NWSDS APS Screening Study RFP.pdf

Request for Proposals

Evaluating Local vs. Centralized APS Screening Models

Issued by: NorthWest Senior and Disability Services (NWSDS) 3410 Cherry Avenue NE Salem, Oregon 97303 503-304-3400 nwsds.org

Program Area: Adult Protective Services (APS)

RFP Issue Date: March 18, 2026

Proposal Deadline: April 17, 2026

Project Overview

NorthWest Senior and Disability Services (NWSDS) is seeking a qualified research partner to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of Adult Protective Services (APS) screening models, specifically examining the impact of local office-based screening versus centralized screening systems.

This study will assess operational effectiveness, consumer outcomes, timeliness, accuracy of screening determinations, and system sustainability under both models. The evaluation will include quantitative and qualitative analysis and provide evidence-based recommendations to inform future policy and structural decisions.

APS screening is the critical entry point into protective services. The structure of screening— whether localized or centralized—directly influences response timeliness, risk identification accuracy, cross-program collaboration, and ultimately consumer safety. Screening is the skilled interviewing process used to gather and assess information in order to determine eligibility for APS response. Per administrative rule 411-020-0060(4)(a-d) reported concerns must meet the definition of abuse or self-neglect including, but not limited to: the alleged victim’s current level of functioning, demographic information and history of the current concern, review of agency records related to the reported concern and gathering information from collateral sources.

History of the APS Program

Adult Protective Services (APS) programs were established to:

Protect vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect, exploitation, and self-neglect Ensure timely investigation and intervention Promote autonomy while mitigating risk Coordinate services across agencies and systems

In Oregon, APS operates under Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 411-020) and is required to:

Screen reports of abuse Triage based on risk and response timelines Provide and document risk assessment of alleged victims Initiate investigations within mandated timeframes Provide appropriate resources for victims’ safety Close cases within required deadlines (60 days facility/120 days community)

Historically, APS programs operate with local screening models, where screeners are embedded within district/local offices. These models allowed:

Direct collaboration between screeners and investigators Immediate face to face response with the reporter Knowledge of local resources and providers Local consultation based on local resources and interventions available for individuals Immediate escalation of high-risk concerns Real-time supervisory input Ability to collaborate timely with case managers and eligibility specialist assigned to the case

Recently, a movement toward centralized screening models has emerged, often aimed at increasing standardization and administrative efficiency. However, the long-term impact of centralized screening within this jurisdiction has not been fully studied, particularly with regard to:

Risk detection Timeliness of service delivery Interdisciplinary coordination

Project Goals

The primary goals of this research study are:

1. Evaluate screening accuracy under local vs. centralized models

2. Measure timeliness compliance with OAR response requirements

3. Assess consumer safety outcomes (including repeat referrals, ROSEs, and critical incidents)

4. Examine workload impact on investigators and supervisors

5. Evaluate cross-program communication effectiveness

6. Assess staff morale and sustainability implications

7. Provide data-driven recommendations for system design

Research Questions

The study should address, at minimum:

1. Does centralized screening improve or reduce compliance with OAR response timelines?

2. Does centralized screening impact substantiation rates or screening accuracy?

3. Are repeat referrals more or less frequent under centralized screening?

4. How does centralized screening affect:

o Communication between screeners and investigators?

o Collaboration with licensing, risk intervention, and case management?

5. Does centralized screening increase or decrease investigator workload pressures?

6. What are the fiscal implications of each model?

7. Does centralized screening increase the workload on the local office supervisors/investigators due to incompleteness and/or inaccurate information?

8. How does each model impact consumer trust and engagement?

9. How does each model address person centered care and trauma informed approaches for consumers?

Methodology Requirements

The selected research partner should propose a methodology that includes:

Quantitative Analysis

Comparison of screening data pre- and post-centralization Timeliness metrics Substantiation rates Late case trends Repeat referral rates Critical incident trends

Qualitative Analysis

Structured interviews with:

o APS Screeners o Investigators o Supervisors o Risk Intervention staff o Case Managers/Eligibility Specialists Focus groups Consumer impact interviews (if appropriate)

Comparative Review

Literature review of national APS screening models Review of other states’ centralized screening outcomes Review Child Protective Service centralized screening outcomes

Deliverables

Interim findings report Final comprehensive report Executive summary Policy recommendation brief Presentation to leadership

Selection Criteria for Research Partner

Respondents must demonstrate:

Experience in public sector human services research Familiarity with Adult Protective Services programs Experience conducting system-level evaluations Ability to analyze administrative datasets (CAM/OA or equivalent) Strong qualitative research methodology expertise Understanding of regulatory frameworks (e.g., OAR compliance) Experience presenting findings to executive leadership

Preference may be given to:

Academic institutions Public policy research organizations Firms with APS-specific evaluation experience

Evaluation Criteria for Proposals

Proposals will be evaluated on:

Criteria Weight Methodological strength High APS subject matter expertise High Experience with similar evaluations High Cost effectiveness Moderate

Project Timeline

RFP Issued: March 18, 2026 Proposal Deadline: April 17, 2026 Selection Announcement: May 4, 2026 Project Start: within 30 days of fully executed contract Interim Report: three (3) months Final Report: six (6) months

Proposal Submissions Instructions

Proposers must submit their complete proposal electronically via email to:

contract.fiscal@nwsds.org

Proposals must be received no later than 5:00 PM (Pacific Time) on April 17, 2026. Late submissions may not be considered.

Proposals must be submitted as a single PDF document. If file size exceeds email limits, proposers are responsible for coordinating alternative electronic delivery with NWSDS prior to the deadline.

Questions regarding this RFP may also be directed to the email address above.

Importance of This Study

APS screening is not merely administrative intake—it is the front door to protection for vulnerable adults.

Decisions about screening structure should be:

Data-informed Risk-informed Consumer-centered Operationally sustainable

This study will ensure that structural decisions are guided by measurable outcomes rather than administrative assumptions.

Timeline feasibility Moderate Ability to provide actionable recommendations High