Community Partnerships. The Contractor must submit a Communication Plan (“Plan”) developed with each Housing Assessment and Resource Agency (“HARA”) within their assigned Region(s):
Community Partnerships. Contractors must develop community partnerships with schools, health and social service agencies, and other related community organizations. Contractors must involve partners in: Community Assessment (A-7). ECEAP service delivery planning (A-3). Community services development and coordination. Planning for children with disabilities (E-10). Kindergarten transition planning (E-6, F-1, F-6). Corrective action planning, as related to community services (A-9).
Community Partnerships a) Contractor shall secure community partnerships with external entity/ies that enhance Program Services, including with, but not limited to the following external entities:
Community Partnerships. The localism agenda encourages individuals to take more responsibility for the running of their communities. Experience shows that this is much more likely to occur where citizens are guided through a structured process, taking into consideration a wide range of social, economic, environmental and cultural factors. CPs have the role of bringing together local individuals and groups in an inclusive way to develop and deliver community initiatives through an action plan. Working alongside the statutory bodies and other local groups, Community Partnerships can: Raise funds for their local area from charitable and other sources, unavailable to statutory bodies Bring together individuals and groups with a shared interest in their local area under a common action plan, planned and delivered together Deliver improvements to their local communities which may not happen in any other way Offer an alternative perspective in relation to local issues and concerns The CPs are set up with terms of reference that include aims and accountabilities, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for working with their local Parish Council or Neighbourhood Councils. Over the years, some CPs have gone on to become Limited Liability Companies (which could be charitable) with memoranda and articles of association. This has enabled them to present themselves to funders as fully independent and accountable bodies rather than as offshoots of local government, and so draw down grants. Working collaboratively we can generate high rates of participation and have a full understanding of local strengths, aspirations and needs.
Community Partnerships. Active in developing partnerships with individuals, groups and organizations outside the College. Activities may include the development and management of grants and contracts, provide leadership and management of joint activities, plan and implement coordinated services, plan and present workshops and serve on boards and job-related committees.
Community Partnerships. Partner organizations identified by the Consortium through an application process will be invited to participate in Consortium meetings and activities. They are recognized as valuable stakeholders and partners in the implementation of educational services for adults.
Community Partnerships. Encouraging community partnerships with agencies throughout the County applicable to WIOA Young Adult Programs ultimately enhances the network of resources available to young adults. It is the aim of WIOA and OCDB to align young adult-serving institutions in order to ease access, reduce duplication, close service gaps and promote collaboration through strong regional partnerships. SUBRECIPIENT shall establish and maintain on-going relationships with organizations throughout the community, examples include but are not limited to: Education agencies (K-12, higher education, technical/vocational training schools) Social service agencies / Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Housing agencies Probation Department Xxxxxx care, and other related programs Community Partners and Community Based Organizations Labor Organizations Literacy Program Providers Business Organizations Mentoring Organizations
Community Partnerships. The Parties agree that university education is normally best provided by employees who are fully engaged in all aspects of teaching, research, and service. However, the Parties agree that it can be beneficial to students, faculty and the University to engage community partners to offer unique and/or applied learning experiences; The Parties agree that, notwithstanding Article 10.01(d) of the Full-Time Collective Agreement and Article 18A of this Agreement, the University may enter into agreements with community partners in the delivery of undergraduate or graduate courses with the following conditions:
Community Partnerships. The methodology for the assessment process included a detailed review of how the misconduct cases were handled, review of relevant department policies and accountability systems, focus groups and interviews with city and department stakeholders, extensive community outreach, direct observation of SDPD operations, and research and analysis regarding best practices in police agencies nationwide on these issues. Big-picture findings PERF’s assessment identified many specific issues in which SDPD policies and practices can be improved in ways that should help to achieve the goals of preventing misconduct and detecting it quickly when it does occur. These issues are detailed in the recommendations that follow beginning on page 4. On a broad level, PERF did not identify any particular policy failure or common underlying factor that tied the misconduct cases together. Rather, it was gaps in policies and practices, a lack of consistent supervision at many levels, and a failure to hold personnel accountable that allowed misconduct to occur and go undetected for some time. Perhaps the most important lesson learned from this assessment is that the failure of the depart- ment’s leaders to adequately address smaller problems led to much larger issues. This report provides a compre- hensive set of recommendations on issues of recruiting and hiring and of supervision and training of officers, as well as on the department’s system for the early detection of problematic behavior by officers and systems for receiving and investigating complaints about officers. The question of the supervision of officers by first-line supervisors is especially important. A number of weaknesses in SDPD systems were exacerbated by the financial crisis in the city of San Diego, which led to cuts to the SDPD’s operating budget. These cuts had the unintended effect of reducing SDPD managers’ ability to monitor officers’ behavior. While the overall size of the cut in SDPD staffing—approximately 10 percent between 2010 and 2013—may not sound particularly extreme, the cut had cascading effects that contributed to the fact that a number of officers were able to engage in misconduct undetected for years. Executive Summary A key problem was that staffing cuts were especially severe at the critically important level of first-line supervi- sors: i.e., sergeants. Between FY 2010 and FY 2015, 11 to 23 percent of sergeant positions have been filled with “acting sergeants,” who, because of their lack of tra...
