17. Attachment I- Evaluation Tool.docx

Request For Application Massachusetts Jail/Arrest Diversion Grant Program

ATTACHMENT I

APPLICANT & PROJECT EVALUATION TOOL

Applicant: Type of Program:

Selection Committee Chair: ____________________________________________________

Selection Committee Members:

PRELIMINARY REVIEW

If no, describe non-compliance. If requirements are not met, programmatic/cost proposals are not to be reviewed:

1. Were all required documents, forms and attachments submitted in the Application Packet?

2. Did the response adhere to page limits where applicable?

Yes No

Yes No

{If application is substantively incomplete, review stops here}

APPLICANT QUALIFICATION

If no, describe non-compliance. If requirements are not met, programmatic/cost proposals are not to be reviewed:

{If not, Applicant is not qualified.}

If so, proceed to below to review Project Review.

PROJECT REVIEW

Project Proposal Rating Scale

Step One: Verify that the requirements below were met. If any are not met and/or if any requirement is exceeded indicate in the comment section why either of these findings was made. Note the RFA section stated below sets forth the applicable requirements that must be met.

Step Two: After completing the reviews below, the Application and its various sections need to be given an overall rating, based on the following criteria: The numbers following each criteria section will be used for the purpose of scoring the project proposal.

Excellent (E) – The application is comprehensive, appropriate, reasonable, feasible, and clear. It satisfies all service requirements and exceeds many of the requirements. All applicable preferences are met. No weaknesses are identified. It demonstrates a good understanding of the services to be provided and the issues/barriers that a contractor may need to address when providing services. It is innovative and exceeds the needs of DMH. It exceeds the needs of DMH. (5)

Very Good (VG) -- The application is comprehensive, appropriate, reasonable, feasible, and clear. It satisfies all service requirements and exceeds some of the requirements. Some or all of the applicable preferences are met. No weaknesses are identified. It demonstrates a good understanding of the services to be provided and the issues/barriers that a contractor may need to address when providing services. It is innovative and exceeds the needs of DMH. (4)

Good (G) – The application is comprehensive, appropriate, reasonable, feasible, and clear. It satisfies all the service requirements. It has weaknesses and/or does not exceed any specifications. Identified weaknesses, if any, are minor. It demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the services to be provided and the issues/barriers that a contractor may need to address when providing services. It meets the needs of DMH. (3)

Fair (F) – The application is not fully comprehensive, appropriate, reasonable, feasible or clear. It satisfies most, but not all of the service requirements. Weaknesses are identified; they are more than minor but not substantial. It demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the services to be provided and the issues/barriers that a contractor may need to address when providing services. It is not innovative and/or it does not meet the needs of DMH. (2)

Poor (P) – The application is not comprehensive, appropriate, reasonable or clear. It does not satisfy most of the service requirements and/or substantial weaknesses are identified. It does not demonstrate a reasonable understanding of the services to be provided and the issues/barriers that a contractor may need to address when providing services. It does not meet the needs of DMH. (1)

Project Proposal

COMMENTS

Must be completed on a particular item if it is determined that a rating of “Excellent” or “Poor” is given.

6. Does the Project reflect a prioritized need to DMH?

Yes No

10. Does the proposal describe existing and proposed collaborations for this Project that will enhance it?

Yes No

N/A

12. Are the proposed communities involved with the Project clearly identified?

Yes No

13. Is the purpose and need clear for why the Project was selected?

Yes No

14. Are all Project grant activities identified and are outcome statements clear for each of these activity components?

Yes No

17. Is the Project’s target population clear, including demographics? Are key factors to consider for this population discussed in appropriate detail?

Yes No

18. Does the applicant identify how the Project will operate in a culturally and linguistically competent manner

Yes No

19. Does the applicant identify how the Project will benefit youth and families, military service members, veterans and their families?

Yes No

20. Does the applicant identify if/how the Project will benefit the JDAI Initiative?

Yes No

a. OVERALL RATING ON GENERAL CRITERIA:

CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM (C.I.T.)

COMMENTS

Must be completed on a particular item if it is determined that a rating of “Excellent” or “Poor” is given.

1. How clear and well-articulated is the plan to train law enforcement personnel? Is it fitting with the standardized state curriculum and/or Massachusetts model?

2. How well articulated is the policy review/development plan (for CIT and LE “handling those with mental illnesses”)

3. What is the plan and timetable for CIT implementation? Is there a clear understanding of the distinctive steps to developing CIT?

4. How will the community and key stakeholders be engaged with CIT development?

5. How will the department document relevant data and outcomes for its CIT development and program?

6. Is there a commitment demonstrated, in past and present by the applicant to working effectively with people with mental illnesses in an attempt to divert them from charges/incarceration?

7. Is the proposed method of how someone will get diverted through the CIT team’s efforts well-articulated?

CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER (C.I.T.-T.T.A.C.)

COMMENTS

Must be completed on a particular item if it is determined that a rating of “Excellent” or “Poor” is given.

1. How complete and well-articulated is the proposed CIT-TTAC’s plan and timeline for developing and providing CIT training?

2. What is the proposed CIT-TTAC’s plan for capacity and quantity of trainings?

3. What is their plan for recruitment for partner cities and towns, and trainers? What region would the CIT-TTAC serve?

4. How will their CIT training be consistent with others providing CIT in the Commonwealth and reflect the accepted Memphis model?

5. How clearly is technical assistance described? What sorts of technical assistance will be offered to departments?, Who will provide/receive it? How often will the TTAC meet with the departments/ partners?

6. How will the TTAC assist other departments with appropriate policy review and development? (ex: CIT, “Handling People with Mental Illnesses”, Use of Force)

7. How will the TTAC effectively engage other important stakeholders and key parts of the community for input and involvement?

8. What are the proposed data collections tools and critical outcome measures associated with the CIT-TTAC?

9. Who are the staff involved with the CIT-TTAC? How do their positions support the achievement of the TTAC’s goals?

10. What makes this agency/law enforcement entity ideal for developing a CIT-TTAC?

Co-Response

COMMENTS

Must be completed on a particular item if it is determined that a rating of “Excellent” or “Poor” is given.

1. How well does the proposed project and particular department support diversion from arrest and jail?

2. How well-articulated is the plan for recruiting and integrating a clinician on the police force?

3. What is the plan for how the clinician will perform their assigned duties? Does that fit in keeping with jail diversion activities?

4. What is the plan for training various police personnel? Will the clinician play a role in this training? Are topics identified?

5. Are police and co-response policies proposed or a timeline developed for their completion by the entity that has proposed the project?

6. Will the co-response program engage other important stakeholders and key parts of the community for input and involvement?

7. What are the proposed data collection tools and critical outcome measures associated with the co-response project?

8. What staff have been identified for the co-response program (if any)? Who are they looking to recruit?

Co-Response Technical Assistance Center (C.R.-T.T.A.C.)

COMMENTS

Must be completed on a particular item if it is determined that a rating of “Excellent” or “Poor” is given.

1. What is the proposed Project’s plan for developing CR programs and providing co-response training?

2. How does the Project propose to roll out their capacity and quantity of trainings? In that the model Co-TTAC does not have a specific training curriculum, it will be important for the applicant to reveal details – length, topic, target audience – intended effect.

3. What is the Project’s plan to impact policy and development of new policy, especially as it affects law enforcement interface with people with mental illness? How will it carry out arrest/jail diversion to its intended goal of diversion into treatment?

4. How will the CR-TTAC provide effective technical assistance to other departments and co-responders? How well-articulated is that in the proposed project? How would effective technical assistance look, when applied?

5. What communities/areas would the CR-TTAC be engaged with? Which have signed on through MOU’s and similar agreements?

6. How will the CR-TTAC maximize and optimize the engagement of community resources and stakeholders in the communities they are involved with supporting/educating?

7. Does the Applicant propose data collection tools and critical outcome measures associated with the CR-TTAC?

8. Are staff positions and qualifications proposed for being part of the CR-TTAC reasonable/feasible? How would these positions support the goals/tasks of the CR-TTAC?

9. What is their plan to support the potential growth of Co-Response programs?

COMPONENT JAIL/ARREST DIVERSION PROGRAM

COMMENTS

Must be completed on a particular item if it is determined that a rating of “Excellent” or “Poor” is given.

1. How well articulated and matched is the Project’s plan for selected components that would support the Applicant’s community implementation strategy?

2. What is the plan and timeline for implementing the Project?

3. What is the specific plan and timeline for training police personnel?

4. What is the component JDP Project’s plan for policy review/development in regards to police interaction with people with behavioral health difficulties or crisis?

5. How will the component Project maximize and optimize the engagement of community resources and stakeholders in the community (ies) they are involved with?

6. What are the proposed data collection tools and critical outcome measures associated with the Component project?

7. What staff (if any) are proposed and needed for the Component Project? How would these positions support the goals/tasks of the component Project?

TRAINING AND BACKFILL REIMBURSEMENT

COMMENTS

Must be completed on a particular item if it is determined that a rating of “Excellent” or “Poor” is given.

1. Does the Applicant provide a clear and feasible training plan and how does the Applicant describe its goals for training outcomes that support the Applicant’s overall strategy?

2. Does the Applicant set a goal for the number of personnel trained?

3. What is the Applicant’s plan for data collection/outcome measurements for the proposed Project?

4. Has there been a policy in place for Jail/Arrest Diversion in this department, or a projected policy change discussed in the proposal?

Trainer/Consultant Services

COMMENTS

Must be completed on a particular item if it is determined that a rating of “Excellent” or “Poor” is given.

1. Is there a sound plan for the detailed plan for recruiting and/or developing qualified experts?

2. Is there a sound plan for capacity and quantity of consultation and specific training hours, if known?

3. How does the training and curriculum development plan work in a cohesive fashion with the state’s need to have a consistent curriculum?

4. Is there a plan for recruitment of consultees?

5. What role, if any, will the consultant play in reviewing policy and developing services, including evolving CIT, Co-Response or Component Programs?

6. How clear and detailed is the plan, if any, to have the consultant provide technical assistance (and to whom)?

7. What is the plan for data collection and outcome measurement for consultation services?

COMMUNITY PLANNING PROJECT

COMMENTS

Must be completed on a particular item if it is determined that a rating of “Excellent” or “Poor” is given.

1. How well articulated is the plan for coordinating, conducting and hosting stakeholder/community participation events?

2. What is the proposed plan for formalizing partnerships, affiliations, etc.?

3. What is the intended plan for follow-up actions to provide further directions/steps to developing an arrest/JDP?

4. How will data collection and outcome measures be completed?

5. Are there other special considerations evident in the proposal?

POLICE DROP-OFF CENTER

COMMENTS

Must be completed on a particular item if it is determined that a rating of “Excellent” or “Poor” is given.

1. Is there a well-articulated plan for site-based, mobile or telephonic service that will take direct and immediate referrals from the police?

2. Is the proposed plan appropriate and feasible for identifying and attaching to an existing program/service?

3. What is the proposed staffing pattern? How feasible is the staffing, given the program’s likely needed capacity?

4. Are the specific services are to be provided by the center adequate to serve the target population?

5. Does the proposal describe how intakes and discharges from the program will work? How will the program work effectively with police to have a seamless and safe “warm handoff”?

6. What is the program’s articulated plan for formalizing partnerships, affiliations, MOU’s?

7. Will the proposed location provide good accessibility to partner police departments?

8. Is the program design well developed and feasible?

9. How will the program best prepare for potential medical emergencies and behavioral crisis? How will it manage risk of violence?

10. What is the Applicant’s proposed plan for stakeholder/community involvement?

11. Is the data collection process and outcome measures being proposed adequate and feasible?

b. OVERALL RATING ON PROJECT SPECIFIC CRITERIA:

COST PROPOSAL

· Not App

· Exceeds

· Satisfies

· Fails to Meet

COMMENTS

Must be completed if it is determined that an applicant “Exceeds” or “Fails to Meet” a particular Requirement

COST PROPOSAL RANKING

Step 1: Required Information:

Determine if the Cost Proposal contains the following as indicated:

· Completed Attachment D (Annual Budgets) for FY2018, FY2019 and FY2020 or as applicable for briefer grants

· Accompanying Budget Narrative that explains the use of funds (in keeping with section D’s specifications and limitations)

· Deliverables and an explanation as to why and how the deliverables and payments were determined.

