Qualitative evaluation of the activities Sample Clauses

Qualitative evaluation of the activities. The beneficiary attended the Kick-Off Meeting of the Commission on 31/01/2007 in Brussels. Several team meetings of the four partners were conducted during the two yearsduration of the project. 27/01/2007 – Cologne 28/04/2007 – Madrid 13/10/2007 – Amsterdam 13/06/2008 – Cologne 06/12/2008 – Madrid The two main activities were the workshops in Cologne and Amsterdam. The main re- sults/products were - A European guideline for early intervention - A European strategy for target group oriented intervention (TGIP) including the screening tool ‘Cologne Risk Index - The establishment of a platform of European experts The two workshops in Cologne and Amsterdam were very productive. The attached reports about them show the quality of the work done. A special remark should be done in regard with the important group of professionals present in both meetings. They represent the cur- rent core of the experts in the field in Europe. The workshops had different formats and outcomes. The Cologne workshop was a useful platform for discussion of different issues that remain still open for discussion in the psycho- social aftercare in cases of disasters and catastrophes. The A, B and C sub-workshops (see reports) reflect the broad spectrum of issues considered and worked through. The sub- workshop conducted in Cologne about ‘The integration of psychological and social strategies in the middle and long term intervention of people affected by catastrophes and / or disas- ters’ was introduced with the work done by an exploratory questionnaire to find out the most important areas that might be problematic in the psychosocial support system in different European countries and to find out ideas for improvement of the current situation (see report on this). From this experience remains clear that the discussion of some issues should be continued like the role of peritraumatic dissociation or the need to screen larger groups of victims for psycho traumatic sequels. The scientific literature and the professional experiences pro- duced from meeting to meeting remain important inputs that should be expanded in discus- sion panels like the ones developed in Cologne. The Amsterdam conference was different from the Cologne in the sense that a final product, the early intervention guideline, stayed ready for presentation and comment. The attached technical report on this shows the different aspects of the working tool and its applicability. All in all, we can state that the guideline is ...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Qualitative evaluation of the activities

  • Summative Evaluation An evaluation used to arrive at a rating on each standard, an overall rating, and as a basis to make personnel decisions. The summative evaluation includes the Evaluator’s judgments of the Educator’s performance against Performance Standards and the Educator’s attainment of goals set forth in the Educator’s Plan.

  • Focused Evaluation The Focused Evaluation is used when a teacher is not evaluated using the Comprehensive Evaluation process, and will include evaluation of one of the eight state criteria (student growth impact required). If a non-provisional teacher has scored at Proficient or higher the previous year, they may be moved to Focused Evaluation. The teacher may remain on the Focused Evaluation for five (5) years before returning to the Comprehensive Evaluation. The teacher or the evaluator can initiate a move from the Focused to the Comprehensive Evaluation. A decision to move a teacher from a Focused to a Comprehensive Evaluation must occur by December 15.

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • TECHNICAL EVALUATION (a) Detailed technical evaluation shall be carried out by Purchase Committee pursuant to conditions in the tender document to determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender. For this clause, the substantially responsive bid is one that conforms to all the eligibility and terms and condition of the tender without any material deviation. The Institute’s determination of bid’s responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the bid itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The Institute shall evaluate the technical bids also to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly signed and whether the bids are in order.

  • Performance Evaluations 34.1. The Contractor is subject to an annual performance evaluation to be conducted by NYCDOT pursuant to the PPB Rules.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and xxxx them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. No response TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Yes - No Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • Annual Evaluations The purpose of the annual evaluation is to assess and communicate the nature and extent of an employee's performance of assigned duties consistent with the criteria specified below in this Policy. Except for those employees who have received notice of non-reappointment pursuant to the BOT- UFF Policy on Non- reappointment, every employee shall be evaluated at least once annually. Personnel decisions shall take such annual evaluations into account, provided that such decisions need not be based solely on written faculty performance evaluations.

  • Self-Evaluation Each regular faculty member shall provide a self-evaluation. It shall address, among other items, the faculty member's fulfillment of professional responsibilities as referenced in Section 18.2.3 and an assessment of his or her own performance. The faculty member will share the self-evaluation with the Faculty Evaluation Committee and the first-level manager or designee. The self-evaluation will become part of the evaluation report.

  • Administrative Evaluation It is the intent of the SCD administration to conduct evaluations of non-priority- hire faculty as early as possible in a faculty member's employment in an SCD instructional unit. Administrative evaluation should occur before the beginning of the fifth quarter within the nine (9) out of twelve (12) quarter sequence outlined in Article 10.7.a.

  • Annual Evaluation The Partnership will be evaluated on an annual basis through the use of the Strategic Partnership Annual Evaluation Format as specified in Appendix C of OSHA Instruction CSP 00-00-000, OSHA Strategic Partnership Program for Worker Safety and Health. Xxxxxxxxx & Xxxxxx will be responsible for gathering required participant data to evaluate and track the overall results and success of the Partnership. This data will be shared with OSHA. OSHA will be responsible for writing and submitting the annual evaluation.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.