Review Criteria. A sports official shall be subject to review when the results of a criminal background check show that:
Review Criteria. A sports official shall be subject to review when the results of a criminal back- ground check show that:
Review Criteria. In reviewing and making decisions regarding applications for comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, and DRIs the County and the City will consider the following issues:
Review Criteria. Procedures for assessing the technical merit of applications have been instituted to provide for an objective review of applications and to assist the applicant in understanding the standards against which each application will be judged. Critical indicators have been developed for each review criterion to assist the applicant in presenting pertinent information related to that criterion and to provide the reviewer with a standard for evaluation. Review criteria are outlined below with specific detail and scoring points. These criteria are the basis upon which the reviewers will evaluate the application. The entire proposal will be considered during objective review. Review Criteria are used to review and rank applications. The Rural Health Research Dissemination Cooperative Agreement has seven (7) review criteria:
Review Criteria. Procedures for assessing the technical merit of applications have been instituted to provide for an objective review of applications and to assist you in understanding the standards against which your application will be judged. Critical indicators have been developed for each review criterion to assist you in presenting pertinent information related to that criterion and to provide the reviewer with a standard for evaluation. Review criteria are outlined below with specific detail and scoring points. These criteria are the basis upon which the reviewers will evaluate and score the merit of the application. The entire proposal will be considered during objective review. Review criteria are used to review and rank applications. The HWRC Cooperative Agreement Program has five review criteria:
Review Criteria. To determine whether the proposal would be in the public interest, the plan commission and city council shall weigh and make findings regarding each of the following criteria:
Review Criteria. 6.1 During any scheduled review period referred to in clause 5 (Scheduled Reviews), the parties shall in good faith consider the ongoing Protections having regard to the following:
Review Criteria. Procedures for assessing the technical merit of applications have been instituted to provide for an objective review of applications and to assist the applicant in understanding the standards against which each application will be judged. Critical indicators have been developed for each review criterion to assist the applicant in presenting pertinent information related to that criterion and to provide the reviewer with a standard for evaluation. Review criteria are outlined below with specific detail and scoring points. These criteria are the basis upon which the reviewers will evaluate the application. The entire proposal will be considered during objective review. Review Criteria are used to review and rank applications. The Rural Quality Improvement Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement has 6 (six) review criteria: Criterion 1: NEED (10 points) – Corresponds to Section IV’s Introduction and Needs Assessment • The extent to which the applicant describes a clear understanding of the distinct needs of CAHs and other small rural providers regarding quality improvement efforts. • The extent to which the applicant describes a detailed level of knowledge regarding the existing quality improvement initiatives and infrastructure, both internal and external to FORHP. • The extent to which the applicant demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the gaps within the existing infrastructure regarding provision of quality improvement technical assistance and support to FORHP grantees, CAHs and other rural providers. • The extent to which the applicant uses data to support the discussion of need. Criterion 2: RESPONSE (30 points) – Corresponds to Section IV’s Methodology, Work Plan and Resolution of Challenges Sub-criteria One (15 points): This corresponds to the proposed Methodology • The extent to which the application includes each activity and identifies the methods that will be used, as well as the responsible staff, to achieve anticipated project outcomes and fulfill the cooperative agreement recipient’s responsibilities. • The extent to which the activities and methods for completion described in the application are capable of addressing the purpose of the program and meeting the identified needs of the beneficiaries of FORHP quality initiatives in order to improve the health outcomes in rural communities. • The extent to which the proposed activities are complementary to, and in no way duplicative of, current FORHP funded activities and ongoing nation...
Review Criteria. A. In its discretion to approve or deny an application for a Coordinated Development Special Permit, the Planning Board shall consider the following:
Review Criteria. Contracts equal to or greater than $25,000 with a board member or other person or entity who could benefit financially from the contract (as defined in paragraph I(g) above) must be reviewed by DEO to ensure that these requirements have been met:
