№ lp_1_2_34458
File format: docx
Character count: 5206
File size: 53 KB
The document is a checklist and record-keeping tool for conducting safety checks for individuals working with children, detailing the steps and necessary documentation for verifying identity, police vetting, and risk assessment.
Note:
Year
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:
2020
Country:
Mongolia
Document type:
Periodic report
Issuing body:
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights / United Nations Economic and Social Council
Date received:
9 July 2021
Language:
English
Coverage:
Social and economic rights, labor and employment, social welfare, minimum wage, public sector salaries, vulnerable populations
Programs mentioned:
Food and Nutrition Programme for Poorest Families, Age Benefit Programme
Target groups:
Civil servants, teachers, doctors, nurses, cultural and art workers, poor households, seniors
Legal framework referenced:
Law on Civil Service (2017), Social Welfare Law, Law on Seniors
Salary data period:
2016–2020
Budget allocations:
MNT 159.8 billion for salary increase (2020), MNT 302.5 billion for employment duration payment, additional MNT 15.5 billion for food support during COVID-19 lockdown
Year:
2025
Region / City:
United Kingdom
Topic:
Nuclear safety review
Document Type:
Report
Organization / Institution:
Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR)
Author:
EDF Nuclear Generation Ltd
Target Audience:
Regulatory bodies, nuclear safety authorities
Period of validity:
2025-2035
Approval date:
January 2025
Date of amendments:
N/A
Year:
XXXX
Region / City:
XXX
Theme:
Post-market Surveillance
Document Type:
Report
Organization:
XXX
Author:
XXX
Target Audience:
Regulatory Authorities, Healthcare Professionals
Period of Validity:
[start date] - [end date]
Approval Date:
YYYY-MM-DD
Revision Date:
YYYY-MM-DD
Year:
2023
Region / City:
United States
Subject:
Calibration, Standards, Metrology
Document Type:
Policy Recommendations
Author:
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Target Audience:
State laboratories, metrologists, policy makers
Period of Validity:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
2023
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Year:
Not specified
Region / City:
Not specified
Topic:
Atomic radius, electronegativity, ionization energy, periodic trends
Document type:
Educational material
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Students studying chemistry
Effective date:
Not specified
Modification date:
Not specified
Context:
Educational material for students to analyze periodic trends using graphs based on the periodic table.
Year:
2022
Region / city:
Republic of Korea
Document type:
Report
Organization:
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
Author:
Republic of Korea, Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (MOGEF), Korean Women’s Development Institute
Target audience:
Governments, human rights organizations, gender equality advocates
Period of validity:
Ongoing
Approval date:
2022
Date of changes:
N/A
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Serbia
Topic:
Civil and Political Rights
Document Type:
Concluding Observations
Organ / Institution:
Human Rights Committee
Author:
United Nations Human Rights Committee
Target Audience:
Governments, NGOs, legal professionals
Period of Validity:
2024
Approval Date:
26 March 2024
Date of Last Revision:
N/A
Author:
Gregg Henriques
Type of document:
Academic essay
Field:
Philosophy of science, Behavioral science
Target audience:
Graduate students, researchers
Key concepts:
Theory of Knowledge System, Periodic Table of Behavior, behavioral complexity
Dimensions covered:
Matter, Life, Mind, Culture
Levels analyzed:
Particle, Atomic, Molecular, Genetic, Cellular, Organism, Neuroscience, Psychology, Sociobiology, Cognitive Science, Human Psychology, Social Sciences
Date:
Not specified
Note:
Year
Subject:
Covid risk management
Document type:
Report
Organization / institution:
University
Contextual description:
A report documenting the periodic review of local Covid risk management arrangements for SS1 and SS2, including updates and changes to the overarching risk assessment and related appendices.
Year:
2021
Region / City:
Whatcom County, Bellingham, WA
Theme:
Shoreline Management, Environmental Policy
Document Type:
Guide
Organization:
Whatcom County Council
Author:
Whatcom County Council
Target Audience:
County residents, Planning Commission, Department of Ecology, local stakeholders
Action Period:
2021
Approval Date:
March 9, 2021
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2022
Region / city:
Azerbaijan
Topic:
Racial discrimination, Human rights, Conflict-related human rights violations
Document type:
Concluding observations
Organization / institution:
United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
Author:
United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
Target audience:
Government officials, Human rights advocates, International organizations
Period of validity:
Not specified
Date of approval:
26 August 2022
Date of amendments:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / City:
USA
Theme:
Research positions review
Document type:
Instruction manual
Organization:
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
VA personnel, Research Scientists
Effective period:
Ongoing
Approval date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Red text indicates updates
Year:
2025
Region / city:
Aotearoa New Zealand
Topic:
Human rights, racial discrimination, Indigenous rights
Document type:
Periodic review submission
Organization / institution:
Te Kāhui Tika Tangata New Zealand Human Rights Commission
Author:
Te Kāhui Tika Tangata New Zealand Human Rights Commission
Target audience:
UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, human rights professionals, policymakers
Period of validity:
2018–2025
Approval date:
19 May 2025
Date of amendments:
None specified
Note:
Context
Year:
2025
Region / city:
Fiji
Theme:
Human Rights, Gender Equality, Women’s Rights, COVID-19
Document Type:
Written Submission
Organization:
Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission, Fiji
Author:
Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission
Target Audience:
CEDAW Committee, policymakers, human rights advocates, gender equality organizations
Period of validity:
2025
Approval Date:
4 April 2025
Date of revisions:
None
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Denmark, Faroe Islands, Greenland
Topic:
Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Document Type:
Concluding Observations
Author:
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Target Audience:
Government officials, policymakers, human rights organizations
Period of Action:
2024-2034
Approval Date:
3 September 2024
Amendment Date:
-
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:
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
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