PO27-012 FY27 Safe Model SSJF 260420 signed.pdf

Sole Source Justification Form

Version 7.01 Page 1 of 10

Bulletin Reference Number 27-418DCFS-PROCU-B-51264

Requesting Agency/University Department of Children and Family Services

Sole Source Justification Form - Part I Section I - General Information

Department/Bureau/Section: Operations - Child Protection

Need Identified Date: Jan 14, 2026 Supply/Service Need By Date: Jul 1, 2026

Project Title: Safety Assessment Family Evaluation (SAFE) Model

Vendor: Action 4 Child Protection

Provide a description of the supplies or services required:

The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services requires the continued implementation of the Safety Assessment Family Evaluation (SAFE) Model, a comprehensive, copyrighted child safety decision-making framework developed and exclusively owned by Action 4 Child Protection.

The SAFE Model provides DCFS with a single integrated framework for assessing child safety across the full case lifecycle — from intake through case closure — covering all maltreatment types and all six defined decision points. Services include ongoing implementation support across Infrastructure, Installation, and Full Implementation phases, encompassing staff training, coaching and case consultation, practice and policy development, fidelity review, IT system integration with IllinoisConnect, and project management. The Safe@Home component, which provides community-based in-home safety management services as part of the comprehensive SAFE practice model, is also included in the scope of work.

DCFS began SAFE Model implementation in FY22 following a FY20 Chapin Hall evaluation that identified specific structural deficiencies in DCFS's prior Child Endangerment Risk Assessment Protocol (CERAP). Implementation is currently active across multiple DCFS regions statewide. The FY27 contract covers the sixth year of this multi-year phased implementation, with a prior multi-million dollar investment across FY22 through FY26 under four executed contracts.

Value: Estimated Value of Initial Term, this Change Order or Amendment: 5,704,875

Will this Sole Source amend a Professional or Artistic Services contract? Yes No

*Sole Source may not be used for amendments for Professional or Artistic Services if the amendment would increase the value by more than 5% of the initial award or extend the term by more than 60 days.

Type: New Sole Source

Version 7.01 Page 2 of 10

Bulletin Reference Number 27-418DCFS-PROCU-B-51264

Requesting Agency/University Department of Children and Family Services

Section II - Proposed Term

One-Time Purchase Term Contract

Estimated Contract Begin Date: Jul 1, 2026

Estimated Contract End Date: Jun 30, 2027

Number of Potential Renewals: 0

Length of Each Renewal in Months: 0

Total Value of All Renewals: 0

If a Term Contract, does the term, including renewals, exceed 12 months? Yes No

Section III - Funding Source Select the type of funding to be used (Check all that apply): State Appropriate Funds Federal Funds Other (Explain):

Section IV - Sole Source Justification

This purchase is economically only available from a single source primarily because it is: (If "Other" explain in one sentence)

Items are Copyrighted or Patented and the Items are Only Available from the Holder

Are there secondary justification(s) for this sole source? Yes No

Another justification that this purchase is only available from a sole source is because it is:

See attachment for measurable non-financial success outcomes.

Another justification that this purchase is only available from a sole source is because it is:

Version 7.01 Page 3 of 10

Bulletin Reference Number 27-418DCFS-PROCU-B-51264

Requesting Agency/University Department of Children and Family Services

Section V - Purchase History

Has the Agency or University Purchased these supplies or services in the past? Yes No

Term Term From Term To Value Description Contract Number Type

1 07/01/2025 06/30/2026 5,600,430 SAFE Model 3079969016 Sole Source

2 05/01/2024 06/30/2025 5,203,770 SAFE Model 3079969015 Sole Source

3 05/01/2023 06/30/2024 4,220,480 SAFE Model 3079969014 Sole Source

4 05/01/2022 06/30/2023 2,960,231 SAFE Model 3079969012 Sole Source

If more than 10, or if other comments, explain:

Section VI - Business Rationale

1. Provide a detailed explanation of the need for the supplies or services:

The current model, CERAP, has been in use since 1996, and came into existence upon the passing of Senate Bill 1357, which became PA 88-614 in response to increased maltreatment of children in Illinois. PA 88-614 required DCFS to form a multi-disciplinary task force to develop and implement a child endangerment risk assessment protocol. The task force wrote CERAP based on another state’s form, and DCFS has modified and maintained it since.

