HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10222013 - C.66RECOMMENDATION(S):
APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a contract with Resource
Development Associates in an amount not to exceed $246,000, to provide data collection and program evaluation
services for the County's AB 109 program, for the period November 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014, as recommended
by the Public Protection Committee, subject to the contract being approved as to form by County Counsel.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of the contract, not to exceed $246,000, will be funded through the AB 109 Public Safety Realignment
funds.
BACKGROUND:
As directed by the Board of Supervisors at its February 26, 2013 meeting, the County Administrator’s Office was
tasked with developing and issuing a solicitation for the procurement of data collection and program evaluation
services for the County’s AB 109 Public Safety Realignment program. $246,000 has been allocated in the FY
2012-13 and FY 2013-14 AB 109 Public Safety Realignment budgets for this purpose.
Subsequent to the budget authorization, the County Administrator’s Office drafted a Request for Qualifications
(RFQ) in consultation with the County's Data and Evaluation Committee (DEC). Early in 2013, a work group of
Community Advisory Board (CAB), Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) members, and community members
was established as the “Data and Evaluation Committee” (DEC) to promote the implementation and long-term
sustainability of data collection and analysis, help the County track outcomes, and determine the effectiveness of
policies, programs, and practices that affect offender behavior, reducing recidivism and enhancing public safety.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 10/22/2013 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: L. DeLaney,
925-335-1097
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: October 22, 2013
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: Chris Heck, Deputy
cc:
C. 66
To:Board of Supervisors
From:PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE
Date:October 22, 2013
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Contract Award for Data Collection and Program Evaluation Services for AB 109
The Data and Evaluation Committee convened on July 16 to review a preliminary draft RFQ and provide input on
the RFQ development. The Committee then formed an informal subcommittee of members to provide specific
comments and recommendations on the development of the Draft RFQ. The Community Corrections Partnership and
the PPC reviewed and approved the Draft RFQ prior to its issuance.
RFQ #1307-026 for Data Collection and Program Evaluation Services for the AB 109 Program was issued on August
14, 2013. The RFQ was posted on BidSync, the website the County utilizes for contracting opportunities, and
distributed directly via email to contacts developed by the County’s Reentry Coordinator, Jessie Warner, and staff of
the CAO’s office. A Press Release was issued and a legal notice was posted in the Contra Costa Times regarding the
RFQ opportunity. After its release, an optional responders conference was hosted, via conference call, by the Reentry
Coordinator and Senior Deputy CAO which was attended by more than 25 potential responders. Questions and
answers arising from the responders conference and received in writing were then posted to the County’s website and
distributed to all attendees on the call.
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
RFQ Content
The RFQ was modeled largely on the RFPs the County issued for the AB 109 Community Programs in that it
contained background information about AB 109, the AB 109 service delivery model in Contra Costa County, the
overview of our AB 109 population, and response requirements and instructions. The description of the desired
services is excerpted below (p. 13-14):
B. Services and Desired Outcomes:
In responding to this opportunity to develop a comprehensive data collection and program evaluation strategy,
responders should indicate how they would address the following areas of work and demonstrate capacity and
experience in multiple realms related to this RFQ, such as:
Analysis of existing data practices, data sets, and collection and reporting strategies currently used by
public agencies and non-profit organizations involved with this population;
1.
Assessments of and recommendations regarding data-related infrastructure of public agencies and
community organizations involved with this population;
2.
Development of county-wide, shared definitions for critical elements of AB 109 (e.g., a common definition
or set of definitions for recidivism);
3.
Development of county-wide, shared baseline data sets and common baseline outcome metrics,
benchmarks, and comparison sets;
4.
Development of common policies to support efficient and effective data-gathering, data-sharing, and
data-use among agencies and organizations serving this population;
5.
Analysis and recommendations related to the development of a user-friendly, access-protected, web-based
AB 109 metric dashboard accessible to and readily customizable by various stakeholders.
6.
Development and implementation of formative and summative evaluations for integrated, multi-stakeholder
systems of care;
7.
Applying mixed-methods designs, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative techniques, in evaluation;8.
Assessment and recommendations related to options for data infrastructures and web-based Constituent
Relationship Management (CRM) and Case Management System (CMS) platforms;
9.
Subject-matter research and advice related to AB 109 implementation and evaluation strategies in other
counties in California; and
10.
Development of draft agreements, policies, and procedures to guide data-related activities and data use for
multiple stakeholders (public and private).
11.
The County recognizes that the development of a comprehensive data and evaluation program may involve
several phases of work; these phases may be undertaken by one or more consultants and may be implemented
simultaneously or sequentially, as appropriate.
The Community Advisory Board (CAB) of the Community Corrections Partnership has formed a Data and
Evaluation Committee, which includes members of the CAB, the CCP, and the community. Contractor(s) will be
expected to work collaboratively with the Data and Evaluation Committee throughout the contract period.”
RFQ Review Panel
To conduct the response evaluation and interviews, a Review Panel was established and consisted of the
following members:
Jessie Warner, Contra Costa County Reentry Coordinator1.
Lara DeLaney representing the CAO’s office2.
Kenneth Gallagher, Research and Evaluation Manager, Behavioral Health Division, Contra Costa Health
Services
3.
Deputy Brian Zaiser, Sheriff’s Office, Classification Unit4.
Harlan Grossman, retired Superior Court Judge, representative of the Community Advisory Board and chair
of Data and Evaluation Committee
5.
Vernon Williams, member of the Community Advisory Board and Data and Evaluation Committee,
representing returned citizens
6.
Lesha Roth, Manager in Probation Department7.
Nominations and recommendations for Review Panel members were solicited from the Community Advisory
Board, Board of Supervisors, and the Reentry Coordinator. Note that as requested by the Public Protection
Committee, staff of the Law and Justice System was invited to participate in the Review Panel but was unable to
assist, due to workload commitments associated with implementation of the new case management systems for
Probation and the DA.
The Review Panel work sessions were facilitated by Rebecca Brown, president of Further the Work and a member
of the Data and Evaluation Committee, who volunteered her time and provided an outstanding service to the
Review Panel, as acknowledged by all members. Ms. Brown did not participate in the scoring of the responses or
in the interview process. The Review Panel was convened on September 25, 26, and 27.
As with prior AB 109 RFP and RFQ processes, the Review Panel utilized a “Consensus Scoring Methodology”
for response evaluation and rating, and all members were required to return an Impartiality Statement before
serving in order to ensure there were no individuals with conflicts of interest.
RFP Responses
The County received 10 responses to the RFQ by the deadline of September 20, 2013. The responses received
were from the following agencies, ranked in order of final score:
Name of Responder Proposal
Score
1 Resource Development Associates (RDA)84.5
2 National Council on Crime & Delinquency (NCCD)82.5
3 Hatchuel Tabernik & Associates (HTA)79.0
4 Andrew J. Wong Inc. and Davis Y. Ja and Associates 68.0
5 UC Davis, Regents of 62.0
6 Callahan Group 54.5
7 Optimity Advisors 52.5
8 Saama Technologies 50.0
9 MDM Analytics, Inc.36.0
10 Estrada Consulting 33.0
The official Rating Sheets that provide the consensus scores and comments of the Review Panel for all responses
are included in Attachment A. A summary of the responses in terms of Rating Sheet categories is included in
Attachment B.
The notification of award recommendation has been prepared and distributed. The County received no appeals.
The recommendation of the Review Panel was reviewed by the Data and Evaluation Committee, the Community
Corrections Partnership (CCP), and the Public Protection Committee. The Public Protection Committee concurred
with the recommendation and directed this item be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for action.
The CAO’s office wishes to thank the members of the Review Panel and its facilitator for their service to the
County and their contributions to the success of the AB 109 program.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
If the Board of Supervisors does not authorize this contract, the County will not have any contracted data
collection and program evaluation services for the AB 109 program.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A--Rating Sheets
Attachment B--Summary of Responses