REQUEST FOR QUOTATION 2017-08 Mentoring Services for Children with Incarcerated Parents Addendum #1 Dated September 29, 2016 Contents of Addendum 1 –  Questions submitted with answers 1.

Can we use a current program as the control group if this program already serves the CIP population? ANSWER: According to the RFP (p. 15), “The Applicant must propose an appropriate comparison group design. Ultimate design of the comparison group will be determined jointly by the Contractor and the IMRP. The comparison group … may receive services such as mentoring not designed specifically for CIP, other services, or no services (the final plan will be negotiated with the IMRP); if the comparison group receives services, those services will not be funded under this RFP (though the cost of engaging comparison youths/families in the evaluation will be funded under this RFP)”. So the answer to the question is yes, the comparison group can be provided with an existing program – but as explained below, the IMRP will consider whether the existing program provides an appropriate comparison for the CIP-specific mentoring group. As specified in the RFP, it is important that the comparison group be an appropriate one – i.e., one that allows for an informative comparison. This essentially means that the comparison group should be as similar as possible to the CIP-specific mentoring group, except for the receipt of the CIP-specific mentoring model. This similarity includes several facets: (a) personal and family characteristics (age, income, etc.), (b) motivation to receive services and to participate in the evaluation, (c) timing – if comparison group participants receive a program, they should begin the program and evaluation within the same time frame as participants in the CIP-specific mentoring group, and (d) treatment other than the CIP-specific mentoring model. Regarding point ‘d’ (similar treatment other than the CIP mentoring model), ideally the groups would only differ in terms of the presence or absence of the CIP-specific mentoring. This could mean comparing a CIP-specific mentoring group with a no-intervention group. It could also mean comparison with a group receiving mentoring not specifically tailored to CIP (i.e., the difference between mentoring groups is the CIP-specific focus for one group but not the comparison group). It could also mean comparing two groups which both receive similar non-mentoring services, one of which also gets the CIP-specific mentoring program in addition. Acceptable but less informative (and less preferred) would be a comparison between a group receiving only the CIP-specific mentoring program and another group receiving only a different type of program. This design is less preferred because it is more difficult to interpret the results (e.g., if no difference is found it could be because both programs are highly and equally effective, or because both are completely ineffective – there is no clear way to tell which conclusion is more valid).

2.

Can you identify who were the previous grant recipients from IMRP? ANSWER: This is the second time the IMRP has released an RFP for mentoring services for children with incarcerated parents. The first time was last year and no award was made. In 2008, we released RFP# S078078 to “Provide interventions for at-risk children/youth of incarcerated parents in CT”, which did not specify the intervention type, and did make an award for mentoring

services. That mentoring grant recipient was Nutmeg Big Brothers Big Sisters which subcontracted with Big Brothers Big Sisters Southwest and Big Brothers Big Sisters Southeast to provide mentoring services to children with incarcerated parents in their three different geographic regions 3.

Can incentives be used for mentors as well as clients? ANSWER: CCSU has no objections to this.

4.

Can we provide group and/or individual mentoring? Can some receive group vs one to one mentoring? ANSWER: Our goal is to implement and measure a singular mentoring model, and potentially be able to recommend replication of this model. Therefore, the model may involve group or individual mentoring services. However, in order for an accurate comparison to be made between the effects of the CIP-specific mentoring model and the comparison group, all CIP receiving the treatment service must receive the same intervention

5.

Can program staff serve as mentors? ANSWER: We want to measure the impact a single treatment model has with CIP. It would be problematic for some mentors to be paid staff (i.e., mentoring as part of their job responsibilities) while other mentors are volunteers. If all youths receive mentoring from a paid staff member that is fine. Alternatively, if the model involves volunteer mentors and staff members volunteer outside their job responsibilities that is fine as well. But a mix of volunteer and paid staff mentors would not be acceptable.

6.

What information will be required regarding the incarcerated parent (i.e DOC inmate#, Facility Location)? ANSWER: For contract monitoring purposes, and to ensure that appropriate children are participating in the program, the IMRP would like the child’s caregiver to sign a form confirming that the child has an incarcerated caregiver. We do not intend to request specific information about the incarcerated parent’s placement.

7.

If CIP moves out of catchment area, can we continue to follow them for evaluation purposes? ANSWER: Yes, in fact it is important to do so. The IMRP’s evaluation will include “intent to treat” analyses which include follow-up data from all those who are assigned to either the CIP mentoring or comparison groups, regardless of how long they participate in services. Doing this requires following up with all participants, including those who move.

8.

Can we complete required data follow up contacts with clients via phone? ANSWER: Applicants are free to propose the method of survey administration. We recognize that there are benefits and costs to different methods, and applicants should provide a rationale for their approach. We also want to emphasize that the method of survey administration is only one part of a plan for keeping families engaged in outcome assessments, as described in the RFP, section 2.4.3. If applicants propose phone contact for survey administration they should consider how this relates to other aspects of the plan – e.g., if incentives are provided, how respondents will receive the incentives.

9.

Is Indirect cost rate allowed? If so, what is the maximum amount? ANSWER: Including indirect costs in your budget is allowed. Since the funding used to support this program is not part of a federal grant, CCSU is not required to abide by indirect cost standards; therefore, there is no set limit on the maximum amount of indirect costs permitted. However, the RFP does indicate that “Applicants shall demonstrate in their budget narratives how they will maximize cost effectiveness of grant expenditures” (section 3.5.1.).

10.

Please elaborate about expenses that would be allowable for the different groups that participate in the program. Are there any expenses to support work with incarcerated parents, members of control groups, family members, or children, or mentors that would be prohibited? Are incentives permitted for all of these participants? ANSWER: The only expense listed in the question for which the IMRP would not provide resources is services for the comparison group. However, funds could be used as an incentive to comparison group members for participation in the evaluation.

11.

How much control does the grantor have over what the final program looks like? And how different does it need to be from an existing CIP mentoring program? If an applicant has an existing mentoring program for children of incarcerated parents, and in creating its new program, there are certain elements of the current program that the applicant would like to retain, would that be permitted? ANSWER: It is permissible to retain elements of an existing program as long as they are consistent with the RFP. The IMRP anticipates having significant input in the planning phase, but ultimately the IMRP’s approval of the model (which is necessary to move to the implementation phase) will be based on a judgment that it adequately “(a) targets key outcomes specific to CIP, (b) provides training to mentors and program staff in understanding CIP challenges and how to work with them, (c) includes enhanced supports for CIP and their families, and (d) incorporates elements of effective practice, including involvement of the family in the mentoring process” (section 2.3.2, p. 9).

12.

Please clarify what information is needed in Appendix 1 regarding references. Specifically, our questions are: a. By “similar size,” are you referring to similar size as CCSU or as the applicant’s organization? ANSWER: “Similar size” refers to experience with institutions similar in size to CCSU. b. Are you requesting information only about any state agencies we have worked with, or about any institution of similar size that we have worked with? Do state colleges and public schools, for example, qualify as state agencies? ANSWER: We are requesting information on experience NOT ONLY with State agencies, but with other institutions, preferably of similar size, where comparable services were performed. In this case, comparable experience with other colleges and universities, Federal agencies, cities/towns, or other notfor-profit organizations may be applicable. c. What qualifies as “experience with?" Formal and informal partnerships? One-time experiences and referrals? ANSWER: The statement on Appendix 1 reads “Any experience with…” Normally respondents present their strongest experiences or those that are most applicable to the specific services being requested in the RFP. For instance, partnerships may be viewed as more impressive than a referral. Please remember that CCSU is only requesting five references.

13.

What is the mentor comparison group? ANSWER: There is not a mentor comparison group per se. The only comparison group required by the RFP consists of a group of CIP not receiving the CIP-specific mentoring model, as described in section 2.4.2. Whether the youths in the comparison group receive mentoring (or other services) is for the Applicant to propose.

14.

Must the original proposal be submitted on paper, or can both submissions be on a CD or flash drive? ANSWER: Yes. CCSU requires that the original proposal be on paper per our current record retention policy.

15.

Is the unit cost of $2,750 to $3,250 exclusive of evaluation and administrative costs or does it only reflect program costs? There may be additional costs to provide enhanced case management services they may not be provided in a regular mentoring program. ANSWER: The unit cost of $2,750 to $3,250 per youth for one year of services (in programs with levels of services similar to what the IMRP anticipates) is inclusive of all program costs. This includes enhanced support for CIP and/or the CIP’s family as well as administrative expenses, but does not include costs related to the implementation of the evaluation. Please note that “the Applicant shall provide a reasonable budget for expenses needed to provide high quality services accomplishing the RFP’s objectives” (section 2.2).

16.

Is funding contingent on specific benchmarks? ANSWER: Once an award is made, the awardee and IMRP will develop a contractual agreement that identifies expectations of the work to be performed.

17.

Training: RFP states that the model must include training and support for mentors and staff. It also states that CIP-focused training will be provided by the IMRP and the applicant need not include a curriculum or training design. Is IMRP only providing CIP-focused training for agency staff and mentors and the applicant is required to provide training normally provided in a regular mentoring program? Please clarify ANSWER: The IMRP will train staff, the Contractor will train mentors. The IMRP’s training of staff will be on CIP-specific concerns with the goal to “prepare staff to train mentors regarding CIP, provide supervision to mentors on CIP-related issues (e.g., coaching mentors on dealing with challenges such as discussing the parent’s incarceration), and provide support to children and families” (Section 2.3.2.2). The Contractor’s training of mentors will include CIP-focused training as well as mentor training regularly provided by the Contractor.

18.

Can a mentor have more than one mentee? Will group mentoring models be considered? ANSWER: Yes, a mentor can have more than one mentee (i.e., group mentoring models will be considered). A group or individual model may be proposed by the Applicant, as long as a single model is applied the same way to all CIP.

19.

Evaluation: Is the applicant responsible for identifying all performance measures in the RFP response or is completed during the first year planning period? ANSWER: The RFP states in section 3.3.5: “For the application, Applicants shall indicate an understanding of these requirements and discuss how they will gather the required data, should they receive funding.” Applicants need not submit a detailed description of each performance measure, but should provide enough information to convince the RFP committee that they understand the requirements and will be able to fulfill them (e.g., describing a system currently in place that captures the types of information needed).

20.

Outcome Assessment: The RFP states that you anticipate that a pre/post-test approach will be used. Is the applicant expected to develop all instruments including pre/post-test, assessments, surveys, etc., or are these instruments developed jointly by the applicant and IMRP? Is the applicant responsible for developing tools to capture all outcomes data or are these tools developed during the one-year planning period? ANSWER: Specific measures (instruments, assessments, data sources) used in the evaluation will be jointly determined by the Contractor and the IMRP during the planning phase. Applicants are not expected to develop or propose specific measures.

21.

Fidelity Assessment: Does the applicant develop the fidelity assessment tool or is this tool developed jointly by the applicant and IMRP.

ANSWER: Fidelity assessment procedures will be developed jointly by the Contractor and the IMRP during the planning phase. 22.

Performance Measure: Please clarify expectations for the comparison group. The RFP stated that the comparison group may receive services or no services. If the comparison group receives services, they will not be funded under this RFP. The performance measure chart is tracking the number of youth served in the comparison group, the number and percentage of program and comparison mentors who complete training, number of program and comparison youth-mentor matches retained. Please clarify the minimum service requirements for youth assigned to be in the comparison group. At a minimum are you requiring that all youth – program and comparison be matched with a mentor? ANSWER: There is no minimum service requirement for youths assigned to the comparison group. If the Contractor and the IMRP agree on an evaluation design including a no-services comparison group, the only performance measure to be reported for that group would be the number of youths in the comparison group. If the agreed-upon comparison group involves services other than mentoring, the measure would be the number of youths receiving those services in the comparison group, the number of youths enrolled at the beginning of each reporting period, the number of NEW youths receiving services during each reporting period, and the number leaving services during each reporting period. If the comparison group involves another (non-CIP-specific) mentoring model, then all performance measures would apply as stated in the RFP.

23.

Human Research Participant Requirements: It is unclear if IMRP or the applicant will be developing the IRB protocols for obtaining informed consent from research participants. It only states that IMRP will be responsible for obtaining the necessary approvals, etc. ANSWER: The IMRP will take the lead in developing the IRB protocols (including informed consent) in collaboration with the Contractor.

24.

Enrollment Criteria: How do you define children with incarcerated parents? Can the program serve a child whose parent was previously incarcerated but released prior to enrollment in the program? Must the parent be in prison at the time the child is enrolled in the program? Is a child still eligible for services if the parent is released from prison during the first 12 months of service? ANSWER: As indicated in section 2.3.1, the “target population includes children whose parent is incarcerated at the time of intake into services. For this program, the term ‘incarcerated’ refers to: confinement in a facility, other than one’s primary residence, as prescribed by state or federal correctional or judicial authorities. Parents include biological parents, legal guardians, or caregivers with whom the child has had a relationship prior to incarceration.” The child is eligible to continue to participate in the program if their parent is released from confinement following the child’s intake.

25.

Are there exclusion criteria? If so, please describe. ANSWER: The RFP defines the eligible population in terms of inclusion criteria, and there are no additional exclusion criteria. In order to be considered eligible to participate in the CIP specific mentoring program or the comparison group, children must meet the qualifications outlined in the RFP (section 2.3.1.), live in Connecticut, and be appropriate for a mentoring intervention.

26.

Can an agency use existing clients whose parents have or are currently incarcerated as the control group? ANSWER: The RFP does not forbid this approach but the IMRP does not recommend it. It is important that the comparison group be as similar as possible to the CIP-specific mentoring group, except for the receipt of the CIP-specific mentoring model. This similarity includes several facets listed in the earlier response, and the most relevant one here is similarity in timing – if comparison group participants receive a program, they should begin the program and evaluation within the same time frame as participants in the CIP-specific mentoring group.

27.

Can we recruit, enroll and assign 30 kids to an existing mentoring program as the control group or do we need to create a new 1:1 mentoring program to act exclusively as the control group? ANSWER: Either an existing mentoring program (not CIP-specific) or development of a new 1:1 mentoring program would be acceptable for the comparison group. Note that services are not required for the comparison group. According to the RFP (section 2.4.2), “The Applicant must propose an appropriate comparison group design. Ultimate design of the comparison group will be determined jointly by the Contractor and the IMRP. The comparison group…may receive services such as mentoring not designed specifically for CIP, other services, or no services (the final plan will be negotiated with the IMRP); if the comparison group receives services, those services will not be funded under this RFP (though the cost of engaging comparison youths/families in the evaluation will be funded under this RFP)”. Please see our response to question 1 for more information on proposing an appropriate comparison group.

28.

What is the total amount of funding anticipated for this grant? ANSWER: The IMRP has not set a total amount, but rather asks Applicants to “provide a reasonable budget for expenses needed to provide high quality services accomplishing the RFP’s objectives” (section 2.2). “Programs with levels of services similar to what the IMRP anticipates generally cost in the range of $2,750 to $3,250 per youth for one year; the Applicant must justify whatever cost is budgeted for services. Regarding the number of youths Applicants must serve, see Section 2.4.1.”

29.

Section 2.3.4 of the RFP indicates that you are looking for established mentoring program and then list a series of items that serve as proof to an established mentoring program. does not have an established “Mentoring” program however, we provide youth with Case Managers who work with youth for up to a three year period. These (managers) provide not only case management but also counseling sessions, crisis support, referral services, connections to other caring adults and other support services. What is your definition of a Mentor? What qualifies an agency to provide mentorship to youth. ANSWER: We do not give a specific definition of mentor but are willing to consider any model an Applicant thinks is appropriate. In terms of agency qualifications, we define an experienced mentoring program as one for which the Applicant can provide the materials described in section 2.3.4 “Established Mentoring Programs”.

30.

We are in the process of developing a mentoring connection for the youth and staff at . I read in the RFP that applicants must be able to present a clear plan on how they are going to establish a youth mentoring program. Is that establishment of the Youth Mentoring Program allowed to happen while funds are being provided to the agency, or does the program have to be designed prior to the funds being awarded? ANSWER: The RFP states that a detailed CIP-specific mentoring model must be proposed as part of the application, so that part of mentoring program development cannot occur during the planning phase (though we anticipate that the model will be refined and finalized in collaboration with the IMRP during the planning phase). Other aspects of program development not required as part of the application may occur during the planning period, such as developing necessary capacity and expertise.

31.

If an agency is not awarded or the funds are not awarded/funds are pulled by the funder, what communication will be provided to the applicants regarding reasons for not awarding, pulling or discontinuing of funds from CCSU? Last year, this opportunity was available but not awarded to any applicants. Were there significant changes to the grant or did you have different expectations from the applicants. applied to a very similar RFP for 2015 – 2016 but after submitting the proposal we never received word as to why there was no award? So our question is, what there a specific reason

funds were not awarded? Did the applicants not submit what you were looking for in a mentoring model? Were there to few proposals submitted? ANSWER: Applicants can always follow up on awards (and non-awards) by contacting Tome Brodeur at [email protected] or 860-832-2531. The previous RFP mentioned here was not awarded because, upon review of the responses, it was determined that the RFP itself was not as focused as was intended. 32.

Is he funder or the grantee determine the follow up intervals for surveys? ANSWER: The follow-up intervals will be determined jointly by the Contractor and the IMRP during the planning phase.

33.

Is 18 month follow up interval required? ANSWER: The 18-month follow-up is not a requirement of the RFP; the intervals mentioned (6, 12, and/or 18 months) were examples. Intervals will be determined jointly by the Contractor and the IMRP during the planning phase. However, the follow-up interval would need to be acceptable to the IMRP.

34.

What is the total number of clients to be served under this grant? ANSWER: The RPF states in section 2.4.1. that “The Contractor must, over three years, recruit and engage a sample of CIP large enough for valid statistical inference, including at least 90 CIP (30 per year) served under the new CIP-specific mentoring model with complete data (not including cases with missing data due to attrition etc.) and at least the same number in the comparison group.” The number of clients served depends on effectiveness at engaging clients in the evaluation – the higher the proportion of clients engaged in full participation (with complete data), the lower the number of clients needed to reach 90 with complete data. Applicants should plan for some attrition (examples from previous work are described at the top of p. 15), which means more than 90 clients would need to be served.

35.

Is follow up reporting needed after year 5? ANSWER: No, the final report will be due at the end of year 5 (unless the Contractor and IMRP agree to do otherwise).

36.

Is payment based on performance or line item? ANSWER: Once an applicant is selected, the awardee and the IMRP will agree to contract terms and finalize an agreement. The contract will include a budget and payment schedule. Each scheduled payment is contingent “upon submission of written progress report satisfactory to IMRP”. These progress reports are due quarterly and summarize activities performed during that quarter in relation to contractual obligations and expenses. Payment is determined by the payment schedule, in consideration of performance and corresponding expenses.

37.

Can an applicant submit a proposal that includes group mentoring? ANSWER: See answer to question 18 above.

38.

Does this RFP extend to children of caregivers who are incarcerated (not just incarcerated parents)? i.e. Johnny lives with his Aunt (legal guardian), and his aunt is incarcerated. ANSWER: Section 2.3 states “Parents include biological parents, legal guardians, or caregivers with whom the child has had a relationship prior to incarceration. Furthermore, child-clients must be aware of the parental incarceration in order to participate in this mentoring program.” Therefore, anyone with a significant caregiving relationship with the child would qualify. All other terms, conditions and specifications in the RFP remain the same. End of Addendum #1