DCFS is charged with ensuring the safety of Illinois youth. DCFS needs of a comprehensive safety decision-making model and intervention framework (tool) to help facilitate that goal. Risk and safety assessment decision making tools do not replace clinical judgment, rather they supplement solid practices utilizing a combination of approaches and tools. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Children's Bureau, the Capacity Building Center for State, implementation is critical, case workers must be adequately trained and supervised to ensure fidelity to the model.

The Department needs to continue the full implementation model from intake to case closure that can be used throughout the life of the case, along with implementation support, training and technical assistance. This assessment process incorporates gathering information related to family behaviors, conditions, and circumstances across six domains including: the Extent of Maltreatment, the Surrounding Circumstances of the Maltreatment, Child Functioning, Adult Functioning, General Parenting Practices, and Disciplinary Practices. The SAFE Model provides the framework to make a safety determination utilizing the interplay between the threats of danger and the things that might mitigate the threats of danger. The required specifications are for the Tool are to guide the CPSW to gather sufficient and relevant information to make an informed decision about whether a child is safe or unsafe.

DCFS is in the middle of the model that determines whether each child in the home is safe or unsafe due to impending danger by automatically generates a safety determination based on the investigator’s selections. The tool provides a concrete and systematic approach to critical thinking and decision making. It does not require long narratives to be written by the investigator, rather it guides the child protection worker’s assessment and decision-making through the same Decision Process Flow every time. This is an ongoing service until the SAFE Model has been fully installed and end users have been trained.

Version 7.01 Page 4 of 10

Bulletin Reference Number 27-418DCFS-PROCU-B-51264

Requesting Agency/University Department of Children and Family Services

2. Provide a list and describe in detail the specifications required to satisfy the need:

The vendor will continue to provide a model/tool to help staff improve decision making and ultimately safety outcomes for Illinois youth. The tool/model must be able to be used from referral to case closure, used to assess safety for all types of maltreatment, and must be continually updated to reflect current research and field practice. The tool/model must be grounded in research and proven effective by use in other states and jurisdictions, be easy to use, produce practical results, and measure what it is intended to measure.

Perhaps most importantly, the tool/model must provide consistent assessments/conclusions across users and work similarly with diverse families throughout Illinois.

This tool will reduce maltreatment because it will provide clear direction for front line staff in making the correct decision about the safety of a child.

The tool must include and be able to guide the case worker to gather sufficient and relevant information to make an informed decision about whether a child is safe or unsafe. It must guide their decision-making process by:

• assess the need for an urgent response,

• review the 6 domains of family functioning,

• identification of whether there is a threat of danger,

• assessment of each parent/caregiver protective capacity to control any threat of danger,

• assess impending threats to guide staff to establish a in-home or out-of-home safety plan, and

• upon reunification confirm safety threats have been eliminated,

• upon case closure, assess family functioning and support network, to determine safety.

In continuation of implementation of the tool/model DCFS must require extensive technical assistance from the developer/purveyor to install the program and move it from initial (pilot) to full implementation. This will include training all staff, creating new forms, training materials for each phase of the model implementation, intervention manuals, integrating all changes into existing DCFS policies and procedures, adapting the model to fit within our IT system.

3. Provide detail explaining the justification selected in Section IV to explain why the requested supplies or services are the only ones available that can satisfy the agency or university requirements?

The SAFE Model — including its assessment instruments, intervention manuals, training curriculum, fidelity review tools, and all related implementation materials — is the exclusive copyrighted intellectual property of Action 4 Child Protection. This is documented in Section 4.9 of all executed DCFS SAFE Model contracts, which establish that Action 4 Child Protection holds all intellectual property rights including copyright, trademark, patent, and trade secret in the Works, and that the State holds only a non-exclusive, revocable license to use the Works solely for implementation of the SAFE Model.

No other vendor can legally provide these services. The copyright prohibition is absolute — no third party can reproduce, deliver, or certify training on the SAFE Model's instruments or curriculum without Action 4 Child Protection's authorization, which has not been granted to any other vendor. This is not a matter of preference or qualifications — it is a legal restriction on the availability of the supplies and services.

The alternatives evaluated by DCFS — Structured Decision Making and Safety Organized Practice — are distinct frameworks with different tools, different assessment structures, and different implementation requirements. They are not interchangeable with the SAFE Model. DCFS has invested substantial funds over four years building its child safety decision-making infrastructure, staff training, IT system integrations, and supervisory review processes around the SAFE Model's specific framework. Substituting an alternative framework would require dismantling that infrastructure entirely and rebuilding from the beginning under a different model — it would not satisfy the same need.

The sole source basis is copyright exclusivity under 44 Ill. Adm. Code 1.2025(b)(5). The supplies and services required are legally available from only one source.

Version 7.01 Page 5 of 10

Bulletin Reference Number 27-418DCFS-PROCU-B-51264

Requesting Agency/University Department of Children and Family Services

4. What are the unique features of the supplies or services that are not available in any other product or by any other vendor? Provide specific quantifiable factors/qualifications:

No other vendor can write, implement, or provide certified training for the copyrighted SAFE Model. The following documents specific unique features not available from any other product or vendor, drawn from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Children's Bureau Showcase: Safety Outcomes and Decision-Making Approaches (Children's Bureau Contract No.

HHSP233201400033C), a vendor-funded quasi-experimental study by Kaye, Ph.D. and Reyes, Ph.D. using methodology consistent with Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse standards (Kaye & Reyes, 2021), and the executed DCFS contract record.

Federal Evidence Standing. The ACF Showcase credits the SAFE Model as "the first comprehensive safety decision-making model," implemented across 45 jurisdictions and territories nationwide. The Children's Bureau designated it a Promising Practice in 2010 and assigned it a Level 4 evidence rating in 2011. It served as the National Resource Center for Child Protective Services for more than 15 years.

Single Integrated Framework Across the Full Case Lifecycle. The ACF Showcase documents six specific decision points covered by a single integrated SAFE Model framework: intake, initial contact, initial assessment, completion of assessment, throughout CPS involvement, and reunification/closure. The primary evaluated alternative — Structured Decision Making — uses a different tool for each decision point, making it architecturally incompatible with the integrated workflow DCFS has built since FY22. Safety Organized Practice is described by the ACF Showcase as "a collection of best practices rather than a copyrighted model" and cannot substitute for the SAFE Model's legally protected framework.

Single Tool for All Maltreatment Types. The ACF Showcase identifies as a specific named feature that the SAFE Model "uses the same tool to assess safety for all types of maltreatment." No evaluated alternative provides this capability.

Basis for a State-Specific Practice Model. The ACF Showcase identifies as a specific named feature that the SAFE Model "can be used to form the basis of a state-specific practice model." The FY20 Chapin Hall evaluation (contract 301200901, $334,058) identified three specific CERAP deficiencies the SAFE Model directly addresses: CERAP does not provide guidance in making the safety determination; is implemented with considerable variation; and does not encourage consideration of contextual factors.

Documented Outcomes. Safe@Home is the in-home safety management component of the SAFE Model and a contracted FY27 deliverable — not a separate alternative. The Kaye & Reyes Study (2021) documented the following outcomes for jurisdictions implementing Safe@Home as part of the comprehensive SAFE practice model, using matched comparison groups of children determined to be unsafe by child welfare authorities:

Placement Prevention (n=180, matched to 344 comparison):

• Out-of-home placement rate: 21% vs. 84% (d=1.95, Large)

• Permanency with a parent: 87% vs. 53% (d=0.57, Medium)

• Average days in out-of-home care: 55 vs. 221 days (d=0.81, Large)

Reunification (n=330, matched to 507 comparison):

• Reunification with a parent: 88% vs. 53% (d=0.53, Medium)

• Average days in out-of-home care: 153 vs. 228 days

No comparable outcome data exists for any evaluated alternative.

Federal Implementation Timeline. The ACF Showcase confirms that successful implementation of any new child welfare practice model requires 3 to 5 years (Fixsen et al., 2005) and cautions against implementing model components in isolation without adequate training and organizational support — validating both DCFS's multi-year timeline and the necessity of a sole source structure.

Prior Investment and Infrastructure Continuity. The FY27 contract represents the fifth year of a statewide implementation in which DCFS has invested nearly $18,000,000 across four prior executed contracts, building its entire child safety assessment infrastructure, IT integrations, staff training, and supervisory review processes around the SAFE Model framework. No alternative framework could satisfy this procurement without requiring DCFS to dismantle and rebuild that infrastructure entirely.

Version 7.01 Page 6 of 10

Bulletin Reference Number 27-418DCFS-PROCU-B-51264

Requesting Agency/University Department of Children and Family Services

5. Has the Agency or University considered alternative supplies or services to satisfy their need? Yes No

5a. If yes, name the alternative vendors whose supplies or services were evaluated:

In evaluating whether any alternative supplies or services could satisfy DCFS's need for a comprehensive child safety decision-making framework, two alternatives were identified and assessed: Structured Decision Making (SDM), developed and owned by the Children's Research Center of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, and Safety Organized Practice (SOP), a collection of best practices developed through the National Council on Crime and Delinquency and the University of California Davis.

SDM was evaluated as the most widely used alternative decision-making assessment model in the United States. SDM uses a different tool at each decision point throughout a case — a screening assessment, a safety assessment, a risk assessment, and a strengths and needs assessment — rather than a single integrated framework. This multi-instrument structure is architecturally incompatible with the integrated workflow DCFS has built around the SAFE Model since FY22, and SDM does not provide a single tool applicable across all maltreatment types. SDM was not selected.

SOP was evaluated as a practice-based alternative. As documented in the U.S. Children's Bureau Capacity Building Center for States' Showcase: Safety Outcomes and Decision-Making Approaches (Contract No. HHSP233201400033C), SOP is "a collection of best practices rather than a copyrighted model." It does not provide the structured assessment instruments, defined decision points, or integrated implementation framework that DCFS requires. SOP was not selected.

Safe@Home was also reviewed during the alternatives evaluation. It is not an independent alternative — it is the community-based safety management component of the SAFE Model itself, developed and copyrighted by Action 4 Child Protection. It is not available from any other source.

5b. If yes, what were the alternatives for each vendor and why were they unacceptable? Be specific with regard to features, characteristics, requirements, capabilities and compatibility:

See attachment - form formatting is lost when entering DCFS response.

5c. Explain how the market evaluation was conducted?

*This evaluation is to determine available options within a market. If the evaluation is to determine quality or best suited option, this is not the appropriate source selection. Under no circumstances shall the evaluation consist of testing alternative options. These activities must be conducted in a competitive transparent environment (i.e. IFB or RFP).

In FY20, DCFS contracted with the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago to conduct a market evaluation of available front-end child safety decision-making frameworks. The evaluation was conducted to identify what frameworks were available in the market and whether any could address the documented structural deficiencies in DCFS's existing CERAP tool — not to determine which option was best.

The market evaluation included four components: business process mapping of current CERAP use; data analysis of CERAP trends and their relationship to removal decisions; a systematic review of available child safety assessment frameworks; and focus groups and interviews with DCFS Child Protection staff and supervisors.

The systematic review identified three available frameworks: the SAFE Model, Structured Decision Making, and Safety Organized Practice. Each was examined against DCFS's documented structural requirements — specifically whether the framework provided guidance in making the safety determination, operated consistently across users, addressed contextual factors, and was available as a complete implementable framework with defined instruments, training curriculum, and implementation supports.

The evaluation found that SDM uses a different tool at each decision point and replicates the checklist approach that produced the documented CERAP deficiencies. SOP is a collection of best practices rather than a structured assessment framework and is not available as a standalone implementable model. The SAFE Model was the only framework identified in the market review that met DCFS's structural requirements and was available as a complete, copyrighted, implementable framework.

The sole source basis is copyright exclusivity. The market evaluation established what was available in the market. The finding that only one available framework met DCFS's structural requirements — combined with the fact that framework is legally protected by copyright and available from only one vendor — is what drives the sole source designation, not a quality comparison between options.

Version 7.01 Page 7 of 10

Bulletin Reference Number 27-418DCFS-PROCU-B-51264

Requesting Agency/University Department of Children and Family Services

6. Are there resellers or distributors?

Yes No N/A

7. What efforts were made to get the best possible price (i.e. did the agency/university negotiate) and how did you determine the price for this purchase is considered fair and reasonable?

The observed cost increase attributed to FY27 reflects expenditures associated with the FY27 phase of the SAFE model implementation.

As DCFS advances through its phased, multi-year roll-out, the FY27 scope requires a materially higher number of vendor on-site days to support installation, training, and execution of core SAFE components, including the Initial Assessment, the Protective Capacity Family Assessment, and the Protective Capacity Progress Assessment.

These activities necessitate extensive cross-departmental coordination and hands-on support, resulting in increased implementation costs during that phase. In addition, statewide implementation entails upfront investment in enabling infrastructure, development of new forms, and alignment of policies and practices with DCFS rules and applicable laws. While these initial outlays are elevated, it is important to note that the vendor’s pricing has remained unchanged since 2011, and, upon completion of statewide implementation, no ongoing subscriptions or recurring maintenance costs are anticipated for the SAFE model.

The detailed cost structure supporting this procurement, including on-site days, off-site hours, travel costs, and the indirect rate calculation for each implementation phase, is set forth in the Pricing Schedule attached to this SSJF.

8. Will this purchase obligate the State to this vendor for future purchases such as maintenance, licensing or continuing need?

Yes No

8a. If yes, please provide details regarding future obligations and/or needs:

Continued implementation, training, and technical support until DCFS has fully implemented the model statewide and is able to take over policies and procedures and updates for it's use. Based on the current regional rollout schedule, DCFS anticipates that statewide Full Implementation will be complete within the remaining implementation period consistent with the 3 to 5 year federal guidance, though the precise completion timeline will depend on implementation progress across remaining regions.

9. What will be the financial or other impact to the State if this sole source is not approved and a competitive bid is required?

If this sole source is not approved and a competitive procurement is required, DCFS anticipates the following specific impacts:

Prior investment at risk. DCFS has invested nearly $18,000,000 in SAFE Model implementation across FY22 through FY26. This investment includes staff training across multiple regions, IT system integration with IllinoisConnect, and development of SAFE-specific policies, forms, intervention manuals, and fidelity review processes. A competitive procurement would require selecting a different framework, rendering this entire investment non-recoverable.

Federal reimbursement risk. The Family First Prevention Services Act authorizes federal Title IV-E reimbursement for evidence-based in-home parent skill-based programs delivered to candidates for foster care. DCFS is currently in the process of establishing the administrative infrastructure necessary to pursue federal reimbursement for SAFE Model implementation activities under FFPSA.

Discontinuation of the SAFE Model contract in FY27 would foreclose this federal reimbursement opportunity before it can be realized.

The specific future reimbursement amounts cannot be quantified at this stage of the process, but the loss of a federally reimbursable evidence-based framework mid-implementation represents a material financial risk to the Department that would compound the $17,984,911 in prior investment already at stake.

Operational disruption. SAFE Model installation is currently active across multiple DCFS regions with caseworkers and supervisors using SAFE's instruments in active cases. Halting mid-implementation would require reverting to prior practice and eventually retraining the entire workforce on a different framework, creating a period of inconsistent safety assessment practice statewide.

Competitive procurement delay. A competitive procurement of this complexity would conservatively require 12 to 18 months from solicitation through contract execution. During that period DCFS would operate without an adequate front-end safety assessment framework, as the FY20 Chapin Hall evaluation documented specific structural deficiencies in the prior CERAP tool that drove this procurement in the first place.

Version 7.01 Page 8 of 10

Bulletin Reference Number 27-418DCFS-PROCU-B-51264

Requesting Agency/University Department of Children and Family Services

10. Is there any additional information you would like to add to justify this sole source?

Version 7.01 Page 9 of 10

Bulletin Reference Number 27-418DCFS-PROCU-B-51264

Requesting Agency/University Department of Children and Family Services

Section VII

Requesting Department Representative

Requesting Department Signature Required

I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed.

Date Apr 22, 2026

Printed Name Glenda Lashley E-mail Address Glenda.L.Lashley@Illinois.gov

Phone Number 773.636.2530

State Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director Approval and Signature Required

I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed. (All prior form fields will lock once this e-signature is completed)

E-mail Address Devin.McQuillan2@illinois.gov

Phone Number 217-558-0011 Date Apr 22, 2026

Printed Name Devin McQuillan

Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director and Not a Designee

SPO Approval and Signature Required

I have reviewed and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and agree with the State Agency or University determination.

I have reviewed and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and do not agree with the State Agency or University determination. As a result, the State Agency or University must explore other sourcing methods to satisfy their need.

State Purchasing Officer Signature Phone Number 217.836.6172 Date Apr 22, 2026

Printed Name Shea Firebaugh E-mail Address shea.firebaugh@illinois.gov

Version 7.01 Page 10 of 10

Bulletin Reference Number 27-418DCFS-PROCU-B-51264

Requesting Agency/University Department of Children and Family Services

Sole Source Justification Form - Part II Section I - General Information

Project Title

Vendor

Initial Date of Procurement Bulletin Posting

Was a Sole Source hearing held per 30 ILCS 500/20-25?

Yes - Complete Section II and III below (Section II will only be visible when this option is selected)

No - Section II not required, go to Section III below Section III - CPO Approval and Signature Required

Based on my review, I authorize the Agency/University to proceed in accordance with the published Notice referenced above.

Based upon my review, I authorize the Agency/University to proceed with the following Changes.

Based on my review, the Agency/University is not authorized to proceed with this sole source as presented and my recommendation is that it be cancelled.

Other

CPO Signature CPO Phone

Printed Name Date

CPO E-mail

Version 7.01 Page of Sole Source Justification Form - Part I Section I - General Information Will this Sole Source amend a Professional or Artistic Services contract?

If yes, what was the original contract value?

*Sole Source may not be used for amendments for Professional or Artistic Services if the amendment would increase the value by more than 5% of the initial award or extend the term by more than 60 days.

Section II - Proposed Term If a Term Contract, does the term, including renewals, exceed 12 months?

If yes, provide a detailed justification including any economic benefit received for agreeing to a multi-year term:

Section III - Funding Source Select the type of funding to be used (Check all that apply):

Section IV - Sole Source Justification Are there secondary justification(s) for this sole source?

Section V - Purchase History Has the Agency or University Purchased these supplies or services in the past?

Term Term From Term To Value Description Contract Number Type Section VI - Business Rationale

1. Provide a detailed explanation of the need for the supplies or services:

2. Provide a list and describe in detail the specifications required to satisfy the need:

3. Provide detail explaining the justification selected in Section IV to explain why the requested supplies or services are the only ones available that can satisfy the agency or university requirements?

4. What are the unique features of the supplies or services that are not available in any other product or by any other vendor? Provide specific quantifiable factors/qualifications:

5. Has the Agency or University considered alternative supplies or services to satisfy their need?

5a. If yes, name the alternative vendors whose supplies or services were evaluated:

5b. If yes, what were the alternatives for each vendor and why were they unacceptable? Be specific with regard to features, characteristics, requirements, capabilities and compatibility:

5c. Explain how the market evaluation was conducted?

*This evaluation is to determine available options within a market. If the evaluation is to determine quality or best suited option, this is not the appropriate source selection. Under no circumstances shall the evaluation consist of testing alternative options. These activities must be conducted in a competitive transparent environment (i.e. IFB or RFP).

5a. If no, why weren't alternatives evaluated?

6. Are there resellers or distributors?

7. What efforts were made to get the best possible price (i.e. did the agency/university negotiate) and how did you determine the price for this purchase is considered fair and reasonable?

8. Will this purchase obligate the State to this vendor for future purchases such as maintenance, licensing or continuing need?

8a. If yes, please provide details regarding future obligations and/or needs:

9. What will be the financial or other impact to the State if this sole source is not approved and a competitive bid is required?

10. Is there any additional information you would like to add to justify this sole source?

Section VII Requesting Department Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed.

State Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director Approval and Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed. (All prior form fields will lock once this e-signature is completed) SPO Approval and Signature Required Sole Source Justification Form - Part II Section I - General Information Was a Sole Source hearing held per 30 ILCS 500/20-25?

Section II - Sole Source Hearing Details The State posted to the Illinois Procurement Bulletin a description of the State's need, the justification for the sole source decision, and information regarding the opportunity to submit comments and testify at a public hearing. Notice of the hearing was also posted outside of the hearing room 48 hours prior to the hearing.

The public hearing was conducted for the purpose of receiving testimony regarding the sole source determination. The Hearing Officer recommends the following:

The following relevant documents are attached:

Section III - CPO Approval and Signature Required 9.0.0.2.20101008.1.734229

DCFS began SAFE Model implementation in FY22 following a FY20 Chapin Hall evaluation that identified specific structural deficiencies in DCFS's prior Child Endangerment Risk Assessment Protocol (CERAP). Implementation is currently active across multiple DCFS regions statewide. The FY27 contract covers the sixth year of this multi-year phased implementation, with a prior multi-million dollar investment across FY22 through FY26 under four executed contracts.

DCFS is charged with ensuring the safety of Illinois youth. DCFS needs of a comprehensive safety decision-making model and intervention framework (tool) to help facilitate that goal. Risk and safety assessment decision making tools do not replace clinical judgment, rather they supplement solid practices utilizing a combination of approaches and tools. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Children's Bureau, the Capacity Building Center for State, implementation is critical, case workers must be adequately trained and supervised to ensure fidelity to the model.

The Department needs to continue the full implementation model from intake to case closure that can be used throughout the life of the case, along with implementation support, training and technical assistance. This assessment process incorporates gathering information related to family behaviors, conditions, and circumstances across six domains including: the Extent of Maltreatment, the Surrounding Circumstances of the Maltreatment, Child Functioning, Adult Functioning, General Parenting Practices, and Disciplinary Practices. The SAFE Model provides the framework to make a safety determination utilizing the interplay between the threats of danger and the things that might mitigate the threats of danger. The required specifications are for the Tool are to guide the CPSW to gather sufficient and relevant information to make an informed decision about whether a child is safe or unsafe.

