third parties in connection with the general property management business or other activities of Manager or an affiliate of Manager, including third parties with whom Manager may deal with in the performance of its duties under this Agreement; and (b) benefits received by Manager or an affiliate of Manager by virtue of any equity interest held by Manager or such affiliate in third parties with whom Manager may deal with in the performance of its ditties under this Agreement; and (c) other indirect benefits arising from the business of Manager, including its activities under this Agreement, which do not constitute cash and trade discounts, refunds or credits directly resulting from and based upon supplies or equipment purchased by Manager for or on behalf of Owner under this Agreement. Owner understands and recognizes that from time to time during the Term, Manager or an affiliate of Manager, may receive or obtain such Indirect Benefits and Manager or such affiliate shall be entitled to retain all such Indirect Benefits for its own account; it being understood by Owner that Manager takes the value of such Indirect Benefits into account in pricing its property management services generally. Nothing contained herein is intended to eliminate Manager’s duties under Section 3.7 of this Agreement.