№ files_lp_4_process_3_127813
File format: docx
Character count: 34754
File size: 93 KB
This document is an official reporting tool for state administrators of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) to summarize and submit their activities and accomplishments for the fiscal year 2023.
Year:
2023
Region / City:
United States
Theme:
Community Services, Poverty Alleviation
Document Type:
Annual Report
Agency/Organization:
Office of Community Services (OCS)
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
CSBG grant recipients, state administrators
Period of Action:
Fiscal Year 2023
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:
2021
Region / City:
Vermont
Theme:
Community Services, Social Services, Government Funding
Document Type:
Public Comment
Agency / Organization:
Administration for Children and Families
Author:
Stephen Geller, Tom Donahue, Sue Minter, Paul Dragon, Jenna O’Farrell
Target Audience:
ACF Reports Clearance Officer
Period of Validity:
2020-2021
Approval Date:
January 15, 2021
Date of Amendments:
N/A
Context:
Letter from various Vermont Community Action Agencies expressing comments on the expedited OMB review and public comment for the CSBG Annual Report, regarding CARES funding and reporting systems.
Year:
2026
Region/City:
United States
Topic:
Community Action Programs, Income Verification
Document Type:
Policy/Procedure
Organization:
IHCDA
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Community Action Agencies
Period of Effect:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Last Revision:
Not specified
Year:
2010–2014
State:
New Mexico
Country:
United States
Program:
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)
Federal Agency:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
State Agency:
New Mexico Human Services Department (HSD), Income Support Division / Work and Family Support Bureau
Type of Document:
Government program fact sheet
Funding Source:
Federal formula grant
Eligible Entities:
Community Action Agencies (CAAs)
Statutory Basis:
Economic Opportunity Act of 1964; New Mexico Community Action Act of 1983
Allocation Formula:
90% to CAAs; 5% administrative expenses; 5% discretionary spending
State Fiscal Year Reference:
SFY 2014
Federal Fiscal Year Reference:
FFY 2012–2014
Geographic Coverage:
Statewide, New Mexico
Contact Person:
Bill Wuestenhagen, Management Analyst
Office Location:
Santa Fe, NM
Organization:
Office of Community Services (OCS)
Program:
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)
Document Type:
Work plan template and guidance document
Subject:
Project planning, monitoring, and evaluation for cooperative agreements
Related Document:
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO)
Project Period:
Entire cooperative agreement period (typically 3 years)
Key Framework:
SMARTIE goal-setting methodology
Sections:
Overview; Instructions; Submission
Required Fields:
Project Title; Award Number; Project Period; Organization; Region; Award Contact; OCS Project Officer
Content Elements:
Objectives and goals; activities; start and end dates; anticipated outcomes; deliverables; status updates; budget spend down; performance oversight meetings
Responsible Institution:
Office of Community Services
Primary Users:
CSBG cooperative agreement award recipients and OCS project officers
Submission Platform:
GrantSolutions.gov
Monitoring Mechanism:
Recurring 1:1 Performance Oversight meetings between OCS and award recipients
Year:
2023
Region / City:
United States
Topic:
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Administration
Document Type:
Report
Organization / Institution:
Office of Community Services (OCS)
Author:
Office of Community Services (OCS)
Target Audience:
CSBG grant recipients, state administration agencies, local service providers
Period of Effectiveness:
Fiscal Year 2023
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2017-2018
Organization:
NASCSP
Document type:
Technical FAQ
Target audience:
Subgrantees and agency staff
Topics:
XML reporting, data submission, Module 2 and Module 4, Year-to-Year validation
Contact:
Katy Kujawski, [email protected]
Reporting system:
OLDC, COPOS
Data elements:
SubGrantee, Grant Number, M2AgencyName, FNPI, Employment Domain
Submission format:
XML, Smart Forms
Validation rules:
Year-to-Year variances, comment requirements
Year:
2019
Region / City:
Joplin, Missouri
Theme:
Community Development, Housing, Infrastructure
Document Type:
Action Plan
Agency / Organization:
City of Joplin, Planning, Development and Neighborhood Services
Author:
City of Joplin
Target Audience:
Local Government, Community Development Organizations
Period of Validity:
Fiscal Year 2019
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Year:
2019
Region / City:
Placer County, California
Theme:
Juvenile Justice, Crime Prevention
Document Type:
Comprehensive Plan
Agency / Institution:
Placer County Probation Department
Author:
Placer County Probation Department
Target Audience:
Juvenile justice professionals, law enforcement agencies, policy makers, service providers
Period of validity:
Annual, for fiscal year planning
Approval Date:
May 1, 2019
Date of Last Change:
Not specified
Note:
Year
Theme:
Workplace safety
Document type:
Checklist
Year:
October 1, 2026 – September 30, 2027
Note:
Year
2026
Region / City:
Manchester
Subject:
Community Development, Funding
Document Type:
Application Form
Organization:
Town of Manchester
Author:
Heather Guerette
Target Audience:
Nonprofits, Government Agencies, Organizations
Period of Action:
2026-2027
Approval Date:
March 18, 2026
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2024
Department:
Human Settlements
Section:
CS & RM
Prepared by:
Department of Finance, Central Procurement Office
Contact person:
Ms Bekane Molekwa, Acting Senior Manager Procurement Office
Telephone:
(011) 999-1635
Email:
[email protected]
Address:
5 Junction Road, Driehoek, Germiston, 1400
Quotation number:
BEQ.HS.09.01
Procurement value:
R2000.00 up to R750,000.00 (including VAT)
Regulations:
Preferential Procurement Regulations, 2022; Municipal SCM Regulations amendments 2023; SCM Policy approved 1 March 2024
Document type:
Formal written price quotation
Target audience:
Prospective contractors eligible for municipal procurement
Scope:
Repair and maintenance of Thokoza Hostel blocks 1, 2, 3 and Block K
Submission instructions:
Sealed bid, endorsed, submitted to Bid Box Number Eleven, Central Procurement Office
Evaluation criteria:
Compliance with bid rules, completeness of forms, B-BBEE compliance, municipal account submission
) 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
Note:
Region/City
Topic:
Juvenile justice, government funding
Document Type:
Report
Agency/Organization:
Office of Youth and Community Restoration
Target Audience:
Counties and related authorities
Period of validity:
2025
Year:
2016
Region / City:
California
Subject:
Hotel Room Block Reservation
Document Type:
Submission Form
Organization / Institution:
Judicial Council of California
Author:
Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts
Target Audience:
Proposers for hotel room reservations
Effective Period:
January 17-21, 2016, May 22-26, 2016
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / City:
California
Topic:
Hotel Reservation and Billing
Document Type:
Proposal Submission
Institution / Organization:
Judicial Council of California
Author:
Unknown
Target Audience:
Proposers for hotel room blocks
Period of validity:
60 days after submission due date
Approval Date:
Unknown
Amendment Date:
Unknown
Note:
Year
Region / city:
New York State
Subject:
Informed consent, Legally Authorized Representative
Document type:
Consent form
Target audience:
Research participants, study coordinators
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Not specified
Subject:
Labor relations, grievance procedure, National Agreement, Step 4 settlements
Document Type:
Grievance statement
Organization / Institution:
National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC)
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Union representatives, postal workers, management officials
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Amendments:
Not specified
Year:
[Year]
Region / City:
[Station/Post Office]
Subject:
Grievance regarding violation of Article 8, Section 5 of the National Agreement
Document Type:
Grievance
Organization:
[Union Name]
Author:
[Union Representative Name]
Target Audience:
Union representatives, management officials, employees involved in the grievance
Period of Validity:
[Quarter] of [Year]
Approval Date:
[Date]
Modification Date:
[Date]
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Puerto Rico
Topic:
URA Compliance, Housing, Disaster Recovery
Document Type:
Checklist
Agency:
Puerto Rico Department of Housing (PRDOH)
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Subrecipients of CDBG-DR/MIT programs
Effective Period:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Amendment Date:
N/A
Year:
Odd-numbered years
Region / City:
Idaho
Topic:
Transportation, Infrastructure, Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Environmental Mitigation
Document Type:
Program Guidelines
Organization / Institution:
Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC)
Author:
Idaho Transportation Department (ITD)
Target Audience:
Local Sponsors applying for TA funding
Period of Application:
Every other year, with application released in October and due in January
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified