Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-02-1981
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1981
>
Agenda - 11-02-1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2016 11:02:23 AM
Creation date
10/5/2016 10:57:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/2/1981
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19811102
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1980's\1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
POSSIBLE EXPECTATIONS/USES/RESULTS OF <br /> AN ORANGE COUNTY NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROCESS : <br /> COMMISSIONER' S RANKING <br /> KEY FOR AVERAGE RANKING: 3 = High Priority Outcome <br /> 2 = Medium Priority Outcome <br /> 1 = Low Priority Outcome <br /> Average <br /> Individual Ranking <br /> Commissioners ' (Arithmetic <br /> Rankings Mean) Potential Outcome of Needs Assessment <br /> R M L I. DIRECT OUTCOMES (EXPLICITLY STATED IN <br /> REPORT) <br /> 3 3 .0 (1) Assessment of how the current level <br /> of service fits the need . <br /> 4 1 2.5 (2) What are the priority needs in the <br /> view of the broad community. <br /> 3 2 2,6 (3) Determine availability of services <br /> for those needing them. <br /> 3 2 2 .6 (4) A comprehensive inventory of what <br /> services are currently offered. <br /> 3 2 2.6 <br /> (5) Assist agencies in planning for <br /> services and formulating their <br /> bud e <br /> g t <br /> 2 3 2.4 (6) Identify duplication of services . <br /> 3 2 2.2 (7) Define gaps in service . <br /> 2 1 2 2.0 (8) Project future (long range) needs <br /> in Orange County <br /> R . L II. POSSIBLE DIRECT OUTCOME (DATA AVAIL- <br /> ABILITY UNCERTAIN) <br /> 3 2 1 .6 (1) Recommendations for geographic <br /> distribution of services . <br /> R M L III. INDIRECT OUTCOME (REPORT USEFUL, BUT <br /> NOT SUFFICIENT FOR PURPOSE) <br /> 5 3.0 (1) Ability to develop priorities for <br /> funding by commissioners , county <br /> staff, and agency boards and staff. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.