If the Cost Proposal meets the requirements of Step 1, go to Step 2.

If the requirements are not met or the info is not sufficient to enable the Committee to make the determinations required by Steps 2 and 3, the application should be rejected and review of the application should cease.

Step 2: Maximum Obligation Amounts:

Determine if Cost Proposal is within the stated cost corridors set forth in Section (C) of Application Form and RFA Exhibits 1 – 9, or an acceptable explanation is given for any divergence.

If the requirements of Step Two are meet, go to Step 3

If the requirements of Step Two are not met, go to Step 4, Cost Proposal Rating

Step 3: Reasonableness:

___Step Three is done only if a Cost Proposal meets the requirement of Step Two

Determine if the Cost Proposal is reasonable, realistic, and consistent with and fully supports the services described in the RFA and the applicant’s response. Does the proposal include all costs associated with the program? If start-up costs are proposed they cannot exceed $10,000 for the first year of the grant. Start-up costs are within the stated limit set forth in Section (D). While not required, consideration may be given to in-kind supports to the project.

Are the Deliverables and proposed payments reasonable based on the RFA and the response? If any of these requirements are not met, please explain below:

Cost Proposal Rating

Step 4: Findings (Check applicable finding)

Rating

_____ Cost Proposal met the requirements of Step 2 but failed to meet the requirements of Step 3 (Attachment C(s) determined not to be reasonable or realistic, consistent with or fully supportive of the program and/or the response and/or the deliverables and props posed payment are not reasonable.)

Poor

_____ Cost Proposal met the requirements of Steps 2 and 3, but not those of Step 1.

(The Cost Proposal did not contain all the required information. (Note enough information was provided, so that the Cost proposal was not rejected in Step One) Good

_____Cost Proposal met the requirements of Steps 2, 3 and 1.

(Award a “Very Good” if the requirements are met and an “Excellent” if the above requirements are met and no start-up costs or only minimum start-up costs are being requested and/or the propose program costs are less than the maximum amounts stated in the guidelines set forth in Subsection 1.10. ) Circle one:

Very Good

Excellent

Availability

· Not App

· Exceeds

· Satisfies

· Fails to Meet

COMMENTS

*Must be completed if it is determined that an applicant “Exceeds” or “Fails to Meet” a particular Requirement

1. When is the Applicant available for start of Grant activity in the event of an Award?

2. Is the Applicant available for a timely start of Grant activity upon Award?

Yes No

Yes No

Supplier Diversity Review

Supplier Diversity Review: Supplier Diversity Program Plan [Form #1] (required for requests over $150,000) commits a reasonable and feasible percentage of awarded funds to a diverse enterprise supplier. Rate N/A if applicant is asking for less than $150,000 over the life of the grant. If the Provider is asking for $150,000 or more over the life of the grant, give a “Good” if the provider proposes a fixed percentage of the grant amount on certified M/WBE and/or SDVOBE partners and there is no reason to believe that the percentage cannot be met. If a percentage is not given rate a “Poor”. [Note the proposed percentage is to be considered again in the recommendation section].

Is any clarification of any element of the proposal needed to complete the review? Yes No

APPLICATION Rating Calculation

1. Eligibility/Qualified (Y/N): __________

2. Rating of Project Proposal (40%; if no SDP required, 45%): a.___________(20-22.5%) b. _________(20-22.5%)

3. Availability for timely commencement of proposed Grant activities (20%)___________

4. Rating of Cost Proposal (30%; if no SDP required, 35%)_______________________(30-35%)

5. (If applicable), Supplier Diversity Program Plan [Form #1] rating. (10%)______________(0% if under $150K)_____

6. TOTAL SCORE:________________________

Points for Negotiation:

RECOMMENDATION:

After the Committee completes its evaluation of all of the responses, the Committee will make recommendations for grant awards to the DMH Assistant Commissioner for Forensic Services, the Awarding Authority for this RFa.

Recommended For Awards :

Not Recommend For Award:

Notes: