Good Faith Efforts to Achieve Substantial and Sustained Progress Sample Clauses

Good Faith Efforts to Achieve Substantial and Sustained Progress. The CSA requires the Co-Neutrals to determine whether DHS has “made good faith efforts to achieve substantial and sustained progress” toward a Target Outcome. This standard requires more than an assessment of DHS’ intentions but necessarily requires a conclusion by the Co- Neutrals that is based on an analysis of the activities undertaken and decisions made by DHS or, as the Co-Neutrals have stated, the inactions or failures to make decisions, and the impact of those decisions and activities on achieving substantial and sustained progress toward a Target Outcome. For example, the Co-Neutrals have focused their review and assessment of DHS’ timeliness and thoroughness to implement, evaluate and, when needed, adjust core strategies to inform their judgment of whether the department has made good faith efforts to achieve substantial and sustained progress toward the Target Outcomes. The CSA requires the Co-Neutrals to report on those Target Outcomes that DHS has met, those for which the department has achieved sustained, positive trending toward the Target Outcomes, and those Target Outcomes for which DHS has not achieved sustained, positive trending. The following Table summarizes the Co-Neutrals’ findings of DHS’ progress toward the Target Outcomes and, separately, the Co-Neutrals’ assessment of DHS’ efforts for each of the performance metrics assessed during this report period. Table 1: Summary of Target Outcomes Metric Has Met Target Outcome Has Achieved Sustained, Positive Trending Toward the Target Outcome Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Achieve Substantial and Sustained Progress Toward the Target Outcome
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (9)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Good Faith Efforts to Achieve Substantial and Sustained Progress. The CSA requires the Co-Neutrals to determine whether DHS has “made good faith efforts to achieve substantial and sustained progress” toward a Target Outcome. This standard requires more than an assessment of DHS’ intentions but necessarily requires a conclusion by the Co- Neutrals that is based on an analysis of the activities undertaken and decisions made by DHS or, as the Co-Neutrals have stated, the inactions or failures to make decisions, and the impact of those decisions and activities on achieving substantial and sustained progress toward a Target Outcome. For example, the Co-Neutrals have focused their review and assessment of DHS’ timeliness and thoroughness to implement, evaluate and, when needed, adjust core strategies to inform their judgment of whether the department has made good faith efforts to achieve substantial and sustained progress toward the Target Outcomes.
Sample 1

Related to Good Faith Efforts to Achieve Substantial and Sustained Progress

  • OUTCOME IF GRANTEE CANNOT COMPLETE REQUIRED PERFORMANCE Unless otherwise specified in this Statement of Work, if Grantee cannot complete or otherwise comply with a requirement included in this Statement of Work, HHSC, at its sole discretion, may impose remedies or sanctions outlined under Contract Attachment C, Local Mental Health Authority Special Conditions, Section 7.09 (Remedies and Sanctions).

  • Staffing Levels to deal with Potential Violence The Employer agrees that, where there is a risk of violence, an adequate level of trained employees should be present. The Employer recognizes that workloads can lead to fatigue and a diminished ability both to identify and to subsequently deal with potentially violent situations.

  • Failure to Achieve Commercial Operation If the Large Generating Facility fails to achieve Commercial Operation, but it or another generating facility is later constructed and makes use of the Network Upgrades, the Participating TO shall at that time reimburse Interconnection Customer for the amounts advanced for the Network Upgrades. Before any such reimbursement can occur, the Interconnection Customer, or the entity that ultimately constructs the generating facility, if different, is responsible for identifying and demonstrating to the Participating TO the appropriate entity to which reimbursement must be made in order to implement the intent of this reimbursement obligation.

