№ lp_1_04281
File format: docx
Character count: 6193
File size: 58 KB
This document is a background check consent form used by the Wisconsin Department of Administration for applicants applying for positions within the state.
Year:
2016
Region / City:
Wisconsin
Topic:
Background Check Consent
Document Type:
Form
Organization / Institution:
Wisconsin Department of Administration
Author:
Wisconsin Department of Administration
Target Audience:
Job applicants in Wisconsin
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Note:
Year
Region / City:
Alaska
Theme:
Pre-elementary school regulations, safety and compliance
Document Type:
Assurance document
Organization / Institution:
Alaska Department of Education & Early Development
Author:
Alaska Department of Education & Early Development
Target Audience:
Pre-elementary school administrators and staff
Period of Validity:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Publication number:
2033
Publication date:
August 2022
Authorising body:
EPA Victoria
Publisher:
EPA Victoria
Jurisdiction:
Victoria, Australia
Document type:
Technical guidance
Legal framework:
Environment Protection Act 2017
Subject matter:
Naturally occurring chemical substances; contaminated land assessment; soil and groundwater
Intended users:
Land managers, contaminated land consultants, environmental auditors, environmental practitioners
Licence:
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Oahu, Hawaii
Theme:
Child care, background checks
Document type:
Instructions
Organization / Institution:
Department of Human Services, Hawaii
Author:
Hawaii Department of Human Services
Target audience:
Child care providers, including relative caregivers
Period of validity:
Ongoing, annual
Approval date:
June 2024
Modification date:
Not specified
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Hawaii
Topic:
Child Care Licensing
Document Type:
Instructions
Organization / Institution:
Department of Human Services (DHS)
Author:
Department of Human Services (DHS)
Target Audience:
Child Care Providers, Household Members, Child Care Center Staff
Period of Validity:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
06/2024
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Note:
Contextual Description
Year:
2020
Region / city:
USA
Topic:
Cybersecurity, Vulnerability Management
Document Type:
Report
Organization / Institution:
Mercury USA
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Technical professionals, Management
Effective period:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Red Bank
Topic:
Background check, Volunteer vetting
Document Type:
Form
Organization / Institution:
RBAYF
Author:
Red Bank AYF
Target Audience:
Volunteers
Effective Period:
2024
Approval Date:
02/08/2024
Modification Date:
N/A
Year:
2024
Region / city:
N/A
Topic:
Home Energy Rebates, Data Access
Document Type:
Template
Organization:
Department of Energy (DOE)
Author:
N/A
Target audience:
State energy offices, utility companies, program implementers
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval date:
N/A
Date of changes:
N/A
Note:
Date
Topic:
Medicaid Waiver, CDC+, Background Screening
Document Type:
Application form
Organization / Institution:
Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA)
Target Audience:
Applicants for Medicaid Waiver or CDC+ provider enrollment
Year:
2022
Location:
Geneva, Switzerland
Document type:
Background note
Organ/Institution:
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
Audience:
Ad hoc expert group on genetic resources
Date of preparation:
May 19, 2022
Related session:
Forty-Third Session of the IGC
Subject:
Genetic resources, traditional knowledge, intellectual property, disclosure requirements, information systems
Year:
Not specified
Region / City:
Not specified
Topic:
Employee background checks
Document type:
Policy template
Organization / Institution:
Not specified
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Hiring managers, HR staff
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Amendment date:
Not specified
Year:
2021
Region / City:
United States
Topic:
Suitability determination, background checks, child protection
Document Type:
Guidance
Author:
U.S. Department of Justice
Target Audience:
Grant recipients, staff, and volunteers interacting with minors
Period of Validity:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
March 2021
Date of Modifications:
N/A
Note:
Year
Institution:
Banaras Hindu University
Target Audience:
Teaching staff
Contextual Description:
A form for faculty members to apply for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) at Banaras Hindu University, detailing personal, academic, and professional information.
Jurisdiction:
Massachusetts
Regulation number:
606 CMR 14.00
Issuing agency:
Department of Early Education and Care
Subject:
Background record checks for individuals affiliated with early education and care programs
Document type:
Administrative regulation
Legal authority:
M.G.L. c. 15D, §§ 7 and 8; Child Care Development Block Grant Act of 2014
Covered programs:
Licensed, approved, or funded early education and care programs
Applicable checks:
Criminal history, child welfare records, sex offender registries, fingerprint-based checks
Affected individuals:
Employment, licensure, affiliation, foster and adoptive parent candidates
Geographic scope:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Year:
2023
Region / City:
European Union
Theme:
Cultural Heritage
Document Type:
Evaluation Report
Organization / Institution:
European Commission
Author:
European Commission
Target Audience:
Citizens, stakeholders in the field of cultural heritage
Period of validity:
2011-2017
Approval Date:
2023
Date of Changes:
N/A
Note:
Year
Theme:
Child development, Early Years Education
Document type:
Progress Check
Target audience:
Parents, caregivers, childcare providers
Contextual description:
A progress check document assessing the developmental milestones of a child at age two, focusing on key areas such as communication, physical, social, and emotional development, completed by the childcare provider.
Year:
2020
Region / City:
European Space Agency
Topic:
Space Technology, Business Incubation
Document Type:
Guideline
Organization / Institution:
European Space Agency Business Incubation Centres (ESA BICs)
Author:
European Space Agency
Target Audience:
Entrepreneurs, Start-ups, ESA BIC Applicants
Validity Period:
Not specified
Approval Date:
23/06/2020
Modification Date:
30/09/2022
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Australia
Subject:
Residential care worker documentation and information sharing
Document type:
Form
Agency/Institution:
Office of the Children’s Guardian
Author:
Office of the Children’s Guardian
Target Audience:
Residential care agencies and workers
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Modification date:
Not specified