FIGURES. Figure 1: Number of Children in DHS Custody at the End of SFY - 2004 to 2018 16 Figure 2: Children in Custody on June 30, 2018 by Age Group 17 Figure 3: Children in Custody on June 30, 2018 by Length of Stay 18 Figure 4 : Children in Custody on June 30, 2018 by Placement Type 19 Figure 5: New Xxxxxx Care Homes Developed by Month, July 2017-June 2018 20 Figure 6: New Xxxxxx Homes by Type, July 2017-June 2018 21 Figure 7: New Therapeutic Xxxxxx Homes by Month, July 2017-June 2018 33 Figure 8: Worker Caseloads: Percent of Workers Meeting Caseload Standards 43 Figure 9: Supervisor Workloads: Percent of Supervisors Meeting Workload Standards 48 Figure 10: Metrics 5.1 – Shelter-Nights, Children Ages 0 - 1 51 Figure 11: Metric 5.2 – Shelter-Nights, Children Ages 2 – 5 52 Figure 12: Metric 5.3 – Shelter-Nights, Children Ages 6 – 12 53 Figure 13: Metric 5.4 – Shelter-Nights, Children Ages 13 and Old 54 Figure 14: Number of Children Six Years and Older with a Shelter Stay Jan 2015 to June 2018 55 Figure 15: Metric 1a – Absence of Maltreatment in Care by Resource Caregivers 64 Figure 16: Metric 1b – Absence of Maltreatment in Care by Parents 66 Figure 17: Metric 3.1 – Frequency of Visits by All Workers 81 Figure 18: Metric 3.2 – Frequency of Primary Worker Visits 82 Figure 19: Metric 3.3b – Continuity of Primary Worker Visits Over Six Months 83 Figure 20: Metric 6.2a – Permanency within 12 Months of Removal 94 Figure 21: Reduction in Short-Term Removals 95 Figure 22: Metric 6.2b – Permanency within 2 years of Removal 100 Figure 23: Metric 6.2c – Permanency within 3 years of Removal 102 Figure 24: Metric 6.2d – Permanency within 4 years of Removal 104 Figure 25: Metric 6.3 – Re-entry within 12 Months of Exit 105 Figure 26: Metric 6.5 – Permanency Performance 106 Figure 27: Metric 6.6 – Permanency Performance 108 Figure 28: Metric 6.7 – Permanency Performance 110 Figure 29: Metric 6.4 – Permanency Performance 113 Tables Table 1: Summary of Target Outcomes 8 Table 2: Traditional Home Closure Reasons, July 2017-June 2018 26 Table 3: Home Closure Reason Responses to Exit Survey Question #1? 28 Table 4: Pinnacle Plan Caseload and Workload Standard Commitments 41 Table 5: Caseload Compliance by Worker Type – June 30, 2018 44 Table 6: Caseload Compliance of Eight Struggling Districts 46 Table 7: Number of workers with a Caseload over 200%, 2014 to 2018 47 Table 8: Child-Nights in Shelters by Age, January 2018 to June 2018 54 Table 9: Pinnacle Plan 1.17: June 2017 to June 201...
FIGURES. Figure 1. Covered Area showing the categories and current locations of DSL Habitat suitability derived from Hardy et al. (2018) that establish the areas to which Conservation Measures of the 2020 DSL CCAA would be implemented. 3
FIGURES. Figure 1.1 - WSTF Location Map 2 Figure 2 - WSTF Organization 4 Figure 3 – Proposed Web Based System 11 Figure 4 - Digital ID Technology 17 Acronyms and Abbreviations ANSI American National Standards Institute BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practices CD-ROM Compact Disk-Read Only Memory CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPG Certified Professional Geologist DP Discharge Plan EA Environmental Assessment EDI Electronic Data Interchange EPA Environmental Protection Agency FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards FTE Full Time Employee GIS Geographic Information System HRMB Hazardous and Radioactive Materials Bureau HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments HTML Hypertext Mark-Up Language ID Identification IE Internet Explorer IRS Internal Revenue Service ISO International Standards Organization ISS Information Services Section ITS Information Technology Section MS Microsoft NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFA No Further Action NM New Mexico NMED New Mexico Environment Department NOI Notice of Intent NOD Notice of Deficiency NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NSPS New Source Performance Standard PCC Post-Closure Care PE Professional Engineer PKI Public Key Infrastructure RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RFI RCRA Facility Investigation RSI Request for Supplemental Information XXXX Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SLO State Land Office SSL Secure Sockets Layer SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TRI Toxic Release Inventory TX Texas URL Uniform Resource Locator (Internet page address) WSMR White Sands Missile Range WSTF White Sands Test Facility
FIGURES. This appendix provides figures referred to in the paper. Figure A-1. Game Tree (Γ1) Note that only equilibrium profits from sales are shown in the nodes. The final payoffs include also litigation costs and AG costs as indicated along the branches. Note that only equilibrium profits from sales, P4D payments and licensing fees are shown in the nodes. The final payoffs also include litigation costs and AG costs as indicated along the branches. Figure A-2. Game Tree (Γ2) Figure A-3. Non-Collusive Triopoly, Duopoly, and Monopoly Figure A-4. Cost Thresholds Figure A-5. Profits and Payment to Second Challenger
FIGURES. Figure 1 – SNPLMA Business Processes Flow Chart 6 Figure 2 – Joint Selection Process for Land Sales 19
FIGURES. Figure S1. Inclusion of patients with a clinical MI diagnosis. The target was to include the first 100 patients with ICD-code I.21 at discharge reported to the Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART) from each site. However, data had been collected in slightly less than 100 patients with ICD-code I.21 from three of the sites. As a next step, all patients with ICD-code I.21 at discharge not reported to SWEDEHEART, within the same dates as the SWEDEHEART reported patients, were included from each site. Figure S2. Departments of care after hospital admission among patients without a clinical myocardial infarction diagnosis. Figure S3. Caring department among adjudicated type 2 MI patients with (left) and without (right) a clinical myocardial infarction diagnosis. Figure S4. Caring department among adjudicated myocardial injury patients with (left) and without (right) a clinical myocardial infarction diagnosis.
FIGURES. Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Site Plan Figure 3 Proposed Excavation Area and Air Sampling Locations APPENDICES Appendix A Project Organization Chart Appendix B Soil Management Plan Appendix C Milestone Schedule Appendix D Chain-of-custody form, sample label, and Laboratory Quality Manual
FIGURES. Figure 1. Salton Sea location map 1 Figure 2. Salton Sea HUC8 watershed and main inflows 3 Figure 3. USGS stream gage locations (color coded) 4 Figure 4. New River mean annual flows by stream gage 5 Figure 5. Alamo River mean annual flows by stream gage 6 Figure 6. IID annual Salton Sea mitigation water 7 Figure 7. Public water usage by county, 2000 vs. 2010 8 Figure 8. Irrigation water usage by county, 2000 vs. 2010 9 Figure 9. Water use by county, 2000-2010 10 Figure 10. Average irrigation per acre, Riverside and Imperial Counties 10 Figure 11. Land cover data for Riverside and Imperial Counties, 2001 12 Figure 12. Land cover data for Riverside and Imperial Counties, 2001 12 Figure 13. Agricultural land cover change in Riverside and Imperial Counties, 2001-2011 14 TABLES Table 1. US Census data for Southern California Counties 9 Table 2. Reclassified land cover classes 11 Table 3. Land cover percent of total area, 2001 and 2011 13
FIGURES. Figure 1: Sampling location of ecological survey and monitoring at Upper Xxx Tsuen River, Tai Po.
FIGURES. Figure 1: Map of schistosomiasis distribution in East Africa Figure 2: Potential effects of schistosomiasis in pregnancy.