DCFS is in the middle of the model that determines whether each child in the home is safe or unsafe due to impending danger by automatically generates a safety determination based on the investigator’s selections. The tool provides a concrete and systematic approach to critical thinking and decision making. It does not require long narratives to be written by the investigator, rather it guides the child protection worker’s assessment and decision-making through the same Decision Process Flow every time. This is an ongoing service until the SAFE Model has been fully installed and end users have been trained.

Q2Answer: The vendor will continue to provide a model/tool to help staff improve decision making and ultimately safety outcomes for Illinois youth. The tool/model must be able to be used from referral to case closure, used to assess safety for all types of maltreatment, and must be continually updated to reflect current research and field practice. The tool/model must be grounded in research and proven effective by use in other states and jurisdictions, be easy to use, produce practical results, and measure what it is intended to measure. Perhaps most importantly, the tool/model must provide consistent assessments/conclusions across users and work similarly with diverse families throughout Illinois.

This tool will reduce maltreatment because it will provide clear direction for front line staff in making the correct decision about the safety of a child.

The tool must include and be able to guide the case worker to gather sufficient and relevant information to make an informed decision about whether a child is safe or unsafe. It must guide their decision-making process by:

• assess the need for an urgent response,

• review the 6 domains of family functioning,

• identification of whether there is a threat of danger,

• assessment of each parent/caregiver protective capacity to control any threat of danger,

• assess impending threats to guide staff to establish a in-home or out-of-home safety plan, and

• upon reunification confirm safety threats have been eliminated,

• upon case closure, assess family functioning and support network, to determine safety.

In continuation of implementation of the tool/model DCFS must require extensive technical assistance from the developer/purveyor to install the program and move it from initial (pilot) to full implementation. This will include training all staff, creating new forms, training materials for each phase of the model implementation, intervention manuals, integrating all changes into existing DCFS policies and procedures, adapting the model to fit within our IT system.

Q3Answer: The SAFE Model — including its assessment instruments, intervention manuals, training curriculum, fidelity review tools, and all related implementation materials — is the exclusive copyrighted intellectual property of Action 4 Child Protection. This is documented in Section 4.9 of all executed DCFS SAFE Model contracts, which establish that Action 4 Child Protection holds all intellectual property rights including copyright, trademark, patent, and trade secret in the Works, and that the State holds only a non-exclusive, revocable license to use the Works solely for implementation of the SAFE Model.

No other vendor can legally provide these services. The copyright prohibition is absolute — no third party can reproduce, deliver, or certify training on the SAFE Model's instruments or curriculum without Action 4 Child Protection's authorization, which has not been granted to any other vendor. This is not a matter of preference or qualifications — it is a legal restriction on the availability of the supplies and services.

The alternatives evaluated by DCFS — Structured Decision Making and Safety Organized Practice — are distinct frameworks with different tools, different assessment structures, and different implementation requirements. They are not interchangeable with the SAFE Model. DCFS has invested substantial funds over four years building its child safety decision-making infrastructure, staff training, IT system integrations, and supervisory review processes around the SAFE Model's specific framework. Substituting an alternative framework would require dismantling that infrastructure entirely and rebuilding from the beginning under a different model — it would not satisfy the same need.

The sole source basis is copyright exclusivity under 44 Ill. Adm. Code 1.2025(b)(5). The supplies and services required are legally available from only one source.

Q4Answer: No other vendor can write, implement, or provide certified training for the copyrighted SAFE Model. The following documents specific unique features not available from any other product or vendor, drawn from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Children's Bureau Showcase: Safety Outcomes and Decision-Making Approaches (Children's Bureau Contract No. HHSP233201400033C), a vendor-funded quasi-experimental study by Kaye, Ph.D. and Reyes, Ph.D. using methodology consistent with Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse standards (Kaye & Reyes, 2021), and the executed DCFS contract record.

Federal Evidence Standing. The ACF Showcase credits the SAFE Model as "the first comprehensive safety decision-making model," implemented across 45 jurisdictions and territories nationwide. The Children's Bureau designated it a Promising Practice in 2010 and assigned it a Level 4 evidence rating in 2011. It served as the National Resource Center for Child Protective Services for more than 15 years.

