Impact direct impact on people does not necessarily require direct contact, for example, environmental health, trading standards and similar officers may have a direct impact on people, through the implementation or enforcement of regulations, without necessarily having direct contact with those who benefit.
Impact. Factors associated with the potential impact of a Subrecipient’s non-compliance to the overall success of the program objectives.
Impact. The impacts of the program will become clearer in future years. The implementation of research findings often lags project selection and completion. However, certain impacts are emerging. The benefits of the program are already being felt in many respects.
Impact. This criterion takes into account the impact of a particular occupation on the overall performance of a given department / line of work. Accordingly, this touches upon an employee’s ability to take decisions taking into account the relevant added value. Level 1: • Limited impact on the performance of the department • Limited impact on the decision process Level 2: • Direct but limited impact on the performance of the department • Advisory implication in the decision-taking process Level 3: • Direct impact on the performance of the department • Participation in the decision-taking process (recommendations are expected) Level 4: • Direct impact on the performance of the department / line of work • Active participation in the decision-taking process Human relations This criterion measures the level, the nature, the variety and the complexity of human relations in regard of the particular function and duty. Level 1: • Collaboration with similar functions within the same department • Limited to an exchange of information • Little interaction with internal or external clients Level 2: • Interaction with a restricted number of departments and internal contact with employees of the same level • Exchange of information mainly, reasoning • Adapting to the behaviour of different internal/external contact persons and different situations Level 3: • Interaction with several departments and contact at different levels on more complex subjects • Reasoning • Solution-oriented work for internal/external clients Level 4: • Interaction with numerous departments on complex and unusual subjects • Negotiation, ability to influence and convince • In-depth knowledge of the needs of internal/external clients and/or development of networking Team management, coordination and expertise This criterion measures the employee’s capability to manage and/or lead the team, engage in project management, as well as the employee’s level of expertise required for a specific function. This assessment includes, in particular, the employee’s ability to anticipate important or strategic evolutions as well as his/ her motivation as well as his/her capability to build commitment amongst the other employees. Level 1: • Functional supervision (example: holiday planning) of a small group (example: 1 to 3 persons), or • Coordination of equivalent resources for short-term projects/tasks, or • Provision of expertise by responding to questions in his field of work in order to resolve technical issues Level ...
Impact. How performance can affect achieving organizational objectives. Both the breadth and intensity of impact and special responsibility and accountability are considered. Using these factors, each position is compared to at least three other college positions in order to determine the jobs value relative to other jobs in the college. Of the three jobs used for comparisons, one position should be a benchmark job. (The benchmark job is typical in a class of position titles in terms of job duties and responsibilities.
Impact. The Borrower to report [biannually] on progress towards mutually agreed social and environmental goals.
Impact. Termination of a Statement of Work shall not act as a termination of any other Statement of Work or as a termination of this Agreement as a whole. Termination of this Agreement, however, shall act as a termination of all Statements of Work then pending, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing.
Impact. Nothing to report at this time.
Impact. [Optional/Mandatory] What is the impact of the project? How has it contributed? Over the years, this base of knowledge, techniques, people, and infrastructure is drawn upon again and again for application to commercial technology and the economy, to health and safety, to cost-efficient environmental protection, to the solution of social problems, to numerous other aspects of the public welfare, and to other fields of endeavor. The taxpaying public and its representatives deserve a periodic assessment to show them how the investments they make benefit the nation. Through this reporting format, and especially this section, recipients provide that assessment and make the case for Federal funding of research and education. Agencies use this information to assess how their research programs: • increase the body of knowledge and techniques; • enlarge the pool of people trained to develop that knowledge and techniques or put it to use; and • improve the physical, institutional, and information resources that enable those people to get their training and perform their functions.
Impact. The response systems and infrastructure that states require to respond to public health emergencies would not exist in most instances without PHEP funding. According to CDC’s evaluations, PHEP awardees have improved capacity in nearly all high priority public health preparedness capabilities in the past few years. And the National Health Security Preparedness Index has found that public health preparedness domains trended upward between 2013-2017.3 The largest investments focused on public health surveillance and epidemiological investigation, laboratory testing, community preparedness and recovery, and medical countermeasures and mitigation. In order to help awardees address gaps, CDC works with the jurisdiction on technical assistance plans, including consultation across CDC. Nearly 2,700 state, local, territorial and federal preparedness and response employees across the country are funded in large part or entirely by the PHEP program.4 Federal funding is crucial to maintaining state, local and territorial public health preparedness capacity. Every fluctuation in funding – such as the 2016 redirection of $44 million from PHEP for the federal 1 “Widespread Person-to-Person Outbreaks of Hepatitis A Across the United States.” In Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. xxxxx://xxx.xxx.xxx/hepatitis/outbreaks/2017March-HepatitisA.htm 2 S Xxxxxxxxx, X Xxxxxxxxx, X Xxxxxxxx, and X Xxxxxxxx. “The Great Flood of 2019: A Complete Picture of a Slow-Motion Disaster.” The New York Times, September 11, 2019. xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx/interactive/2019/09/11/us/midwestflooding.html 3 FY2021 CDC Congressional Justification. xxxxx://xxx.xxx.xxx/budget/documents/fy2021/FY-2021-CDC-congressional- justification.pdf 4 FY2021 CDC CJ. xxxxx://xxx.xxx.xxx/budget/documents/fy2021/FY-2021-CDC-congressional-justification.pdf Xxxx response – has major impacts on workforce, training, and readiness.5 These cuts cannot be backfilled with short-term funding after an event. An efficient and effective state and local workforce response relies heavily on predictable, ongoing funding support for a network of local expertise, relationships and trust that is carefully built over time through shared responses, training and exercises. Some examples of recent accomplishments of the PHEP program include: • Hepatitis A Outbreaks: Several states experienced hepatitis A outbreaks from 2016-2019, often among people experiencing homelessness or substance misuse.6 In Michigan, PHEP-funded health dep...
