FIGURES Sample Clauses
FIGURES. Figure 1: Number of Children in DHS Custody at the End of SFY - 2004 to 2019 15 Figure 2: Children in Custody on December 31, 2018 by Age Group (Total = 7,995) 16 Figure 3: Children in Custody on December 31, 2018 by Length of Stay (Total = 7,995) 17 Figure 4 : Children in Custody on December 31, 2018 by Placement Type 18 Figure 5: New ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Care Homes Developed by Month, July - December 2018 19 Figure 6: New ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Homes by Type, July – December 2018 (N=360) 20 Figure 7: New Therapeutic ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Homes by Month, July 2018-December 2018 29 Figure 8: Worker Caseloads: Percent of Workers Meeting Caseload Standards 40 Figure 9: Supervisor Workloads: Percent of Supervisors Meeting Workload Standards 45 Figure 10: Metrics 5.1 – Shelter-Nights, Children Ages 0 - 1 47 Figure 11: Metric 5.2 – Shelter-Nights, Children Ages 2 – 5 48 Figure 12: Metric 5.3 – Shelter-Nights, Children Ages 6 – 12 49 Figure 13: Metric 5.4 – Shelter-Nights, Children Ages 13 and Older 50 Figure 14: Metric 1a – Absence of Maltreatment in Care by Resource Caregivers 58 Figure 15: Metric 1b – Absence of Maltreatment in Care by Parents 60 Figure 16: Rate of MIC by Placement Type, Current and Prior Report Periods 61 Figure 17: Metric 3.1 – Frequency of Visits by All Workers 73 Figure 18: Metric 3.2 – Frequency of Primary Worker Visits 74 Figure 19: Metric 3.3b – Continuity of Primary Worker Visits Over Six Months 75 Figure 20: Metric 6.2a – Permanency within 12 Months of Removal 86 Figure 21: Metric 6.2b – Permanency within 2 years of Removal 90 Figure 22: Metric 6.2c – Permanency within 3 years of Removal 92 Figure 23: Metric 6.2d – Permanency within 4 years of Removal 94 Figure 24: Metric 6.3 – Re-entry within 12 Months of Exit 95 Figure 25: Metric 6.5 – Permanency Performance 96 Figure 26: Metric 6.6 – Permanency Performance 98 Figure 27: Metric 6.7 – Permanency Performance 101 Figure 28: Metric 6.4 – Permanency Performance 104 Table 1: Summary of Target Outcomes 7 Table 2: Traditional Home Closure Reasons, July – December 2018 23 Table 3: Applications For TFC Program Authorization with New Application Form 32 Table 4: Summary of Authorization Denial Reasons, Oct to Dec 2018 34 Table 5: Pinnacle Plan Caseload and Workload Standard Commitments 39 Table 6: Caseload Compliance of Eight Struggling Districts 41 Table 7: Caseload Compliance by Worker Type 42 Table 8: Workload Spikes, Fall 2016, 2017 and 2018 44 Table 9: Caseload Compliance, Fall 2016, 2017 and 2018 44 Table 10: Child-Nights in Shelt...
FIGURES. 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 Air Quality and Noise Monitoring Stations for HKBCF Figure 2.1 Water Quality Monitoring Stations (construction phases) before 22 December 2017 Figure 2.2 Water Quality Monitoring Stations (construction phases) after 22 December 2017 Figure 3 Dolphin Monitoring Transect Line and Layout Map TABLE Table 1.1 Contact Information of Key Personnel Table 2.1 Air Quality Monitoring Locations Table 2.2 Action and Limit Levels for 1-hour TSP Table 2.3 Action and Limit Levels for 24-hour TSP Table 3.1 Construction Noise Monitoring Locations Table 3.2 Action and Limit Levels for Construction Noise Table 4.1 Water Quality Monitoring Stations (construction phases) Table 4.2 Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality Table 4.3 Number of Exceedance for Water Quality Monitoring Table 5.1a Action and Limit Levels for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring – Approach to Define Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL) Table 5.1b Action and Limit Levels for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring - APPENDICES Appendix A Location of Works Areas Appendix B Project Organization for Environmental Works Appendix C Construction Programme Appendix D Event and Action Plan Appendix E Monthly Summery of Waste Flow Table & Monthly Summery of Marine Sediment Appendix F Environmental Licenses and Permits Appendix G Implementation Schedule for Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) Appendix H Statistics on Environmental Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions Appendix I Environmental Site Inspection Schedule Appendix J Investigation Reports on Action Level or Limit Level Non-compliance This Monthly Environmental Monitoring and ▇▇▇▇▇ (EM&A) Report is prepared for Contract HY/2013/02 “Hong Kong–Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) – Infrastructure Works Stage I (Western Portion)” (hereafter referred to as “the Contract”) for the Highways Department of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). The Contract was awarded to China Harbour Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereafter referred to as “the Contractor”) and ETS-Testconsult Limited was appointed as the Environmental Team (ET) by the Contractor. The Contract is part of Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macao Bridge HKBCF which is a “Designated Project”, under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap 499) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) was prepared for the Project. The current Environmental Permit (EP) No. EP-353/2009/K for HKBCF was i...
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. TMDL Subareas for Salt Load Management in the LSJR Basin 3 DRAFT This page intentionally left blank Action Plan Actions to Address the Salinity and Boron TMDL Issues for the Lower San Joaquin River, July 9, 2008 (updated November 2010) Basin Plan 1994 Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, 4th Edition (updated April 2016) CALFED California Bay-Delta Authority CDEC California Data Exchange Center CV Water Board Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board DRAFT CV-SALTS Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability Stakeholder Group D-1641 State Water Resources Control Board Revised Water Right Decision 1641 DWR California Department of Water Resources EC electrical conductivity GWD Grassland Water District LSJR Lower San Joaquin River MAA Management Agency Agreement NWIS National Water Information System PTMS Program to Meet Standards QA Quality Assurance Reclamation United States Bureau of Reclamation RTMP Real-Time Management Program SJR San Joaquin River SJVDA San ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Valley Drainage Authority TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey μS/cm Micro Siemens Per Centimeter DRAFT WARMF Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework WQOs Water Quality Objectives Purpose Reclamation, in response to the passage of the “Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act” (Public Law 108-361), which includes the California Bay-Delta Authority (CALFED), has initiated implementation of the Program to Meet Standards (PTMS). This program intends to provide greater flexibility in meeting existing water quality standards for the Central Valley Project. Reclamation currently utilizes the CALFED funding authorization for the PTMS, which includes the Real-Time Management Program (RTMP). The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (CV Water Board) Salt and Boron Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Lower San Joaquin River (LSJR) was approved and placed into effect on July 28, 2006. In response to the Salt and Boron TMDL, Reclamation drafted a memorandum entitled “Actions to Address the Salinity and Boron TMDL Issues for the Lower San Joaquin River” on July 9, 2008, and updated it in November 2010 (Action Plan).
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)
FIGURES. Figure 1-1 Regional location of Ranger Project Area 1-4
FIGURES. Figure 1. Multiple imputation of m = 5 datasets 14 Figure 2. Flow diagram of the literature search 22 Figure 3. Schematic of the VA Regional Data Warehouse 40 Figure 4. Schematic of the VA Corporate Data Warehouse 40 Figure 5. Recommended guideline for validating study conclusions 63 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
FIGURES. Figure 1. Distribution of Penstemon monitoring sites within the 6 Conservation Units as of This page intentionally blank