Review Criteria Sample Clauses
Review Criteria. A sports official shall be subject to review when the results of a criminal back- ground check show that:
Review Criteria. A sports official shall be subject to review when the results of a criminal background check show that:
Review Criteria. In reviewing and making decisions regarding applications for comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, and DRIs the County and the City will consider the following issues:
a. School Board staff comments on:
1. Available school capacity or planned improvements to increase school capacity;
2. The provision of school sites and facilities within planned neighborhoods;
3. The inclusion of school bus stops and turnarounds; and
4. Compatibility of land uses adjacent to existing schools and reserved school sites;
b. The collocation of parks, recreation and neighborhood facilities with school sites;
c. The linkage of schools, parks, libraries and other public facilities with bikeways, trails, and sidewalks for safe access;
d. Traffic circulation plans, which serve schools and the surrounding neighborhood; and
e. The provision of off-site signalization, signage, access improvements, and sidewalks to serve schools.
Review Criteria. To determine whether the proposal would be in the public interest, the plan commission and city council shall weigh and make findings regarding each of the following criteria:
1. Effects on local services, including: public road system, police and fire protection, utilities, and public schools;
2. Effects on the natural environment, including: riparian/wetland areas, soil erosion, vegetation and air pollution;
3. Effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat, including fisheries and mammals; and
4. Effects on public health and safety, including police and fire protection, traffic safety, and the presence of other known hazards (on-site and off-site) such as high-pressure natural gas lines, airports, railroads, overhead power lines, industrial activities, and nonmetallic mining activities.
Review Criteria. 6.1 During any scheduled review period referred to in clause 5 (Scheduled Reviews), the parties shall in good faith consider the ongoing Protections having regard to the following:
6.1.1 the overall financial situation of the Company;
Review Criteria. Procedures for assessing the technical merit of applications have been instituted to provide for an objective review of applications and to assist you in understanding the standards against which your application will be judged. Critical indicators have been developed for each review criterion to assist you in presenting pertinent information related to that criterion and to provide the reviewer with a standard for evaluation. Review criteria are outlined below with specific detail and scoring points. These criteria are the basis upon which the reviewers will evaluate and score the merit of the application. The entire proposal will be considered during objective review. Review criteria are used to review and rank applications. The HWRC Cooperative Agreement Program has five review criteria:
Criterion 1: PURPOSE AND NEED (10 points) – Corresponds to Section IV’s Purpose and Need
Criterion 2: RESPONSE TO PROGRAM PURPOSE (30 points) – Corresponds to Section IV’s Response to Program Purpose Sub-section (a) Methodology/Approach, Sub-section (b) Work Plan and Sub-section (c) Resolution of Challenges
(a) METHODOLOGY/APPROACH (20 points) – Corresponds to Section IV’s Response to Program Purpose Sub-section (a) Methodology/Approach For Behavioral Health Workforce topic area applicants only: The extent to which at least one (1) of your proposed research studies addresses each of the three (3) broad priorities listed in Section I.1 of this notice. These priorities are:
(b) WORK PLAN (5 points) – Corresponds to Section IV’s Response to Program Purpose Sub-section (b)
Review Criteria. When Company [***]Section 5.2 of the Agreement, it will [***]: (i) [***], and (ii) [***].
Review Criteria. The Faculty Development Committee will use the following criteria when reviewing merits of applications:
A. benefit of the proposal to the College,
B. quality of the proposed activity,
C. professional value of the proposal to the faculty member, and D. completion of faculty development projects previously granted. Section Two – Faculty Award for Excellence After five (5) years in rank, full professors who have consistently maintained excellence in teaching/professional service and are recognized for outstanding contributions to the College will be eligible for an Award for Excellence. Awards become effective upon selection by the President. Each contract year three (3) awards may be granted and the following amount will be added to the base pay of each recipient: $1,500 2020-2023
Review Criteria. The review criteria for applications are based on a total of 100 points allocated among the following areas:
1. Project Narrative (45 points)
a. Assessment of current health insurance coverage in the Territory (10 points) Reviewers should rate this section based on the extent to which the applicant provide information on the current status of the coverage and access to health insurance in the Territory and the extent to which the applicant identified where data on health insurance access and coverage is lacking.
b. Proposal to meet Program Requirements (25 points) The reviewers should rate this section based on: How substantively the applicant describes its approach under each Core Area The extent to which Exchange IT Systems are considered; The reasonableness of the proposed approach; The extent to which the applicant demonstrates a plan for compliance with any guidance relating to the Exchange from HHS.
c. Evaluation Plan (10 points) Reviewers should rate this section based on the extent to which: The applicant identified key indicators to be measured; The applicant proposed effective to monitor progress and evaluate the achievement of program goals; The applicant included plans for timely interventions when targets are not met or unexpected obstacles delay plans; and Inclusion of baseline data.
2. Work Plan (30 points) This section should be rated based on the reasonableness and completeness of the specific tasks to be conducted throughout the project period will be reviewed as well as the adequacy of the projected timeframes.
3. Budget Narrative (25 points) The extent to which the proposed budget includes only costs for activities and functionalities that are integral to Exchange operations and meeting Exchange requirements. The extent to which the budget narrative explains the amounts requested for each line in the budget for the entire project period. The budget justification should specifically describe how each line item will support the achievement of proposed objectives in alignment with the Work Plan. The Budget Narrative should break down funding needs to the extent possible. The applicant should include a description that indicates which elements of their proposal they expect will also benefit their Territory’s Medicaid/CHIP system, and other health and human services programs where applicable. It should include a proposal for allocating costs between these sources of funding. The extent to which the Territory includes a description of the Ter...
Review Criteria. Procedures for assessing the technical merit of applications have been instituted to provide for an objective review of applications and to assist the applicant in understanding the standards against which each application will be judged. Critical indicators have been developed for each review criterion to assist the applicant in presenting pertinent information related to that criterion and to provide the reviewer with a standard for evaluation. Review criteria are outlined below with specific detail and scoring points. These criteria are the basis upon which the reviewers will evaluate the application. The entire proposal will be considered during objective review. Review Criteria are used to review and rank applications. The Rural Recruitment and Retention Analysis Cooperative Agreement has six (6) review criteria: The extent to which the application demonstrates the needs of rural communities in recruiting and retaining an adequate workforce across key sectors of the health care delivery system and associated contributing factors to this problem.