№ lp_1_2_19784
File format: docx
Character count: 11690
File size: 28 KB
The document outlines funding requirements and processes for distributing DWI-related grants to local communities, including funding for prevention, law enforcement, treatment, and diversion programs.
Year:
FY27
Region / City:
County
Topic:
DWI program, alcohol-related offenses, community wellness, law enforcement, treatment programs
Document Type:
Grant Application
Organization / Institution:
Local DWI Program
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Local authorities, grant recipients
Effective Period:
FY27
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification 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.
Year:
2025
Region / City:
North Carolina
Topic:
Water Infrastructure
Document Type:
Policy
Organization / Institution:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Infrastructure
Author:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Target Audience:
Project Managers, Contractors, Engineers, Local Government Units
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
October 2025
Date of Changes:
October 2025
Context:
A policy document outlining the preparation and submission guidelines for bid and design documents related to DWI-funded water infrastructure projects in North Carolina.
Year:
2016
Region / City:
North Carolina
Topic:
Substance Abuse Services, Impaired Driving
Document Type:
Report
Organization / Institution:
North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
Author:
North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
Target Audience:
Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations, Policymakers
Period of Validity:
Fiscal Year 2014-2015
Approval Date:
February 1, 2016
Date of Changes:
None
Contextual Description:
A report detailing the substance abuse services provided to individuals convicted of impaired driving offenses in North Carolina during fiscal year 2014-2015, including assessments, treatment recommendations, and completion data.
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Town
Topic:
Budget review
Document type:
Schedule
Organization:
Town Government
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Town residents, government officials
Period of validity:
FY27
Approval date:
Not specified
Modification date:
Not specified
Year:
2025
Region / City:
USA
Theme:
Defense Health, Combat Casualty Care
Document Type:
Funding Opportunity Solicitation
Institution / Organization:
Defense Health Agency
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Researchers and organizations involved in military medical research
Period of Validity:
FY27
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Last Revision:
Not specified
Year:
2027
Region / City:
Houston, TX
Topic:
Budget request, mental health services, student support
Document Type:
Budget report
Organization / Institution:
Counseling and Mental Health Center, University of Houston-Clear Lake
Author:
Counseling and Mental Health Center
Target Audience:
University staff, administration, budgeting committees
Period of Validity:
FY 2027
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
FY27
Program:
Creative Communities Partnership Grants (CCPG)
Granting Body:
Virginia Commission for the Arts
Federal Funding Source:
National Endowment for the Arts
Jurisdiction:
Virginia
Eligible Applicants:
Nonprofit Virginia organizations exempt under Section 501(a) including 501(c)(3), units of local or tribal government, educational institutions, local chapters of tax-exempt national organizations
Legal Compliance Requirements:
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; Age Discrimination Act of 1975; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Federal Registration Requirement:
SAM.gov Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)
Audit Requirement:
Single Audit for entities expending more than $750,000 in federal funding
Reporting Requirement:
FY27 CCPG Final Report/Confirmation Form
Confirmation Deadline:
February 1, 2027
Payment Procedures:
Two-Payment Method or Single-Payment Method (Preferred)
Signature Requirement:
Original physical signature of duly authorized local or tribal official
Purpose:
Certification of compliance with grant assurances and conditions
Document Type:
Grant certification and compliance statement
Period of Performance:
FY27
Year:
2026
Region / city:
Montana
Subject:
Request for funding for computing resources and facilities
Document Type:
Proposal
Organization / institution:
Montana State University
Author:
Montana State University
Target audience:
Faculty, department heads, and administrative staff of Montana State University
Period of validity:
FY27
Approval date:
Not specified
Modification date:
Not specified
Year:
FY27
Region / City:
University of Houston-Clear Lake (UHCL)
Topic:
Health Services
Document Type:
Budget Request
Organization:
Health Services, University of Houston-Clear Lake
Author:
Health Services Department
Target Audience:
UHCL staff, administration, and student fee allocation committee
Period of Validity:
FY27
Approval Date:
N/A
Amendment Date:
N/A
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Global
Topic:
Global health, Maternal and child health, Nutrition, Vaccines
Document Type:
Advocacy letter
Organization:
GAVI
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Policymakers, U.S. Congress
Effective period:
FY27
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of revisions:
Not specified
Note:
Context
Year:
2026-2027
Region / School:
InTech School
Topic:
School Improvement and Funding Allocation
Document Type:
Financial and Academic Plan
Responsible Body:
InTech Governing Board
Author:
InTech Administration
Target Audience:
Teachers, Administrators, School Staff
Funding Sources:
Title IA, At-Risk, IDEA, Title IIA, Teacher/Student Success, Mental Health, Digital Teach/Learn, Ed Pro Time, Concurrent Enrollment, Title IV, Trust Land
Budget Total:
$69,182.93
Academic Goals:
Improve language arts, mathematics, and science performance; increase ACT “18 or Above” rate; reduce RISE non-pass rate
Baseline Year:
FY25
Measurement Tools:
ACT 11, RISE assessments
Action Steps:
Core curriculum focus, Tier II/III student support, instructional materials enhancement
Council Approval:
4 – Yea, 0 – Nay, 2 – Absent
Governing Board Approval:
Pending
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Massachusetts
Topic:
Literacy, Education, Curriculum Development
Document Type:
Grant Program Details
Agency / Organization:
DESE (Department of Elementary and Secondary Education)
Author:
DESE
Target Audience:
Local Educational Agencies (LEAs), Curriculum Councils, Educators
Period of Implementation:
July 2026 – June 2027
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Year:
FY2027
Organization:
Mississippi Office of Highway Safety
Type of Document:
Grant Application
Region:
Mississippi, USA
Program:
Impaired Driving Prevention
Applicant Information:
Required
Funding Period:
October 1, 2026 – September 30, 2027 (Full Grant); April 1, 2027 – September 30, 2027 (Mini Grant); December 1, 2026 – January 31, 2027 (Special Wave)
Funding Sources:
Federal, State, Local, Other
Submission Requirements:
Project Identification, Proposed Countermeasures, Personal Services, Contractual, Travel, Equipment, Commodities, Fringe
Authorized Signature:
Mayor/Board of Supervisor President/Commissioner
Target Audience:
Local agencies applying for impaired driving grants
Year:
2025
Region / City:
California
Subject:
Forest conservation, land easement, environmental protection
Document Type:
Application form
Organization / Institution:
California Forest Legacy Program
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Landowners, land managers, environmental conservationists
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Amendment Date:
N/A
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Seattle
Topic:
Service dogs, ableism, disability justice
Document Type:
Research Article
Organization / Institution:
Seattle Pacific University, Department of Physics
Author:
Amy D. Robertson
Target Audience:
Researchers, disability advocates, public policy experts
Period of Action:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
) 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:
2023
Region / City:
Global
Topic:
Investment Reporting and Project Progress
Document Type:
Report
Organization:
Gates Foundation
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Grantees, Program Officers
Effective Period:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Amendments:
Not specified
Note:
Contextual Description
Year:
2026
Region / City:
United States
Theme:
Transitional Housing, Domestic Violence Support
Document Type:
Application Guide
Organization:
Office on Violence Against Women (OVW)
Author:
OVW
Target Audience:
Applicants for OVW Transitional Housing Assistance Grant Program
Period of Effect:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Year:
MM/DD/YYYY
Region / City:
Not specified
Subject:
Environmental Impact Assessment
Document Type:
Environmental Review Checklist
Agency / Organization:
Not specified
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Project Managers, Environmental Consultants
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2015
Region / City:
Washington University School of Medicine
Subject:
Design and Construction Documentation
Document Type:
Guideline
Organization / Institution:
Washington University
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Design Team, Facilities Maintenance Technicians, Project Managers
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
January 1, 2015
Revision Date:
May 4, 2022
Year:
2024
Region / City:
United States
Topic:
Teaching effectiveness, self-reflection, course documentation
Document type:
Guide
Institution:
KU Center for Teaching Excellence
Author:
KU Center for Teaching Excellence
Target audience:
Instructors, faculty members
Period of validity:
Ongoing
Approval date:
June 2024
Date of last modification:
June 2024