  • Status Substantial Compliance Analysis The Compliance Officer found that PPB is in substantial compliance with Paragraph 80. See Sections IV and VII Report, p. 17. COCL carefully outlines the steps PPB has taken—and we, too, have observed—to do so. Id. We agree with the Compliance Officer’s assessment. In 2018, the Training Division provided an extensive, separate analysis of data concerning ECIT training. See Evaluation Report: 2018 Enhanced Crisis Intervention Training, Training usefulness, on-the-job applications, and reinforcing training objectives, February 2019. The Training Division assessed survey data showing broad officer support for the 2018 ECIT training. The survey data also showed a dramatic increase in the proportion of officers who strongly agree that their supervisors are very supportive of the ECIT program, reaching 64.3% in 2018, compared to only 14.3% in 2015: The Training Division analyzed the survey results of the police vehicle operator training and supervisory in-service training, as well. These analyses were helpful in understanding attendees’ impressions of training and its application to their jobs, though the analyses did not reach as far as the ECIT’s analysis of post-training on- the-job assessment. In all three training analyses, Training Division applied a feedback model to shape future training. This feedback loop was the intended purpose of Paragraph 80. PPB’s utilization of feedback shows PPB’s internalization of the remedy. We reviewed surveys of Advanced Academy attendees, as well. Attendees were overwhelmingly positive in response to the content of most classes. Though most respondents agreed on the positive aspects of keeping the selected course in the curriculum, a handful of attendees chose options like “redundant” and “slightly disagree,” indicating that the survey tools could be used for critical assessment and not merely PPB self-validation. We directly observed PPB training and evaluations since our last report. PPB provided training materials to the Compliance Officer and DOJ in advance of training. Where either identified issues, PPB worked through those issues and honed its materials. As Paragraph 80 requires, PPB’s training included competency-based evaluations, namely: knowledge checks (i.e., quizzes on directives), in-class responsive quizzes (using clickers to respond to questions presented to the group); knowledge tests (examinations via links PPB sent to each student’s Bureau-issued iPhone); demonstrated skills and oral examination (officers had to show proficiency in first aid skills, weapons use, and defensive tactics); and scenario evaluations (officers had to explain their reasoning for choices after acting through scenarios). These were the same sort of competency-based evaluations we commended in our last report. In this monitoring period, PPB applied the same type of evaluations to supervisory-level training as well as in-service training for all sworn members. PPB successfully has used the surveys, testing, and the training audit.

  • Completion of Concrete Pours and Emergency Work 24.14.1 Except as provided in this sub-clause an employee shall not work or be required to work in the rain.

  • After Substantial Completion § 12.2.2.1 In addition to the Contractor’s obligations under Section 3.5, if, within one year after the date of Substantial Completion of the Work or designated portion thereof or after the date for commencement of warranties established under Section 9.9.1, or by terms of any applicable special warranty required by the Contract Documents, any of the Work is found to be not in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents, the Contractor shall correct it promptly after receipt of notice from the Owner to do so, unless the Owner has previously given the Contractor a written acceptance of such condition. The Owner shall give such notice promptly after discovery of the condition. During the one-year period for correction of Work, if the Owner fails to notify the Contractor and give the Contractor an opportunity to make the correction, the Owner waives the rights to require correction by the Contractor and to make a claim for breach of warranty. If the Contractor fails to correct nonconforming Work within a reasonable time during that period after receipt of notice from the Owner or Architect, the Owner may correct it in accordance with Section 2.5.

  • DEVELOPMENT OR ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS/ STATEMENTS OF WORK Firms and/or individuals that assisted in the development or drafting of the specifications, requirements, statements of work, or solicitation documents contained herein are excluded from competing for this solicitation. This shall not be applicable to firms and/or individuals providing responses to a publicly posted Request for Information (RFI) associated with a solicitation.

  • Selection of Subcontractors, Procurement of Materials and Leasing of Equipment The contractor shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. The contractor shall take all necessary and reasonable steps to ensure nondiscrimination in the administration of this contract.

  • At Substantial Completion and Final Completion the Contractor shall provide a certification letter certifying that the Work does not contain asbestos as required by the UTUGCs.

  • Upon Substantial Completion of the Work or designated portion thereof and upon application by the Contractor and certification by the Architect, the State shall make payment, reflecting adjustment in retainage, if any, for such Work or portion thereof, as provided in the Contract Documents.

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