№ files_lp_4_process_2_56792
File format: docx
Character count: 22613
File size: 244 KB
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Bradford
Topic:
Education for children with medical needs
Document Type:
Local Authority Policy
Organization / Institution:
Bradford Metropolitan District Council
Author:
Hannah Whittaker
Target Audience:
Educational professionals, parents/carers, local authorities
Effective Period:
January 2024 - January 2025
Approval Date:
January 2024
Date of Last Update:
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:
Not specified
Region / City:
Bradford
Topic:
Medical Needs Education
Document Type:
Service Offer
Organization:
Specialist Teaching & Support Service (STaSS)
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Children and young people who cannot access school due to medical needs, their families, schools, and local authorities
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Bangladesh
Subject:
Procurement of Consulting Services
Document Type:
Standard Request for Proposal
Organization / Institution:
Bangladesh Public Procurement Authority (BPPA)
Author:
Bangladesh Public Procurement Authority
Target Audience:
Procuring Entities (PEs), Consultants
Period of Validity:
Until completion of procurement process
Approval Date:
November 2025
Date of Revisions:
N/A
Year:
2025
Region / city:
Devonshire Dock Complex
Subject:
Nuclear Safety Inspection
Document Type:
Regulatory Report
Organization:
Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR)
Author:
Nominated Site Inspector
Target Audience:
Public, Local Liaison Committee Members
Period of Effect:
January 1, 2025 – June 30, 2025
Approval Date:
August 2025
Date of Changes:
May 2025
Contextual Description:
Regulatory report on nuclear site inspections conducted at BAE Systems Marine Limited, detailing both routine and non-routine activities, including fire safety and incident investigations.
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Madison, MS
Subject:
State Rehabilitation Council Meeting
Document Type:
Meeting Minutes
Organization / Institution:
Mississippi Department of Rehabilitation Services
Author:
Don Brown
Target Audience:
SRC Members, MDRS Staff, Public
Period of Validity:
December 13, 2024
Approval Date:
December 13, 2024
Date of Modifications:
None
Year:
2025
Country:
United Kingdom
Region:
Ellesmere Port, Cheshire
Site:
Stanlow Manufacturing Complex
Operator:
Essar Oil (UK) Limited
Regulatory framework:
Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016
Directive:
Industrial Emissions Directive
BAT reference:
Refining of Mineral Oil and Gas BAT Conclusions (2014/7/738/EU)
Derogation subject:
BAT Conclusion 52
Derogation period:
Until 31/10/2025
Pollutants covered:
Non-methane volatile organic compounds; Benzene
BAT-AELs referenced:
NMVOC 10 mg/Nm3; Benzene 1 mg/Nm3
Permit type:
Environmental permit variation
Decision status:
Draft
Purpose:
Record of decision-making and consultation considerations
Activities regulated:
Refining mineral oils; Oil movements; Chemical activities; Incineration; Combustion; Waste recovery or disposal; Carbon capture for geological storage
Competent authority role:
Assessment of application and setting of permit conditions
Source type:
Draft regulatory decision document
Year:
2024
Region / city:
Kwa-Zulu Natal Province, Durban
Theme:
Remedial works, waterproofing, construction tender
Document Type:
Tender invitation
Organ / institution:
National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC)
Author:
National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC)
Target audience:
Contractors registered with CIDB, qualified for waterproofing and remedial works
Period of validity:
From 02 December 2024 to 13 December 2024
Approval date:
02 December 2024
Amendment date:
13 December 2024
Note:
Contextual description
Year:
2024
Location:
Crestview, CA, USA
Topic:
Project Kick-off Meeting
Document Type:
Meeting Agenda
Organization:
Ethereal Architects
Author:
Jane Smith, Architect
Target Audience:
Project team and client representatives
Project Number:
012-345-67
Meeting Format:
Virtual
Date and Time:
24 July 2024, 16:00 ET
Attachments:
Agenda items and supporting documents
Year:
2022
Region / City:
New Delhi
Theme:
Survey, Transmission System
Document Type:
Bid Invitation Letter
Organization / Institution:
PFC Consulting Limited
Author:
PFC Consulting Limited
Target Audience:
Firms empanelled by PFCCL under Area Code ‘3(E)(i)’ or ‘3(E)(ii)’
