Table 2a. Allocation of Commonwealth supported places for designated higher education courses for 2021 Number of undergraduate medical places (EFTSL) Number of postgraduate medical places (EFTSL) Total number of Commonwealth supported places (EFTSL) Total CGS funding for designated higher education courses Table 2b: Allocation of Commonwealth supported places for designated higher education courses for 2022 Number of undergraduate medical places (EFTSL) Number of postgraduate medical places (EFTSL) Total number of Commonwealth supported places (EFTSL) Total CGS funding for designated higher education courses Table 2c: Allocation of Commonwealth supported places for designated higher education courses for 2023 Number of undergraduate medical places (EFTSL) Number of postgraduate medical places (EFTSL) Total number of Commonwealth supported places (EFTSL) Total CGS funding for designated higher education courses Indigenous, Regional and Low Socio-Economic Status Attainment Fund
1. In 2021, the Indigenous, Regional and Low Socio-Economic Status Attainment Fund (IRLSAF) consists of five components:
a) Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP);
b) National Priorities Pool Program;
c) Regional Partnerships Project Pool Program;
d) Regional Loading Program (RLP); and
e) Enabling Loading Program (ELP);
2. Grant amounts for the HEPPP, RLP and ELP in 2021 are calculated using the method specified for the relevant component in Divisions 1, 4 and 5 of Part 3 of Chapter 1 of the Other Grants Guidelines (Education) 2012 (see paragraph 41-30(a) of the Act) and are estimated in Table 3a below. • HEPPP funding for eligible providers is calculated using the formula specified at section 1.47 of Division 1 of Part 3 of Chapter 1 of the Other Grants Guidelines (Education). • The National Priorities Pool Program and Regional Partnerships Project Pool Program are subject to a competitive grants processes and any funding under these programs will be granted separately. • RLP funding for eligible providers is calculated using the formula specified at section 1.59 of Division 4 of Part 3 of Chapter 1 of the Other Grants Guidelines (Education) 2012. • ELP funding for eligible providers is calculated using the formula specified at section 1.61 of Division 5 of Part 3 of Chapter 1 of the Other Grants Guidelines (Education) 2012.
Table 2a. Species-Specific Planning Survey Requirements Triggered by Land Cover Types and Habitat Elements in the project area based on Chapter 6 of the Final HCP/NCCP. Land Cover Type in the project area? Species Habitat Element in the project area? Grasslands, oak savanna, agriculture, ruderal San Xxxxxxx kit xxx Assumed if within modeled range of species Identify and map potential breeding and xxxxxxx habitat and potential dens if within modeled range of species (see Appendix D of HCP/NCCP). Western burrowing owl Assumed Identify and map potential breeding habitat. California tiger salamander California Red-legged Frog Possible over summer habitat in proposed project location. Possible over-summer habitat in proposed project location. Identify potential breeding habitat Identify potential breeding habitat Aquatic (ponds, wetlands, streams, slough, channels, & marshes) Giant garter snake California tiger salamander Aquatic habitat accessible from San Joaquin River Ponds and wetlands in grassland, oak savanna, oak woodland Vernal pools Reservoirs Small lakes Identify and map potential habitat. Identify and map potential breeding habitat. Document habitat quality and features. Provide Implementing Entity with photo-documentation and report. Land Cover Type in the project area? Species California red-legged frog Habitat Element in the project area? Slow-moving streams, ponds, and wetlands Identify and map potential breeding habitat. Document habitat quality and features. Provide Implementing Entity with photo-documentation and report. Seasonal wetlands Covered shrimp Vernal pools Sandstone rock outcrops Sandstone depressions Identify and map potential breeding habitat. Any Xxxxxxxx’x big-eared xxx Xxxxxxxx’x hawk Golden eagle Rock formations with caves Mines Abandoned buildings outside urban areas Potential nest sites (trees within species’ range usually below 200’) Potential nest sites (secluded cliffs with overhanging ledges; large trees) Map and document potential breeding or roosting habitat. Inspect large trees for presence of nest sites. Document and map potential nests.
Table 2a. 2021 HEPPP, RLP and ELP funding Program 2021 Allocation of places for the purposes of the ELP
Table 2a. Sample characteristics Pre-Assessment N (%) Post-Assessment 1 N (%) Post-Assessment 2 N (%) Gender Girl 713 (51.3%) 1,231 (50.8%) 1,097 (50.5%) Boy 677 (48.7%) 1,193 (49.2%) 1,074 (49.5%) Spoken language Dutch 1,170 (84.2%) 2,110 (87.0%) 1,877 (86.5%) Other 220 (15.8%) 314 (13.0%) 294 (13.5%) Pocket money Yes 1,115 (80.2%) 1,889 (77.9%) 1,698 (78.2%) No 275 (19.8%) 535 (22.1%) 473 (21.8%) Money from doing chores Yes 867 (62.4%) 1,544 (63.7%) 1,444 (66.5%) No Talking about money at home Yes 523 (37.6%) 1,095 (78.8%) 880 (36.3%) 1,937 (79.9%) 727 (33.5%) 1,802 (83.0%) No Talking about money in class Yes 295 (21.2%) 792 (57.0%) 487 (20.1%) 1,714 (70.7%) 369 (17.0%) 1,788 (82.4%) No 598 (43.0%) 710 (29.3%) 383 (17.6%) All primary schools in the Netherlands were classified according to their four-digit postal code (without the two uppercase letters). Each postal code area (with approximately 4,000 citizens) was linked to an area-level socioeconomic status score7 from the Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau [The Netherlands Institute for Social Research] (2018) according to its inhabitants‘ income level, education level, and occupation. The primary schools were then grouped into low, medium, and high socioeconomic status scores (see Table 2B). In each of the three socioeconomic status groups, the Education Research Department of the Executive Agency (Dienst Uitvoering Onderwijs or DUO)8 of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science recruited fifth grade teachers through a simple random sample selection procedure. These teachers were then asked whether or not they used the financial education program. Based on their responses, the schools were divided into two groups. The schools 7The socioeconomic status score used was for 2014 because this indicator is derived every four years by the Netherlands Institute for Social Research. 8DUO Education Research specializes in research for schools in primary and secondary education and secondary vocational education. that used the program served as the intervention group and the schools that did not use the program served as the control group.
Table 2a. Non-exhaustive list of parameters for setting Design for Recycling criteria under Article 6 The list in Table 2a will be used as a basis when defining design for recycling criteria (as set out in Article 6(4)). The design for recycling criteria will then be used in order to set the calculations leading to the performance grades listed in Table 2. In addition, the assessment of these parameters shall consider: The packaging functionality that the following parameters provide to the packaging shall be factored in in the setting of design for recycling criteria. Additives Additives refer often to substances added to materials to confer specific properties. The presence of additives in the packaging containers can result in incorrect sorting of the packaging materials during the sorting process and can contaminate the obtained secondary raw materials. Labels Coverage rate of labels can affect the efficiency of the sorting process. Material of which the label is made of and type of glue/adhesive also affect the quality of the secondary raw material. Sleeves Coverage rate of the sleeve on the main packaging body affects the possibilities for sorting. In addition, the use of sleeves, can affect the ability to separate them the main packaging body. The material of which the sleeve is made of can affect both the sortability and the recyclability of the packaging. Closures and other small packaging components Closures refer to components used to close or seal the packaging. There may be different types of closures, rigid or flexible, such as tamper evident shrink wrap, linings, caps, lids, seals, valves etc. The material of which the closures is made of can affect both the sortability and the recyclability of the packaging. Closures that are not firmly attached to the packaging can increase littering. Small packaging components attached to the main packaging body can affect the separability and the recyclability. Thus can be lost in the sorting and recycling process. Adhesives Adhesive can be used in such a way that they can be easily separated in the recycling process or by the end user or in a way that they do not affect the efficiency of the sorting and recycling processes. The presence of adhesive residues on the packaging can downgrade the quality (purity) of the secondary raw materials. Washable adhesives can ensure the separation from the main packaging body and that no adhesive residue remains in the secondary raw material. Colours Colour are substances that...
Table 2a. Allocation of Commonwealth supported places for 2021 1 Non-Grandfathered Load Allocations: Cluster No. Funding cluster Undergraduate Allocation Non-research Postgraduate Allocation Total Allocation Grandfathered load allocations: Description of allocation Undergraduate Allocation Non-research Postgraduate Allocation Total Allocation Table 2a(i): Allocated funding for short courses for 2021 and 2022 Course type Course name Course(s) the short course can articulate to Funding Allocation for 2021 and 2022 Total $400,525 Cluster No. Funding cluster Undergraduate Allocation Non- research Postgraduate Allocation Total Allocation
Table 2a. Allocation of Commonwealth supported places for designated higher education courses for 2021 Number of undergraduate medical places (EFTSL) Number of postgraduate medical places (EFTSL) Total number of Commonwealth supported places (EFTSL) Total CGS funding for designated higher education courses Table 2b: Allocation of Commonwealth supported places for designated higher education courses for 2022 Number of undergraduate medical places (EFTSL) Number of postgraduate medical places (EFTSL) Total number of Commonwealth supported places (EFTSL) Total CGS funding for designated higher education courses Table 2c: Allocation of Commonwealth supported places for designated higher education courses for 2023 Number of undergraduate medical places (EFTSL) Number of postgraduate medical places (EFTSL) Total number of Commonwealth supported places (EFTSL) Total CGS funding for designated higher education courses Indigenous, Regional and Low Socio-Economic Status Attainment Fund IRLSAF funding
Table 2a. Binary Logistic Regression for the Association Between Psychological Distress and Colorectal Cancer Screening in an Age-‐Eligible Population Based Sample (n=1,735), continued Characteristics Adjusted OR 95% CI Age (cont.) *1.06 1.03, 1.10 Gender Male (ref.) 1.00 Female 0.98 0.64, 1.49 Race/Ethnicity Non Hispanic White 1.00 Hispanic 1.24 0.68, 2.28 Non Hispanic Black *1.98 1.11, 3.54 Non Hispanic Other 1.26 0.57, 2.78 Education Less than High School 1.00 High School Graduate 0.79 0.33, 1.90 Some College 1.05 0.51, 2.20 College Graduate or More 1.21 0.51, 2.86 Household Income Less than $20,000 1.00 $20,000 to <$50,000 *2.55 1.30, 4.97 $50,000 to <$75,000 *3.25 1.39, 7.60 $75,000 or More *7.80 2.99, 20.33 Occupation Employed 1.00 Unemployed 1.56 0.64, 3.79 Other (retired, disabled, homemaker, student, other) *1.98 1.14, 3.45 Marital Status Single, never married 1.00 Married or living as married 0.68 0.29, 1.59 Divorced or Separated 1.14 0.47, 2.79 Widowed 0.29 0.10, 0.83 Note. OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval *p<0.05
Table 2a. Development Milestone Events for the GSK-5 Program Milestone Payment *[***].
Table 2a. For Products directed against Initial Collaboration Targets, Additional Targets and Substitute Targets of the Initial Collaboration Targets Table 2b: For Products directed against Extension Targets and Substitute Targets of the Extension Targets
