Frequently Asked Questions:
Q. Do you have a strategic plan for the agencies or what exactly do you want from us in this proposal?
A. We are not going to tell you exactly what we are looking for. We are expecting the coach to work with KDOC and Community Corrections agencies not to develop a strategic plan for them but to provide assistance in the development or refining of the plans they have. Expectations are that the plan should lay out a detailed work plan that shows an adoption of EBP, the development of increased capacity and competence of KDOC staff to assist in the delivery of the EBP and the creation of the business infrastructure within local agencies to acquire the knowledge, develop skills, and implement training and tracking.
Q. It is obvious there are different degrees of intensity to deliver the training and no budget was attached, will agencies be allowed to come back with additional information on this piece?
A. It was deliberate that a dollar limit was not identified on the request. Competition is both for substance and for the determination of value for the price quoted. It is our intention that the review of the application would be done by KDOC staff, JEHT Foundation and NIC staff, we reserve the right to negotiate with one or more applicants and to request a best and final offer which can be related to cost or to activities described.
Q. How would you describe at the state and agency level how the EBP work is going?
A. Difference varies widely between KDOC and Community Corrections agency. KDOC staff have been retrained and worked with due to some of the changes in philosophy. We have seen positive results in reduced number of violators returning to prison. Local agencies are not KDOC employees. Agencies are operated by local units of government. Some of the directors and stakeholders have received info on EBP but how much of that has been passed on will vary from agency to agency. Some have brought in other consultants to train staff on EBP. Some agencies only exposure is what KDOC has provided in collaboration with other national partners. KDOC has a rounded view and we are still learning what works best. Local agencies are still exploring what that that means for them. Most have not completely modified their policy, procedures and practices to envelope EBP.
Q. Give us a sense of the number of sites that may want to be involved and their interest and size of groups?
A. The description in the solicitation is intended to require work with KDOC staff to identify how many jurisdictions will take on, what specific ones, what criteria will go into selection. It was estimated somewhere in the neighborhood of four to six.
Q. With parole and facilities being further along with EBP, is there intent or communication to develop this across all three branches (community corrections, parole/prison and court services)?
A. Yes. In Kansas, Community Corrections is operated independently although basic standards are set up by KDOC. How much development occurs is judicially based for some agencies. Some are housed with parole or court serves. All are watching or listening but all three branches are at different places. Lots of questions have been asked but we are not sure how far along the majority are. We had a 19 percent turnover rate in parole in the last few years because some staff were not comfortable with this focus. Facilities have not had quite the same turnover but they are beginning to struggle with this. Community Corrections has not been as much in that conversation as much as they soon will be. Some parts of the state are conversing if housed together but there is less conversation if not housed together.
Q. Is it up to us in our response to provide the model and within negotiations the depth to which we go and essentially the dosage that will be offered?
A. In general that is correct. What we will be reviewing and making judgments on is the value of what is proposed based on the cost suggested. We are specifically looking for if technology will be used that will in someway be able to keep down cost but also provide the services that are described within the application. Kansas is developing a case management process and data entry case plan. The bidder would not have to develop all that just work with us in the process.
Q. How would you describe the relationship with local programs and would there be an ability to have confidential meetings (person to person w/out KS representative in the meeting)?
A. Probably not. If a goal is to work together and we are to assist and provide technical assistance then excluding us seems to be counterintuitive.
Q. I would like to hear more about the number of people and structure of KDOC that we will be working with.
A. There are 11 Community Corrections Division staff at KDOC. They are - four program consultants that provide oversight and technical assistance to the agencies, two skill developers who deliver the training and coaching/mentoring to staff, one auditor who does fiscal and programmatic audits, one accountant who deals with fiscal reports and tracking money, one research analyst who in part is responsible for reporting out data to agencies and looking at what kind of additional things we need to evaluate in order to assist agencies. Essentially, what to measure and how to measure it?
Q. Are there statutory regulations that conflict with EBP and if so what are they? In regards to the recent award of four million dollars was that done with the idea of creating consistent, statewide use of EBP?
A. There are no to statutes in conflict with EBP. In regards to the grant awards, they were based on identifying offenders needs, what is the agency doing that was already based on EBP and what is not. What were the gaps between the two? The challenge in awarding grants was meeting the needs of agencies and still allow for the best way to assist with reducing revocation rates. The awards were competitive in nature and the higher the agency scored, the higher percentage of what they requested was actually awarded.
Q. KDOC has two skill developers to deliver training and coaching, what kind of training have they received?
A. They are in the process of being trained in ACMS, Cog Skills, Case Mgmt and effective case planning. They cannot train 450 staff so we are also certifying local personnel that have been identified as potential trainers. They will assist our skill developers. Some have been certified in Thinking for a Change so could train facilitators who already had ACMS or cog training.
Q. In reference to awareness development training, who will deliver that?
A. That is a modification of one offered to agency directors and stakeholders in November. It was funded by JEHT and the next round for staff will be funded by JEHT and will be conducted by CEPP. Expectation is that the information communicated is consistent across the board and that the communication is that KDOC is moving forward with EBP. What is offered in the application should be compatible with that expectation.
Q. What is the current data structure that is currently being worked with at each agency? Is it common between agencies or different?
A. All agencies use a statewide system for revocation information. Info for that purpose will be pulled from this system. Many agencies who have initiated tracking of programming will also use this system. Some are implementing Thinking for a Change there is the ability to track that program within the system. For some other programming being implemented some agencies will have to track that separately. Part of the expectation is that the coach would help in determining what additional data needs to be collected as well as how to track it.
Q. When grant awards were done, was it the intent to promote consistency in practice from agency to agency or was it an individual award from district to district.
A. Agencies were to evaluate their own agency and community needs and what practices did they need to put in place to close the gaps between the two. This looked very different in each district. Some in rural areas may not have resources available in larger areas, etc. There is no intent to make each agency offer the same thing. Community Corrections agencies are still new to managing by risk level and understanding the difference and how to let go of the low risk offenders. Community Corrections is an intensive supervision program in Kansas. Community Corrections in Kansas is an alternative to prison and is therefore intensive. The concept of using EBP is being tested and that could be noticed by the bidder.
Q. Are you happy with the LSIR? Is it statutory and is it used statewide?
A. Yes we are happy with it. We are in process of rolling it out statewide. It is currently used in Parole, Prisons and Community Corrections. Court Services is looking into it.
Q. Was the Stakeholder's Conference based in Community Corrections alone or for parole too?
A. The meetings held in November 2007 were just for Community Corrections. Some stakeholders were actually KDOC staff that is actively involved in helping agencies. KDOC has already held some of the training for their staff in parole and facilities. Purpose in November was training for the stakeholders. Directors had told us they needed help selling the concept. The training was for them to invite the power brokers within their communities that could make this happen or be a barrier to the process.
Q. Was it evaluated in the context of what parole and facility was already doing?
A. We are trying to get to the same place. Judges are independent and they have not been mandated by statutory language to do this but there is some buzz occurring amongst them about it. We have a lot of mixed judiciary feelings regarding use of EBP.