Single Integrated Framework Across the Full Case Lifecycle. The ACF Showcase documents six specific decision points covered by a single integrated SAFE Model framework: intake, initial contact, initial assessment, completion of assessment, throughout CPS involvement, and reunification/closure. The primary evaluated alternative — Structured Decision Making — uses a different tool for each decision point, making it architecturally incompatible with the integrated workflow DCFS has built since FY22. Safety Organized Practice is described by the ACF Showcase as "a collection of best practices rather than a copyrighted model" and cannot substitute for the SAFE Model's legally protected framework.

Single Tool for All Maltreatment Types. The ACF Showcase identifies as a specific named feature that the SAFE Model "uses the same tool to assess safety for all types of maltreatment." No evaluated alternative provides this capability.

Basis for a State-Specific Practice Model. The ACF Showcase identifies as a specific named feature that the SAFE Model "can be used to form the basis of a state-specific practice model." The FY20 Chapin Hall evaluation (contract 301200901, $334,058) identified three specific CERAP deficiencies the SAFE Model directly addresses: CERAP does not provide guidance in making the safety determination; is implemented with considerable variation; and does not encourage consideration of contextual factors.

Documented Outcomes. Safe@Home is the in-home safety management component of the SAFE Model and a contracted FY27 deliverable — not a separate alternative. The Kaye & Reyes Study (2021) documented the following outcomes for jurisdictions implementing Safe@Home as part of the comprehensive SAFE practice model, using matched comparison groups of children determined to be unsafe by child welfare authorities:

Placement Prevention (n=180, matched to 344 comparison):

• Out-of-home placement rate: 21% vs. 84% (d=1.95, Large)

• Permanency with a parent: 87% vs. 53% (d=0.57, Medium)

• Average days in out-of-home care: 55 vs. 221 days (d=0.81, Large)

Reunification (n=330, matched to 507 comparison):

• Reunification with a parent: 88% vs. 53% (d=0.53, Medium)

• Average days in out-of-home care: 153 vs. 228 days

No comparable outcome data exists for any evaluated alternative.

Federal Implementation Timeline. The ACF Showcase confirms that successful implementation of any new child welfare practice model requires 3 to 5 years (Fixsen et al., 2005) and cautions against implementing model components in isolation without adequate training and organizational support — validating both DCFS's multi-year timeline and the necessity of a sole source structure.

Prior Investment and Infrastructure Continuity. The FY27 contract represents the fifth year of a statewide implementation in which DCFS has invested nearly $18,000,000 across four prior executed contracts, building its entire child safety assessment infrastructure, IT integrations, staff training, and supervisory review processes around the SAFE Model framework. No alternative framework could satisfy this procurement without requiring DCFS to dismantle and rebuild that infrastructure entirely.

SDM was evaluated as the most widely used alternative decision-making assessment model in the United States. SDM uses a different tool at each decision point throughout a case — a screening assessment, a safety assessment, a risk assessment, and a strengths and needs assessment — rather than a single integrated framework. This multi-instrument structure is architecturally incompatible with the integrated workflow DCFS has built around the SAFE Model since FY22, and SDM does not provide a single tool applicable across all maltreatment types. SDM was not selected.

SOP was evaluated as a practice-based alternative. As documented in the U.S. Children's Bureau Capacity Building Center for States' Showcase: Safety Outcomes and Decision-Making Approaches (Contract No. HHSP233201400033C), SOP is "a collection of best practices rather than a copyrighted model." It does not provide the structured assessment instruments, defined decision points, or integrated implementation framework that DCFS requires. SOP was not selected.

Safe@Home was also reviewed during the alternatives evaluation. It is not an independent alternative — it is the community-based safety management component of the SAFE Model itself, developed and copyrighted by Action 4 Child Protection. It is not available from any other source.

The market evaluation included four components: business process mapping of current CERAP use; data analysis of CERAP trends and their relationship to removal decisions; a systematic review of available child safety assessment frameworks; and focus groups and interviews with DCFS Child Protection staff and supervisors.

The systematic review identified three available frameworks: the SAFE Model, Structured Decision Making, and Safety Organized Practice. Each was examined against DCFS's documented structural requirements — specifically whether the framework provided guidance in making the safety determination, operated consistently across users, addressed contextual factors, and was available as a complete implementable framework with defined instruments, training curriculum, and implementation supports.

The evaluation found that SDM uses a different tool at each decision point and replicates the checklist approach that produced the documented CERAP deficiencies.