Period of Validity:
From November 25, 2022, till the award of work
Approval Date:
November 25, 2022
Amendment Date:
Not mentioned
Submitted to:
Dr. Jessica Thomas
Created by:
Team K — Eric Dye, Matt Olah, Isabella Gluzman, George Byrne
Course:
Engineering 1181
Institution:
The Ohio State University
Location:
Columbus, OH, USA
Date:
24 October 2019
Type of document:
Laboratory report
Topic:
Wind turbine design and energy output analysis
Experimental focus:
Blade number and pitch optimization, power generation calculations
Target:
Residential neighborhood energy assessment
Efficiency considered:
25%
Year:
2017
Region / City:
Ireland
Theme:
Nursing supports in schools, complex medical needs
Document Type:
Response submission
Organization / Institution:
Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI)
Author:
Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI)
Target Audience:
Educational professionals, policy makers
Period of Validity:
September 2017
Date of Approval:
September 2017
Date of Amendments:
None
Year:
2013
Region / City:
USA
Topic:
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
Document Type:
Educational Material
Organization:
Pearson
Author:
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C.; American Psychiatric Association; Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J.; Minahan, J., & Rappaport, N.; Yell, M. L., Meadows, N. B., Drasgow, E., & Shriner, J. G.
Target Audience:
Educators, Mental Health Professionals, Students
Period of Application:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
2013
Modification Date:
Not specified
Year:
Not specified
Region / City:
Not specified
Topic:
Accessibility of PDFs
Document Type:
Guide
Organization / Institution:
Not specified
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
People making PDFs more accessible
Period of Effectiveness:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Amendments:
Not specified
Year:
2017
Region / City:
Butte, Nevada, Yuba Counties
Theme:
Fire debris removal, disaster recovery
Document Type:
Invitation for Bids (IFB)
Organization / Institution:
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
Author:
CalRecycle
Target Audience:
Prospective bidders
Period of Action:
November 2, 2017 - December 31, 2017
Approval Date:
November 2, 2017
Amendment Date:
November 8, 2017
Year:
2013
Type of Document:
Research brief
Target Audience:
Educators, school psychologists, special education professionals
Subject:
Emotional and behavioral disorders in students
Authors:
Kauffman & Landrum, Yell et al., Bradley, Henderson & Monfore, Walker, Ramsey & Gresham
Related Disorders:
ADHD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Depression, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Reactive Attachment Disorder
Interventions:
A-B-C analysis, Reinforcement strategies, Social skills training, Cognitive behavioral approaches
Medication:
Psychiatric medication for mental health issues
Context:
United States
Document Type:
Educational research source
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:
Not specified
Region / City:
Manchester
Theme:
Security services, Licensing
Document type:
Consultation questionnaire
Organ / Institution:
Home Office
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Security professionals, Employers, Public bodies
Validity period:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Victoria, Australia
Topic:
HIV treatment, healthcare program
Document type:
Official publication
Organization / Institution:
Victorian Government, Department of Health
Author:
Victorian Government
Target audience:
Healthcare professionals, HIV patients, healthcare policy makers
Date of approval:
August 2025
Date of changes:
Not specified
Reference no:
HPV (GBMSM) PGD
Version no:
v5.0
Valid from:
1 September 2025
Review date:
1 April 2028
Expiry date:
1 September 2028
Author:
Suki Hunjunt, Sharif Ismail, David Green
Region / city:
England
Target audience:
Healthcare practitioners administering HPV vaccine to GBMSM
Type of document:
Patient Group Direction
Organisation:
UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA)
Date of approval:
17 July 2025
Date of modifications:
16 July 2025
Context:
A formal Patient Group Direction for the administration of HPV vaccine to GBMSM, detailing legal, clinical, and procedural requirements for healthcare practitioners in England.
) 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