Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.
Evaluation Process A. The immediate supervisor will meet with an employee at the start of the employee’s probationary, trial services, transition, and annual review period to discuss performance expectations. The employee will receive copies of their performance expectations as well as notification of any modifications made during the review period. Employee work performance will be evaluated during probationary, trial service and transition review periods and at least annually thereafter. Notification will be given to a probationary or trial service employee whose work performance is determined to be unsatisfactory.
Systems Review The Construction Administrator will conduct reviews of proposed roof, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, conveyance, sprinkler, telecommunications, and life safety systems, and will consider initial cost, availability, impact on the overall program, comfort and convenience, long-term maintenance and operating costs, and impacts on schedule.
Evaluation Procedure The procedural requirements set forth in this agreement to provide specificity to the statutory obligations established under sections 3319.111 and 3319.112 of the Ohio Revised Code and to conform to the framework for the evaluation of teachers developed under section 3319.112 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Review and Selection Process The Project Narratives of SAMHSA applications are peer-reviewed according to the evaluation criteria listed above. Decisions to fund a grant are based on the strengths and weaknesses of the application as identified by peer reviewers. The results of the peer review are advisory in nature. The program office and approving official make the final determination for funding based on the following: • Individual awards over $250,000 are approved by the Center for Mental Health Services National Advisory Council; • Availability of funds; • Equitable distribution of awards in terms of geography (including urban, rural, and remote settings) and balance among populations of focus and program size; • Submission of any required documentation that must be submitted prior to making an award; and • SAMHSA is required to review and consider any information about your organization that is in the Federal Award Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). In accordance with 45 CFR 75.212, SAMHSA reserves the right not to make an award to an entity if that entity does not meet the minimum qualification standards as described in section 75.205(a)(2). If SAMHSA chooses not to award a fundable application in accordance with 45 CFR 75.205(a)(2), SAMHSA must report that determination to the designated integrity and performance system accessible through the System for Award Management (XXX) [currently, FAPIIS]. You may review and comment on any information about your organization that a federal awarding agency previously entered. XXXXXX will consider your comments, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about your organization’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed as described in 45 CFR 75.205 HHS Awarding Agency Review of Risk by Applicants.
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
Claims Review Methodology a. C laims Review Population. A description of the Population subject to the Quarterly Claims Review.
Evaluation Reports Where a formal evaluation of an employee's performance is carried out, the employee shall be provided with a copy to read and review. Provision shall be made on the evaluation form for an employee to sign it. The form shall provide for the employee's signature in two (2) places, one indicating that the employee has read and accepts the evaluation, and the other indicating that the employee disagrees with the evaluation. The employee shall sign in one of the places provided within seven (7) calendar days. No employee may initiate a grievance regarding the contents of an evaluation report unless the signature indicates disagreement with the evaluation. The employee shall receive a copy of the evaluation report at the time of signing. An evaluation report shall not be changed after an employee has signed it, without the knowledge of the employee, and any such changes shall be subject to the grievance procedure.
AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES A. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by AGREEMENT, shall be reviewed by LOCAL AGENCY’S Chief Financial Officer.
Evaluation Report 20.5.4.1 The summary evaluation report shall be prepared by the Faculty Evaluation Committee and administrative evaluator(s) and shall include each evaluator’s individual rating. The summary evaluation report shall take into account the results of each of the evaluation components (Section 20.5.3) in order to arrive at an overall rating. When the committee and the administrative evaluator(s) cannot reach an agreement as to the overall rating, the report must include written explanation.
