Human Service Agency

City and County of San Francisco

Department of Children, Youth, & Families,First 5-San Francisco,

Human Services Agency

Request for Proposals #513for

Early Care and Education System Supports

Date issued: February 17, 2012Pre-proposal conference: 9:00 a.m., March 1, 2012Proposal due: 3:00 p.m., March 23, 2012

1/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Table of Contents

I. General Overview....................................................................................................................................3

Schedule.............................................................................................................................................5Terms and Conditions for Receipt of Proposals.................................................................................8Contract Requirements.....................................................................................................................10Protest Procedures............................................................................................................................12Performance Measures.....................................................................................................................13Helpful Background Documents......................................................................................................14

II. Scope of Work....................................................................................................................................15

1. San Francisco Child Care Connections - (SF3C)....................................................................152. Child Care Facilities Fund.......................................................................................................203. Compensation and Wage Augmentation Grants for Economic Support (C-WAGES) Fiscal

Intermediary.............................................................................................................................254. Quality Rating Services...........................................................................................................305. Quality Improvement Services................................................................................................386. Professional Development for Early Care and Education (ECE) Workforce..........................457. Family Child Care Staffed Quality Network(s).......................................................................528. Field Building and Peer Support..............................................................................................609. San Francisco Center for Inclusive Early Education...............................................................6310. Inclusion Access / Family Support Program...........................................................................70

III. Request for Proposal (RFP) - Components and General Instructions.......................................76

FORM A – RFP COVER SHEET, Part I.........................................................................................79FORM A – RFP COVER SHEET, Part II........................................................................................81FORM B – RFP CHECK LIST........................................................................................................82FORM C – PAGE NUMBER FORM SAMPLE.............................................................................83FORM D – RFP COLLABORATIVE PARTNERS........................................................................85FORM E – BUDGET FORM, NARRATIVE, & INSTRUCTIONS...............................................86FORM F – RFP- USE FOR QUALITY RATING SERVICES ONLY – BUDGET FORM,

NARRATIVE, & INSTRUCTIONS.......................................................................................88

2/87 RFP 513, 2/12

I. General Overview

Announcement of the Availability of Funds The San Francisco Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF), First 5-San Francisco (First 5-SF), and the Human Service Agency-Department of Human Services (HSA-DHS),– hereafter referred to “Funding Agencies” are jointly committed to ensuring all children ages 0-5 have access to high quality early care and education. To reach this over-arching goal, the three Funding Agencies announce $18,224,303 available annually for a three year period beginning in FY 2012-13, and through FY 2014-15. Annual renewal amounts and distribution of funding in years 2 (FY 2013-14) and 3 (FY 2014-15) are subject to contract performance, revenue availability, and budget approval by the City and County of San Francisco and the First 5-San Francisco’s Children and Families Commission.

This Joint Competitive Solicitation (JCS) invests in numerous citywide early care and education (ECE) initiatives and programs, building upon previously funded and new, innovative activities. This JCS/Request for Proposals (RFP) has 10 components that are specific to the initiatives, activities, and funding individually described within it. If an agency or collaboration is applying to more than one area, please submit separate applications for each initiative.

1. San Francisco Child Care Connections - (SF3C) - Centralized Eligibility List – $457,757 annually in funding is made available for the administration of the web based centralized eligibility list for subsidy eligible families; to maintain the database and to provide supports for application and enrollment, linking families determined most eligible according to respective subsidy contract criteria and supporting families pulled for enrollment by state Title 5 contractors. Correspondingly, the SF3C also supports the Title 5 providers by screening families, aiding their readiness for enrollment, and early eligibility verification, thereby decreasing delays in enrollment and increasing contract earnings by Title 5 contractors.

2. Child Care Facilities Fund - $2,956,555 annually in funding is made available of which up to $510,000 is available to administer capital grants, start-up grants, revolving grants, and facility technical assistance and consultation and a variety of facilities related supports to centers and family child care providers, and potential new providers in order to retain and increase licensed capacity.

3. Fiscal Intermediary - ECE Workforce Compensation and Wage Augmentation Grants for Economic Support (C-WAGES) - $405,336 annually in funding is made available to a qualified fiscal intermediary to make payments to authorized centers and family child care programs for participation in the C-WAGES Program , Coordinate C-WAGES FCC Program, and for the provision of Information Technology (IT) Technical Assistance (TA) to centers and FCC Quality Network Administrator staff as well as FCC network members required to utilize City/County sponsored web-based data systems Cocoa, the CA ECE Workforce Registry, and other City/County sponsored data systems as they become available. Grant administration supports pass through funding of $9,419,990 ($7,363,243 for participating qualified centers and $2,056,747 to qualified Family Child Care Quality Network members). Total grant amount is $9,825,326 annually.

4. QRIS - Quality Rating Services - $2,103,476 in funding is made available to support the provision of quality rating services over a three-year period. In fiscal year 2012-2013, $644,492 is made available for rating services.

5. QRIS - Quality Improvement Services - $2,249,000 in funding is made available to support the provision of citywide program improvement services over a three-year period. In fiscal year 2012-2013, $783,000 is available for quality improvement services to provide training and targeted intentional technical assistance for child development centers and family child care homes receiving public funding.

3/87 RFP 513, 2/12

6. Professional Development for Early Care and Education (ECE) Workforce - $962,000 annually in funding is made available for the following strategies:

a. CARES - $590,000 Stipends for SF ECE Workforce participants completing specific coursework.

b. Pathways - $268,000 Opportunities for SF ECE workforce participants to engage in Basic Skills (pathway to be developed), Learning with Income Foundations to Teach (LIFT), and Metro Academy Pathways to prepare for college level coursework in ECE, General Education, to become transfer ready and complete Bachelor’s Degrees. (LIFT and Metro Academy funding is pass through funding for City College of San Francisco and San Francisco State University to cover the costs of pathway coursework and learning communities for faculty, program coordination, and support collaboration between higher education faculty and Citywide Technical Assistance System providers).

c. Professional Development Project (PDP) - $104,000 PDP funding for academic counseling, education plan creation including CA ECE Workforce Registry transcript review. (pass through funding to City College of San Francisco)

7. Family Child Care Quality Network - $883,087 annually in funding is made available to develop and manage 1-2 quality network(s) of licensed family child care homes to support quality improvement efforts and link providers with local child care vouchers and C-WAGES support of which a minimum of $20,000 is set aside for instructional materials and supplies. The FCC Quality Network will provide professional staff which partner and support network providers to improve quality through the pre-assessment process and readiness for assessment and reassessment by the QRIS FCCR’s-R assessment as well as other tools as they are developed. The FCC Quality Network Administrators shall develop quality improvement plans with the FCC network member and support quality improvement by linking the assessment to meaningful quality care practices. Network staff will assist network providers in accessing other city investments targeted to family child care. The network(s) shall serve as a closed network of providers for city subsidies: ACCESS homeless subsidies, Family and Children’s Services, City Child Care (infant and toddler subsidies). The network administrator (or one of the two Network Administrators) shall be selected to administer the Peer Support Field Building grant for a Citywide Family Child Care Association($61,087) and mini-grants to six neighborhood provider networks ($12,000), for a subtotal of $73,087 in pass through for a total annual funding available amount of $883,087.

8. Field building and Peer Support - $69,086 annually in funding is made available to provide a variety of field building peer supports to Directors and ECE providers through a city-wide provider association, and to support providers through convening and other methods of communication to help providers by developing leadership, link members to state and local training resources and supports, promote professional development, and keep the field informed of trends, policies and changes that impact providers.

9. Center for Inclusive Early Education - $1,227,750 annually in funding is made available to develop the San Francisco Center for Inclusive Early Education targeting licensed early eduction settings serving children ages birth to five and their families. The Center will create a Transdisciplinary Team to implement services; plan and implement citywide training and capacity building efforts to advance inclusive early education practices; provide short-term technical assistance and coaching to targeted sites; and support 2-3 PFA early education demonstration sites.

10. Inclusion Access/Family Support Program - $420, 250 annually in funding is made available to provide family support, case management, roundtable problem solving team and interagency council within a family resource center serving families and children with special health care needs.

Each project named above is funded either by DCYF, First 5-SF, or HSA-DHS, or a combination of these Departments. Funding in this RFP is committed for three (3) fiscal years, beginning July 1, 2012 through June 30,

4/87 RFP 513, 2/12

2015 and is based upon availability of funding. Funding may be adjusted based on additional or reduced federal/state/local funding availability.

ScheduleThe closing date for the submission of proposals is 3:00 pm on Friday, March 23, 2012. All applications received after 3:00 pm will be considered late and will not be accepted. No electronic or faxed submissions will be accepted.

Hand-deliver one (1) original and eight (8) copies of the proposal to:Christina Iwasaki, G310Human Services Agency Office of Contract Management1650 Mission Street, Suite 300San Francisco, CA 94103

The deadline for submissions is firm. Proposals will not be considered if received after the deadline.

Bidders’ Conference The bidders’ conference is not mandatory, but it is highly recommended that all potential applicants attend. The bidders’ conference will be held:

Date: Thursday, March 1st, 2012Time: 9:00am – 12 noonPlace: 101 Grove St., Rm. 300

The purpose of the bidders’ conference is to review the requirements and necessary forms for the RFP; explain the City vendor compliance process that all funded agencies must complete; describe the specific objectives the Funding Agencies are seeking to accomplish through this RFP; and respond to questions from applicants.

For information or questions, please email Christina Iwasaki at christina.iwasaki@sfgov.org. All questions and answers (Q&As) from email submission and the bidders’ conference will be available online at www . dcyf . org , www.sfhsa.org, www . first 5 sf . org and posted no later than Thursday, March 8, 2012.

The Human Service Agency-Department of Human Services, Department of Children, Youth and Their Families, and First 5-San Francisco, cannot answer additional questions beyond the question submission end date of March 2, 2012.

ESTIMATED TIMELINE

Request for Proposals Issued February 17, 2012Bidders’ Conference - Strongly Encouraged - Thursday, March 1, 2012 from 9:00am – noon

101 Grove St., Rm. 300, San FranciscoQuestion Submission Ends Friday, March 2, 2012

All Q&As Posted Online (www . dcyf . org , and www . sfhsa . org , and www . first 5 sf . org )

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Proposals Due Friday, March 23, 2012 by 3:00 p.m..

Tentative Award Letters Mailed late April 2012

5/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Contract Negotiation Period May - June 2012

Contract Begins July 1, 2012

First Year of Contract Ends June 30, 2013

The rest of this General Overview section contains information and guidelines for the Request for Proposals (RFP) sections. Please follow directions carefully for each initiative/program to which you are applying.

Minimum Eligibility Requirements for All InitiativesThe City and County of San Francisco requires all agencies receiving grant funding to comply with a number of regulatory and legal requirements. Some of these requirements are described below.

All applicants must meet the following requirements: Applicant must be a community-based organization that is nonprofit and tax-exempt under Section 501(c)

(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or a part of the San Francisco Unified School District, City College of San Francisco, or San Francisco State University.

Applicant must be located in San Francisco and services must be provided to residents of the City and County of San Francisco and providers who provide care in San Francisco.

As detailed below, these funds are available for specific objectives and target specific age groups of children receiving early care and education (ECE)/child care services. Please refer to the body of the Joint Competitive Solicitation (JCS) for details on the targeted age groups.

If awarded a grant, the organization must be certified as a City-approved vendor and compliant with the City’s insurance requirements by July 1, 2012 or the Funding Agencies reserve the right to revoke the grant award.

Applicant must follow all guidelines (formatting, page limitations, required attachments, etc.) detailed in the Proposal Content and Instructions section of this JCS.

Please note: Respondents submitting proposals that have previously been contracted by the City and County of San Francisco to provide goods and/or services must successfully demonstrate compliance with performance/monitoring requirements specified in previous grants/contracts (corrective actions) in order to be considered responsive to this RFP. Documented failure to correct performance/monitoring deficiencies identified in past City and County grants/contracts may result in Agency disqualification to participate in this RFP.

Organizations that are not yet City-approved vendors should begin the certification process as soon as possible, in order to ensure that they are able to meet this requirement if awarded a grant. The City’s Office of Contract Administration offers all of the necessary forms on their website, which can be found at www . sfgov . org / oca / purchasing / forms . htm . Subcontractors are not required to be City-approved vendors; only the lead organization must be.

Uses of FundsThese grant funds are flexible, and can support a wide array of initiative/program costs which are in-line with the submission. We strongly encourage the submission of realistic budgets, which reflect true program costs and the aspects of service that are key to quality. Examples of eligible uses of funds include, but are not limited to:

Staffing costs Rent, building costs Supplies and materials Consultants Staff training, field training Translation services Outreach, marketing costs

6/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Transportation

These grant funds cannot be used for: Any service that merely benefits children and their families incidentally Acquisition of any capital item not for primary and direct use by children and their families, unless

otherwise explicitly approved in the contract. Acquisition of real property (This limitation does not apply to Facilities Fund approved capital projects

nor to leases for a term of 12 months or less) Fiscal agent fees that exceed 10% of the budget request (unless otherwise noted) Out-of-county travel, unless otherwise explicitly approved in the contract Depreciation on buildings or equipment Religious worship, instruction, or proselytizing

The Funding Agencies do not require applicants to have matching funds. However, applicants are strongly encouraged to demonstrate how these funds will be leveraged for maximum results.

Conversely, awardees must seek approval prior to using city/contract funds as matching funds to other public or private funds. Notably, federal funds may not be used to match federal dollars. Certain funds may already be used as federal match and therefore may not be available as matching dollars for federal or other public grants.

Lead Agency, Collaborations, Partnerships RolesApplicants may choose to apply to any initiative/program as a collaborative, with lead agency and subcontractor roles identified. Applicants may apply to be the lead agency for multiple submissions.

The Funding Agencies seek to fund applicants which share our vision, mission, goals, values and commitment to partnership and collaboration to meet the needs of San Francisco’s young children and their families. We are seeking active partners in forging a responsive and dynamic system to provide the highest quality of ECE services possible. Our hope is that funded agencies will be active participants in local efforts to build and improve San Francisco’s ECE system, including but not limited to, engagement in initiative advisories, planning efforts of Funding Agencies, and participation in efforts of the Child Care Planning and Advisory Council (CPAC). Funded agencies are also encouraged to engage in dialogue on state and federal policies impacting the ECE field. In addition, funded agencies shall collaborate with each other and with other community initiatives/programs supporting children of all ages and their families, to forge a coordinated system of early care and education.

Variable Grant TermsThese services shall have an original term of three (3) years, July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2015. In addition, the Funding Agencies shall have the option to extend the term for an additional two (2) years or increase/decrease the service level depending upon 1) availability of funding, budget approval and service needs; 2) work-plan performance; and 3) compliance, contract evaluation, online reporting, and other requirements which the Funding Agencies may exercise in its sole, absolute discretion. Funding for these services will be provided by Federal, State and County and First 5 tobacco tax dollars. The Funding Agencies reserve the right to make multiple awards through this RFP.

Criminal Screening RequirementThe City and County of San Francisco requires that all organizations and subcontractors comply with California Penal Code section 11105.3 and request from the Department of Justice records of all convictions or any arrest pending adjudication involving the offenses specified in Welfare and Institution Code section 15660(a) for any person who applies for employment or a volunteer position with the organization, or any subcontractor, in which the individual would have supervisory or disciplinary power over a minor under his or her care.

Contract AwardThe Funding Agencies will select a respondent(s) with whom staff shall commence contract negotiations. The selection of any proposal shall not imply acceptance by the City of all terms of the proposal, which may be subject to further negotiations and approvals before the City or the respective funder may be legally bound 7/87 RFP 513, 2/12

thereby. If a satisfactory contract cannot be negotiated in a reasonable time the Human Services Agency, in its sole discretion, may terminate negotiations with the successful respondent and begin contract negotiations with another respondent.

FormatPlease print double-sided to the maximum extent practical, and bind the proposal with a binder clip, rubber band, or single staple, or submit it in a three-ring binder. Please do not bind your proposal with a spiral binding, glued binding, or anything similar. You may use tabs or other separators within the document. For word processing documents, it is preferred that text is unjustified (i.e., with a ragged-right margin) and a serif font (e.g., Times Roman, and not Arial) is used, and that pages have margins of at least 1” on all sides (excluding headers and footers).

Terms and Conditions for Receipt of ProposalsErrors and Omissions in RFPProposers are responsible for reviewing all portions of this RFP. Proposers are to promptly notify the Department, in writing, if the proposer discovers any ambiguity, discrepancy, omission, or other error in the RFP. Any such notification should be directed to the Department promptly after discovery, but in no event later than five working days prior to the date for receipt of proposals. Modifications and clarifications will be made by addenda as provided below. Inquiries Regarding RFPInquiries regarding the RFP must be directed to Christina Iwasaki at christina.iwasaki@sfgov.org. Objections to RFP TermsShould a proposer object on any ground to any provision or legal requirement set forth in this RFP, the proposer must, not more than ten calendar days after the RFP is issued, provide written notice to the Department setting forth with specificity the grounds for the objection. The failure of a proposer to object in the manner set forth in this paragraph shall constitute a complete and irrevocable waiver of any such objection. Change NoticesThe Department may modify the RFP, prior to the proposal due date, by issuing Change Notices, which will be posted on the website at http :// mission . sfgov . org / OCABidPublication / ReviewBids . aspx .. The proposer shall be responsible for ensuring that its proposal reflects any and all Change Notices issued by the Department prior to the proposal due date regardless of when the proposal is submitted. Therefore, the City recommends that the proposer consult the website frequently, including shortly before the proposal due date, to determine if the proposer has downloaded all Change Notices. Term of ProposalSubmission of a proposal signifies that the proposed services and prices are valid for 120 calendar days from the proposal due date and that the quoted prices are genuine and not the result of collusion or any other anti-competitive activity. Revision of ProposalA proposer may revise a proposal on the proposer’s own initiative at any time before the deadline for submission of proposals. The proposer must submit the revised proposal in the same manner as the original. A revised proposal must be received on or before the proposal due date. In no case will a statement of intent to submit a revised proposal, or commencement of a revision process, extend the proposal due date for any proposer.

8/87 RFP 513, 2/12

At any time during the proposal evaluation process, the Department may require a proposer to provide oral or written clarification of its proposal. The Department reserves the right to make an award without further clarifications of proposals received. Errors and Omissions in ProposalFailure by the Department to object to an error, omission, or deviation in the proposal will in no way modify the RFP or excuse the vendor from full compliance with the specifications of the RFP or any contract awarded pursuant to the RFP. Financial ResponsibilityThe City accepts no financial responsibility for any costs incurred by a firm in responding to this RFP. Submissions of the RFP will become the property of the City and may be used by the City in any way deemed appropriate. Proposer’s Obligations under the Campaign Reform OrdinanceProposers must comply with Section 1.126 of the S.F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, which states: No person who contracts with the City and County of San Francisco for the rendition of personal services, for the furnishing of any material, supplies or equipment to the City, or for selling any land or building to the City, whenever such transaction would require approval by a City elective officer, or the board on which that City elective officer serves, shall make any contribution to such an officer, or candidates for such an office, or committee controlled by such officer or candidate at any time between commencement of negotiations and the later of either (1) the termination of negotiations for such contract, or (2) three months have elapsed from the date the contract is approved by the City elective officer or the board on which that City elective officer serves. If a proposer is negotiating for a contract that must be approved by an elected local officer or the board on which that officer serves, during the negotiation period the proposer is prohibited from making contributions to:

The officer’s re-election campaign A candidate for that officer’s office A committee controlled by the officer or candidate

The negotiation period begins with the first point of contact, either by telephone, in person, or in writing, when a contractor approaches any city officer or employee about a particular contract, or a city officer or employee initiates communication with a potential contractor about a contract. The negotiation period ends when a contract is awarded or not awarded to the contractor. Examples of initial contacts include: (1) a vendor contacts a city officer or employee to promote himself or herself as a candidate for a contract; and (2) a city officer or employee contacts a contractor to propose that the contractor apply for a contract. Inquiries for information about a particular contract, requests for documents relating to a Request for Proposal, and requests to be placed on a mailing list do not constitute negotiations. Violation of Section 1.126 may result in the following criminal, civil, or administrative penalties:

1. Criminal. Any person who knowingly or willfully violates section 1.126 is subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and a jail term of not more than six months, or both.

2. Civil. Any person who intentionally or negligently violates section 1.126 may be held liable in a civil

action brought by the civil prosecutor for an amount up to $5,000. 3. Administrative. Any person who intentionally or negligently violates section 1.126 may be held

liable in an administrative proceeding before the Ethics Commission held pursuant to the Charter for an amount up to $5,000 for each violation.

For further information, proposers should contact the San Francisco Ethics Commission at9/87 RFP 513, 2/12

(415) 581-2300. Sunshine OrdinanceIn accordance with S.F. Administrative Code Section 67.24(e), contractors’ bids, responses to RFPs and all other records of communications between the City and persons or firms seeking contracts shall be open to inspection immediately after a contract has been awarded. Nothing in this provision requires the disclosure of a private person’s or organization’s net worth or other proprietary financial data submitted for qualification for a contract or other benefits until and unless that person or organization is awarded the contract or benefit. Information provided which is covered by this paragraph will be made available to the public upon request. Public Access to Meetings and RecordsIf a proposer is a non-profit entity that receives a cumulative total per year of at least $250,000 in City funds or City-administered funds and is a non-profit organization as defined in Chapter 12L of the S.F. Administrative Code, the proposer must comply with Chapter 12L. The proposer must include in its proposal (1) a statement describing its efforts to comply with the Chapter 12L provisions regarding public access to proposer’s meetings and records, and (2) a summary of all complaints concerning the proposer’s compliance with Chapter 12L that were filed with the City in the last two years and deemed by the City to be substantiated. The summary shall also describe the disposition of each complaint. If no such complaints were filed, the proposer shall include a statement to that effect. Failure to comply with the reporting requirements of Chapter 12L or material misrepresentation in proposer’s Chapter 12L submissions shall be grounds for rejection of the proposal and/or termination of any subsequent Agreement reached on the basis of the proposal. Reservations of Rights by the CityThe issuance of this RFP does not constitute an agreement by the City that any contract will actually be entered into by the City. The City expressly reserves the right at any time to:

1. Waive or correct any defect or informality in any response, proposal, or proposal procedure;2. Reject any or all proposals;3. Reissue a Request for Proposals;4.Prior to submission deadline for proposals, modify all or any portion of the selection procedures,

including deadlines for accepting responses, the specifications or requirements for any materials, equipment or services to be provided under this RFP, or the requirements for contents or format of the proposals;

5. Procure any materials, equipment or services specified in this RFP by any other means; or6. Determine that no project will be pursued.

No WaiverNo waiver by the City of any provision of this RFP shall be implied from any failure by the City to recognize or take action on account of any failure by a proposer to observe any provision of this RFP.

Local Business Enterprise Goals and OutreachThe requirements of the Local Business Enterprise and Non-Discrimination in Contracting Ordinance set forth in Chapter 14B of the San Francisco Administrative Code as it now exists or as it may be amended in the future (collectively the “LBE Ordinance”) shall not apply to this RFP due to the mix of Local, State and Federal funding.

Contract RequirementsFor more detailed information of the contract or grant requirements, see the Office of Contract Administration website at http :// www . sfgov . org / site / oca _ index . asp ? id =26507 Standard Contract ProvisionsThe successful proposer will be required to enter into a contract substantially in the form of the Agreement for Professional Services, attached hereto as Appendix C. Failure to timely execute the contract, or to furnish any and all insurance certificates and policy endorsement, surety bonds or other materials required in the contract,

10/87 RFP 513, 2/12

shall be deemed an abandonment of a contract offer. The City, in its sole discretion, may select another firm and may proceed against the original selectee for damages. Proposers are urged to pay special attention to the requirements of Administrative Code Chapters 12B and 12C, Nondiscrimination in Contracts and Benefits; the Minimum Compensation Ordinance; the Health Care Accountability Ordinance; the First Source Hiring Program; and applicable conflict of interest laws, as set forth in paragraphs B, C, D, E and F below. Nondiscrimination in Contracts and BenefitsThe successful proposer will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the provisions of Chapters 12B and 12C of the San Francisco Administrative Code. Generally, Chapter 12B prohibits the City and County of San Francisco from entering into contracts or leases with any entity that discriminates in the provision of benefits between employees with domestic partners and employees with spouses, and/or between the domestic partners and spouses of employees. The Chapter 12C requires nondiscrimination in contracts in public accommodation. Additional information on Chapters 12B and 12C is available on the HRC’s website at www.sfhrc.org. Minimum Compensation Ordinance (MCO)The successful proposer will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the provisions of the Minimum Compensation Ordinance (MCO), as set forth in S.F. Administrative Code Chapter 12P. Generally, this Ordinance requires contractors to provide employees covered by the Ordinance who do work funded under the contract with hourly gross compensation and paid and unpaid time off that meet certain minimum requirements. For the amount of hourly gross compensation currently required under the MCO, see www.sfgov.org/olse/mco. Note that this hourly rate may increase on January 1 of each year and that contractors will be required to pay any such increases to covered employees during the term of the contract. Additional information regarding the MCO is available on the web at www . sfgov . org / olse /mco. Health Care Accountability Ordinance (HCAO)The successful proposer will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the provisions of the Health Care Accountability Ordinance (HCAO), as set forth in S.F. Administrative Code Chapter 12Q. Contractors should consult the San Francisco Administrative Code to determine their compliance obligations under this chapter. Additional information regarding the HCAO is available on the web at www . sfgov . org / olse /hcao. First Source Hiring Program (FSHP)If the contract is for more than $50,000, then the First Source Hiring Program (Admin. Code Chapter 83) may apply. Generally, this ordinance requires contractors to notify the First Source Hiring Program of available entry-level jobs and provide the Workforce Development System with the first opportunity to refer qualified individuals for employment. Contractors should consult the San Francisco Administrative Code to determine their compliance obligations under this chapter. Additional information regarding the FSHP is available on the web at www.sfgov.org/moed/fshp.htm and from the First Source Hiring Administrator, (415) 401-4960. Conflicts of InterestThe successful proposer will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the applicable provisions of state and local laws related to conflicts of interest, including Section 15.103 of the City's Charter, Article III, Chapter 2 of City’s Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, and Section 87100 et seq. and Section 1090 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California. The successful proposer will be required to acknowledge that it is familiar with these laws; certify that it does not know of any facts that constitute a violation of said provisions; and agree to immediately notify the City if it becomes aware of any such fact during the term of the Agreement.

11/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Individuals who will perform work for the City on behalf of the successful proposer might be deemed consultants under state and local conflict of interest laws. If so, such individuals will be required to submit a Statement of Economic Interests, California Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700, to the City within ten calendar days of the City notifying the successful proposer that the City has selected the proposer. Insurance RequirementsUpon Award, Grantee shall provide a copy of current insurance certificate naming the City as Additional Insured in a separate endorsement page, or submit evidence that it can obtain the following coverage and name the City as Additional Insured: (1) Workers’ Compensation, in statutory amounts, with Employers’ Liability Limits not less than $1,000,000 each accident, injury, or illness; (2) Commercial General Liability Insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Contractual Liability, Personal Injury, Products and Completed Operations; (3) Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Owned, Non-Owned and Hired auto coverage, as applicable; and 4) Professional Liability Insurance for negligent acts, errors or omission with respect to professional or technical services with limits not less than $1,000,000 for each claim. Services During a City-Declared EmergencyIn case of an emergency that affects the San Francisco Bay Area, Contractor will make a good faith effort to continue to provide services to the Department's clients on a priority basis. Contractor shall provide fair prices for services that may not be covered under the awarded grant but are necessary as a direct result of the City-declared emergency. Contractor will document the expenses incurred and submit a prompt request for payment to the Department.

Other RequirementsBelow is a partial list of significant requirements that will be part of each funded organization’s contract.

1. Organization must comply with the monitoring and evaluation requirements of the three Funding Agencies. These requirements will be detailed in the contracting process, but include for most contracts, at a minimum, quarterly program reporting through the web-based Contract Management System (CMS) and participation in evaluation activities. Monitoring and reporting shall be specific to the initiative. All relevant initiatives will participate in data system reporting relevant to the program as outlined in this RFP or as developed by the state or funders during the duration of the contract

2. Organization must, for most contracts, comply with the criminal screening requirement set forth above.3. Organization must prepare monthly online invoices through the web-based Contract Management System

for reimbursement of actual expenses. This requirement is dependent upon the process requirements of the City agency administering the contract.

4. Organization must be available at minimum once per year fiscal site visits. 5. Organization must be available at minimum once per year program site visit.6. Appropriate organization staff members must attend all mandatory meetings as requested by the Funding

Agencies.

Protest ProceduresProtest of Non-Responsiveness DeterminationWithin five working days of the City's issuance of a notice of non-responsiveness, any firm that has submitted a proposal and believes that the City has incorrectly determined that its proposal is non-responsive may submit a written notice of protest. Such notice of protest must be received by the City on or before the fifth working day following the City's issuance of the notice of non-responsiveness. The notice of protest must include a written statement specifying in detail each and every one of the grounds asserted for the protest. The protest must be signed by an individual authorized to represent the proposer, and must cite the law, rule, local ordinance, procedure or RFP provision on which the protest is based. In addition, the protester must specify facts and evidence sufficient for the City to determine the validity of the protest.

12/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Protest of Contract AwardWithin five working days of the City's issuance of a notice of intent to award the contract, any firm that has submitted a responsive proposal and believes that the City has incorrectly selected another proposer for award may submit a written notice of protest. Such notice of protest must be received by the City on or before the fifth working day after the City's issuance of the notice of intent to award. The notice of protest must include a written statement specifying in detail each and every one of the grounds asserted for the protest. The protest must be signed by an individual authorized to represent the proposer, and must cite the law, rule, local ordinance, procedure or RFP provision on which the protest is based. In addition, the protester must specify facts and evidence sufficient for the City to determine the validity of the protest. Delivery of ProtestsAll protests must be received by the due date. If a protest is mailed, the protester bears the risk of non-delivery within the deadlines specified herein. Protests should be transmitted by a means that will objectively establish the date the City received the protest. Protests or notice of protests made orally (e.g., by telephone) will not be considered. For DCYF proposals, protests must be delivered to: Maria Su

Director Department of Children, Youth, and Families 1390 Market Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94102 For First 5 proposals, protests must be delivered to: Laurel Kloomok, Executive Director First 5 San Francisco Children and Families Commission 1390 Market Street, Suite 318 San Francisco, CA 94102 For HSA proposals, protests must be delivered to: Trent Rhorer, Executive Director Human Services Agency P.O. Box 7988 San Francisco, CA 94120

Performance Measures For purposes of this RFP, performance measures as defined by the City Controller's Office can be understood as "a specific quantitative measure of an activity or outcome." For each initiative included in this RFP, predetermined sets of performance measures have been developed. These Required Performance Measures have been established to allow Funding Agencies to track contract performance and progress toward key deliverables in a manner that is clear, quantifiable, and standardized across initiatives. By and large these Required Performance Measures provide information about what the program is doing, for whom, and for how long. Some may also require information about program satisfaction, accessibility, and appeal. Level of flexibility for these measures will vary somewhat across initiatives. For some initiatives the Required Performance Measure has been specified along with the expected target. For others, the content of the measure has been specified, but applicants may propose an appropriate target based on their planned services. Once funded, applicants will be given more information about the format for finalizing, tracking and reporting on Required Performance Measures. At the time of funding further negotiation of Required Performance Measures may take place in order to provide the basis for the project's annual scope of work and regular reports of progress.

13/87 RFP 513, 2/12

The Funding Agencies are also committed to measuring the quality and impacts of funded initiatives. To this end, applicants will be asked to propose their own Additional Outcome Performance Measures that will help to a) further describe the quality and effectiveness of the initiative and b) will provide information on the differences or changes that can be expected as a result of the program's activities and services. These measures should clearly specify the degree of change expected, the individuals that will demonstrate the change, the time frame within which you expect the change to occur, and/or relevant benchmark comparisons if applicable. These Additional Outcome Performance Measures will help Funding Agencies to determine the longer-term impacts of proposed services and the applicant's approach to continuous quality improvement. Examples of possible Additional Outcome Performance Measures have been provided for each initiative as a guide. Key questions to consider in developing your measures have also been presented below:

1. Are the measures clear, specific, and achievable?2. Is there a readily available data source to help assess progress toward selected measures?3. Do measures align with the activities we intend to implement and the goals we would like to accomplish

through these activities?4. Do measures link back to the individuals and/or groups we intend to target for services and to the needs

identified within this target population?

Helpful Background DocumentsThere are several documents that can help provide background and data relevant to the approaches in this RFP. They are: The links need to be updated and verified.

● The Child Care Planning and Advisory Council (CPAC) current Needs Assessment, available online at: www . sfcpac . org – In the Reports and Publications section.

● The DCYF 2007-2010 Children’s Services Allocation Plan (CSAP), available online at www . dcyf . org . ● The Child Care Planning and Advisory Council (CPAC) Inclusion Strategic Plan, available online at

www . sfcpac . org –under the Reports and Publications section. ● The Child Care Planning and Advisory Council (CPAC) Citywide Plan. available online at

www . sfcpac . org ● San Francisco Minimum Wage ordinance information - http :// www . sfgsa . org / index . aspx ? page =411 ● Staffed Support Networks and Quality in Family Child Care: Findings from The Family Child Care

Network Impact Study - Erikson Institute http :// www . google . com / search ? client = safari & rls = en & q = Erikson + institute + staffed + network & ie = UTF -8& oe = UTF -8

● Family Child Care Networks/Systems: A Model for Expanding Community Resource - Child Welfare League of America: http :// www . cwla . org / programs / daycare / policyfamilycarereport . pdf

● For information regarding Environmental Rating Scales (ERS), refer to Frank Porter Graham Institute website: http :// ers . fpg . unc . edu /

● California Preschool Learning Foundations, California Preschool Curriculum Framework, The Guidelines for Early Learning in Child Care Home Settings, California Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Foundations, available at http :// www . cde . ca . gov / sp / cd / re / cddpublications . asp

● California Early Childhood Educator Competencies, available at http :// www . cde . ca . gov / sp / cd / re / documents / ececompetencies 2011. pdf

● Coaching and Quality Assistance in Quality Rating Improvement Systems, available at http :// nccp . org / publications / pdf / text _1047. pdf

● Supporting Quality in Home-Based Child Care: A Compendium of 23 Initiatives; T. Porter , D. Paulsell, T. Nichols, C. Begnoche, P. Del Grosso, Mathmatica Policy Research, Inc.http :// www . acf . hhs . gov / programs / opre / cc / supporting _ quality / reports / compendium _23/ compendium _23. pdf

● T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood & Early Child Care WAGE$ Projects http :// www . childcareservices . org /_ downloads / TEACH %20 annual %20 report _08. pdf

14/87 RFP 513, 2/12

The Funding Agencies, through this RFP, are investing in a variety of strategies to improve access to and quality of affordable high quality Early Care and Education, for children birth to five years with a specific target of infants and toddlers, as well as investments targeted to support the early childhood workforce. It is understood that most initiatives/programs require collaboration and coordination with other funding strategies within this RFP, as well as already existing investments. Potential grantees should be as aware as possible of the entire citywide ECE system and investment strategies in order to be best prepared for the implementation of expected coordination and collaboration.

II. Scope of Work

1. San Francisco Child Care Connections - (SF3C) Lead Contracting Agency : HSA

Funds Available by City Department for Fiscal Year 2012-2013

DCYF First 5 SF DHS-HSA Total Funds Available FY 2012-2013

$110,000 $10,000 $337,757 $457,757

IntroductionFor many years families’ access to state contracted subsidized care required that families apply to each contractor’s waiting list. In San Francisco in order to access all waiting lists families were required to apply to over 28 contractors in over 28 locations. Disparate waiting lists also meant that the most eligible waiting families were not necessarily the next enrolled. Further, it was unclear to funders and policy makers exactly how many families were waiting for subsidized care. A 1999 study of the problem, supported by M&P Haas, identified that only 5% of families appeared on multiple contractor waiting lists.

In response to these concerns regarding family access and inadequate waiting family data, in FY 99-00 San Francisco funders and Title 5 state contractors began designing and implementing a Centralized Eligibility List (CEL). The local child care planning council (CPAC), HSA and DCYF and private funders worked with state staff to encourage state adoption of the CEL.

In 2000 California Department of Education piloted the CEL in multiple counties and subsequently implemented CEL statewide.

July 1, 2011 the State of California eliminated funding for the Centralized Eligibility List (CEL), primarily for budgetary reasons. In response to the state’s elimination of funding for CEL, in FY 11-12 the county piloted a locally funded subsidy eligibility list, renamed the San Francisco Child Care Connection (SF3C).

SF3C maintains the web based eligibility database supporting the decentralized application to a centralized eligibility list. The program now adds the strategy of a case management team to pre-screen families for subsidy eligibility and enrollment, assist them with obtaining available subsidy slots and vouchers, and support their connection with Title 5 contractors. By screening families and aiding their readiness for enrollment and eligibility verification, SF3C will decrease delays in enrollment and assist Title 5 contractors in maximizing their contract earning. Based on the success of SF3C thus far, the joint ECE funders have committed to SF3C as an important system initiative to support families and providers.

Goals

15/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Maintain and improve ease of access for low income families applying for and seeking enrollment in subsidized child care programs, thereby eliminating the need for families to be placed on a multitude of subsidy waiting lists

Maintain an automated, efficient, and fair process for connecting the “most eligible” families with subsidized child care slots as they become available

Improve timely enrollment of subsidy eligible families by Title 5 contractors Provide robust data on the demographics of families and children eligible and waiting for subsidized care.

Services RequestedThe funding agencies seek a qualified agency to maintain, administer and further develop the SF3C program in order to provide the following services and functions:

1. Maintain and develop decentralized points of application for San Francisco families seeking subsidized child care services through the management and ongoing development of the web based SF3C database system

2. Receive SF3C application data directly or electronically from any of the following: parents, participating child care and development agencies, the county welfare department, participating Head Start providers, Child Care Resource and Referral agencies, family resource centers, homeless shelters, or other agencies serving low-income families in the county

3. Provide detailed, aggregate SF3C data to the local resource and referral programs, Child Care Planning and Advisory Council (CPAC), the county welfare department and other participating funders and agencies for planning purposes.

4. Ensure timely training, technical assistance and support is provided to participating agencies (e.g., Head Start, Title 5, homeless and domestic violence shelters, family resources centers, etc.) to facilitate the efficient exchange of SF3C client information including but not limited to:

a. SF3C software or system database trainingb. SF3C operational policies and procedures to be used by participating agenciesc. Accessibility of the SF3C to participating agencies

5. Ensure the SF3C database is maintained and modified as required to provide accurate enrollment and data reporting incorporating any necessary federal, state and local policy changes

6. Manage and develop a team of SF3C subsidy enrollment case managers that:a. Educate families on their options and choices and the limitations of the availability of subsidized

care.b. Help families pre-select and choose providers, understand the need and eligibility requirements,

and negotiate the overall subsidy systemc. Pre-screen families for available subsidy slots d. Perform complete “Need & Eligibility” determinations for select contractors (as described in the

proposed plan and timeline in “Services Requested, (9)”)e. Communicate with providers regarding their current and near future subsidy enrollment needsf. Provide family data information to providers in order to facilitate subsidy enrollments

7. Propose and develop a plan and timeline (Fiscal Year 2012-2013) of implementation to annually perform all necessary need and eligibility certifications for subsidy enrollments for centers requesting those services. The plan should seek to serve a minimum of 80% of families enrolling with centers requesting the enhanced eligibility determinations with enrollments of no more than 20 families in a single month per center and no more than 200 families in a single month collectively across contractors. Targets may be re-calibrated based upon first year experience and participating Title 5 center contract feedback.

8. Develop and manage a process to provide the secure electronic transfer of family information including but not limited to pre-screening forms, need & eligibility documents, and other necessary case file forms and information to providers in order to facilitate timely and successful subsidy enrollments, conforming to state approved practices for record keeping.

9. Coordinate and conduct regular SF3C “User Meetings” and “Advisory Meetings.”10. Provide ongoing training and technical assistance to the staff at Title 5 programs, homeless shelters,

family resource centers, and child care resource and referral programs. 11. Represent SF3C at relevant child care community stakeholder and funder meetings.

16/87 RFP 513, 2/12

12. Develop and maintain up-to-date child care provider information and resources13. Demonstrate cultural and linguistic competence essential to serve the diverse population of San

Francisco. 14. Produce accurate, comprehensive quarterly reporting on the demographics of families waiting on the

SF3C database.

Performance MeasuresProvided the guidance in the overview section of this RFP, respondents are encouraged to develop salient, meaningful, and manageable process and outcome measures in their response.

Required Performance Measure targets for this Program include: Annually perform all necessary need and eligibility certification for subsidy enrollments for a minimum

of 80% of families enrolling with centers requesting the enhanced eligibility determination and requesting enrollment of no more than 20 families in a single month; collectively across contracts no more than 100 families in a single month. Target to be re-calibrated based on first year experience and participating Title 5 center contract feedback.

Provide a minimum of 8 SF3C trainings made available to staff from participating agencies Provide a minimum of 50 hours of technical assistance to Homeless Shelter staff, Family Resource

Center staff, and Center contractors annually Produce detailed, comprehensive quarterly reports of families on the waiting list and numbers of families

enrolled from the SF3C waiting list. Reports shall include ethnicity, age, income, basis of need, and other pertinent planning and enrollment data.

Provide a single system with multiple points of access to ease of state and local subsidy application process for eligible families.

Examples of additional performance measures for this Program may include: A minimum of 80% participating agencies (Title 5 contractors) responding to an annual survey to be

conducted by the city annually in March by will rate the services as “good”, “very good” or “excellent” in improving efficiency and timely enrollment of the most eligible families waiting for a subsidy.

Fulfill a minimum of 90% of contractor’s requests for pre-screened families Maintain a pool of x families with an early determination of eligibility.

Guidelines for Applicant Narratives Minimum Qualifications - Provide a description and supporting information demonstrating how your

agency meets the minimum qualifications for administering the SF3C program, numbering your response to match the Minimum Qualifications.

Program Description - Provide a description of the proposed program delivery which effectively meets the specifications of the services requested. Clearly describe how the program will support the respective target populations as customers. Detail how you will support both families applying, waiting, and preparing to enroll. Also detail the level of support provided to Title 5 contractors in placing families on the eligibility list and in prescreening and providing early eligibility determination for families. Explain the flow of services and how proper level of quality customer service will be ensured for families and Title 5 contractors.

Staffing Qualifications and roles/Org Chart - Describe the program staff roles, staff qualifications and organizational reporting including any subcontractor qualifications and organizational chart.

System Positioning - Leveraging, Effectiveness, and Efficiency - Explain how your agency’s proposal provides the most effective and efficient approach to achieve the program goals including other programs you operate or partner with which leverage funding, in-kind resources or otherwise supports efficacy and efficiency.

Minimum Qualifications1. A minimum of three years managing and maintaining a county-wide centralized child care subsidy

eligibility database17/87 RFP 513, 2/12

2. Qualified applicant agency must provide a robust database. New development of a centralized eligibility database will be not be funded with SF3C funds

3. Qualified case management staff with minimum of one year experience administering child care subsidy eligibility and/or centralized eligibility enrollment services

4. A minimum of two years demonstrated experience working with the San Francisco Title 5 contractors.

Evaluation Criteria

Organizational Capacity (30 points)1. Organization’s experience in providing proposed services to the target population. The respondent clearly demonstrates that it has the organizational infrastructure, including a developed database to manage the waiting list of eligible families and administrative capacity to deliver the program as proposed. (10 points)

2. Respondent’s past performance under grant/contract for early care and education services similar to those proposed. This will include performance under previous grants/contracts with California Department of Education, SF First 5, and the City and County of San Francisco. (10 points)

3. Demonstrated appropriate experience, professional qualifications and education of staff assigned to the project, a realistic description of the tasks to be performed by each staff person, reasonable workload demonstrating an ability to achieve the objectives, staff availability and accessibility. The staff, based on resumes or job descriptions and qualifications provided, are adequately trained or skilled to provide the services described. Adequate staffing with appropriately highly qualified staff with language capacity in minimally in Chinese, Spanish and English, sufficient to start on July 1, 2012 shall be awarded the maximum points in this area. (10 points)

Program Design (50 points)1. Overall Approach and Target Population: Description of Respondent’s specific program approach to

deliver the services proposed and how this program approach or service model will appropriately address the needs of the target population of families applying and waiting for a subsidy and needing to predetermine preferences for subsidized providers The secondary target population served by SF3C is Title 5 contractors. Ability to serve this group will be equally rated with service to families. (10 points)

2. Proposed Services: Respondent understanding of the services proposed, as well as the needs and issues involved in providing the services. Proposals shall be rated on the ability of the applicant to design a program that addresses the system needs including program goals as described in “Goals” and services as described in the “Services Requested” The funders are not locked into a specific design, but require a strong proposal which supports the success of the intiative in order to score the maximum number of points in the evaluation. (20 points)

3. Description of the specific measures to be implemented by the Respondent to ensure performance outcomes and service objectives will be met. Clear measurable service utilization and performance outcomes and/or customer satisfaction data support a higher score. Performance measures should also include a discussion of specific methods for collection of data and clear evaluation criteria for numbers of families enrolled in SF3C and numbers of Title 5 contractors supported through prescreening and early eligibility determination. Score for performance measures will be commensurate with the ability of the applicant to propose ambitious but doable deliverables to support the success of the program. (20 points)

Fiscal Capacity (20 points)1. The budget provided for services is clear and easy to understand. The budget reflects sound, adequate

allocation of resources, matching the program components including staffing costs, operating costs. Adequate costs are assigned to staffing which will achieve the targets for maintaining a prescreened pool of families, ready for enrollment. The budget supports the services proposed and is competitive with other proposals. Costs are reasonable, justified, and competitive. Cost Allocation Plan is reasonable. (15 points)

18/87 RFP 513, 2/12

2. Respondent’s ability to leverage other resources for this program, either from in-kind, and/or external resources. The proposal reflects the effective use of organizational resources/external resources, including leveraged funds, designated exclusively for the success of this program. (5 points)

19/87 RFP 513, 2/12

2. Child Care Facilities Fund Lead Contracting Agency : HSA

Funds Available by City Department for Fiscal Year 2012-2013

DCYF DHS-HSA Total Funds Available FY 2012-2013

$816,691 $2,139,864 $2,956,555

The funding available for this Program is $2,956,555 in FY 12-13 with adjusted funding for capital and revolving grants in years two and three based on Developer Fee revenue and availability of city funds for capital project. Certain Facilities Fund revenues are one-time and some are revolving. Unspent funds or repaid grants may be recommitted from year-to-year.

IntroductionThe Child Care Facilities Fund (CCFF) is a public-private partnership designed to preserve, improve and expand the supply and quality of licensed child care facilities in San Francisco through the provision of focused technical assistance, grants, loans, leveraged financing, and system-wide improvements. The Child Care Facilities Fund was developed by public-private funders to develop expertise and a centralized resource for child care providers to access support for all things related to their facilities and capital project support. Most child care providers do not own their own property and demand for child care spaces by families is exacerbated by the cost of property, property maintenance and the limitations in San Francisco of appropriate, cost effective, licensable space to support the provision on high quality care.

BackgroundMost child care providers do not own their own property and demand for child care spaces by families is exacerbated by the cost of property, property maintenance and the limitations in San Francisco of appropriate, cost effective, licensable space to support the provision on high quality care.

There are over 300 licensed centers and over 700 licensed family child care homes in San Francisco. Most child care center providers do not own their own property. Likewise many family child care homes are situated in rented properties. The demand for child care spaces by families is exacerbated by the cost of property, property maintenance and the limitations in San Francisco of appropriate, cost effective, licensable space to support the provision on high quality care.

In 1998 the city partnered with M&P Haas to support the Child Care Facilities Fund to manage an innovative approach to expand licensed capacity through the use of HUD Section 108 loan products loaned to expanding centers serving low income children and families (primarily Title 5 state contractors). These loans were subsidized by the city by 50% to 80%. The result was a near doubling of infant and toddler licensed capacity and greatly expanded new licensed centers and quality options for care providing increased access to CalWORKs and other vouchered families as well as increased private payer access.

Building on the success of the Section 108 loan program, the Child Care Facilities Fund, with support from the city, added grants and loans and a variety of innovative training, technical assistance and support. For most San Francisco providers, particularly those caring for low income children, the Facilities Fund quickly became the “go-to” for all facilities related information and expertise.

Goals Develop new licensed care capacity in areas of highest unmet need. Retain the growth in licensed care developed by city investments over the past nine years. Support the development of new, well designed, licensed child care facilities, working with providers and

city departments on strategies and opportunities for new development.

20/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Support the retention of slots and programs threatened by facilities-related closures, particularly those serving subsidized children.

Support relocation of programs as determined by need. Support the acquisition and improvements of facilities for non-profits administering subsidized ECE/child

care programs, thereby stabilizing the future of facilities developed for the purpose of ECE/child care. Support ECE/child care providers with expertise in building acquisition, leasing, maintenance, and capital

projects. Create and facilitate high quality ECE/child care environments for San Francisco children and their

families. Provide financial products such as revolving grants and forgivable loans to providers in times of financial

need.

Services RequestedThe Funding Agencies are seeking a community-based partner to continue local efforts to preserve, improve and increase the supply of high quality, licensed child care environments serving San Francisco’s children and families.

1. The CCFF must effectively and dynamically administer a range of financial products to meet the evolving capital needs of the licensed ECE/child care field from development, marketing, underwriting, award, monitoring, and repayment. The expected array of financial products currently includes, but is not limited to: planning and predevelopment grants and loans and subsidized loans; development grants and loans; start-up financing facility maintenance grants; short-term emergency repayable grants; disaster preparedness incentives; and other programs.

2. The CCFF must seek to create leveraged financing strategies in the context of individual projects and to otherwise support the Facilities Fund efforts citywide.

3. The CCFF must administer the Child Development Capital Fund and track fund expenditures and total project expenditures by project.

4. The CCFF must effectively provide training, resource linkage, and one-on-one technical assistance related to the facilities development process including feasibility analysis, capital planning, design, development, permit process, start-up, and facility maintenance.

5. The CCFF must effectively provide consultation and assistance regarding fiscal and operating issues to licensed ECE/child care centers serving low-income children, particularly those contracted through California Department of Education-Child Development Division and federal Early Head Start and Head Start and for facilities identified as priorities for capital projects.

6. The CCFF must support the capital improvements of city facilities licensed as child care centers and assigned to HSA.

7. The CCFF must effectively administer the existing portfolio of previously awarded grants and loans including the close out and final payoff of Section 108 loans repayment subsidies for 12 centers caring for over 600 children, including but not limited to: collecting payments; monitoring compliance with financial, credit, and program enrollment requirements; and providing periodic reports to the City’s Inter agency Child Care Facilities Committee. [This loan portfolio is projected to be paid off in September of 2012.]

8. The CCFF must effectively identify new opportunities for leveraged development strategies and financing to meet the capital needs of the ECE sector.

9. The CCFF shall provide staffing for monthly meetings of the City’s Inter-agency Child Care Facilities Committee, comprised of representatives from the Funding Agencies, the Mayor’s Office of Economic Development, and other City departments as invited; as well as for a periodic CCFF Advisory Committee to gain feedback on the initiative’s effectiveness meeting the needs of licensed ECE/child care providers.

Performance MeasuresProvided the guidance in the overview section of this RFP, respondents are encouraged to develop salient, meaningful, and manageable process and outcome measures in their response. It is understood that capacity 21/87 RFP 513, 2/12

objectives are impacted by the number and level of capital grants approved by the Interagency funders. Objectives shall be set and monitored for contract success according to grant/loan approval levels.

Required Performance Measures: Applicant to Specify Targets: Capital leveraging: Track and report dollar amount and percentage of financing leveraged from non-city

sources in a given year. Discreet reporting for Developer Fee funded projects and other city supported projects. Capital leveraging will exceed contracted capital investment by a minimum of 25%,

Examples of annual performance measures for this Program may include: Technical Assistance : Provide x annual hours of new facility development one:one technical assistance

annually to new and /or expanding ECE/child care providers/programs for new facility development. Technical Assistance: Number of providers supported in applying and securing capital funding outside of

capital funds included in the city contract. Training : Provide x hours and/or x number of trainings on facility development or finance provided to

licensed ECE/child care providers/programs provided annually. Capacity Building : Net increase in the number of licensed child care slots (center/family child care). Capacity Building: Number of newly licensed slots in underserved neighborhoods. Capacity Retention : Number of licensed slots retained through grants or loans. Capacity Retention : Number of licensed slots improved through grants or loans. Capacity Building: Percentage of increase in the supply of licensed child care facilities available in San

Francisco. Capacity Building: Net increase in the number of licensed child care slots (center/family child care) Capital leveraging : The funds leveraged shall be no less than 33% of the administrative costs of

administering the loans and grants.

Guidelines for Applicant Narrative Minimum Qualifications - Provide a description and supporting information demonstrating how your

agency meets the minimum qualifications for administering the program, numbering your response to match the Minimum Qualifications.

Program Description - Provide a description of the proposed program delivery which meets the specifications of the services requested.

Staffing qualifications and roles/Org chart - Describe the program staff roles, staff qualifications and organizational reporting including any subcontractor qualifications and organizational chart.

System positioning - Leveraging, Effectiveness, and Efficiency - Explain how your agency’s proposal provides the most effective and efficient approach to achieve the program goals including what other programs you operate or partner with which leverage or otherwise supporte efficacy and efficiency.

Minimum Qualifications A minimum of three (3) years demonstrated experience as a financial intermediary managing a large

portfolio of loans and grants for ECE/child care facilities. A minimum of three (3) years demonstrated experience providing capital projects and facilities technical

assistance to licensed ECE/child care programs. Qualified staff with demonstrated expertise in facilities development, financing, and child care licensing

Evaluation Criteria

Organizational Capacity (30 points)1. Organization’s experience in providing proposed loan and financial services to licensed family child care

providers and center operators. The respondent clearly demonstrates that it has the organizational 22/87 RFP 513, 2/12

infrastructure, including a developed lending office and administrative capacity to deliver the program as proposed. (10 points)

2. Respondent’s past performance under grant/contract for early care and education services similar to those proposed. This will include performance under previous grants/contracts with California Department of Education, SF First 5, and the City and County of San Francisco. (10 points)

3. Demonstrated appropriate experience, professional qualifications and education of staff assigned to the project, a realistic description of the tasks to be performed by each staff person, reasonable workload demonstrating an ability to achieve the objectives, staff availability and accessibility. The staff, based on resumes or job descriptions and qualifications provided, are adequately trained or skilled to provide the services described. Adequate staffing with appropriately highly qualified staff with language capacity in minimally in Chinese, Spanish and English, or strategies to ensure language capacity in order to serve the diverse familiy child care community. Highly qualified and sufficient staff shall be awarded the maximum points in this area. (10 points)

Program Design (50 points)1. Overall Approach and Target Population: Description of Respondent’s specific program approach to

deliver the services proposed and how this program approach or service model will appropriately address the needs of the target population of licensed centers and family child care providers, particularly those caring for low/moderate income families. Soundness of the overall approach and fiscal strategies and products tailored to improving, increasing and retaining licensed care shall result in the highest score.(10 points)

2. Proposed Services: Respondent understanding of the services proposed, as well as the needs and issues involved in providing the services. Proposals shall be rated on the ability of the applicant to design a program that addresses the system needs and program goals as described in “Goals” and services as described in the “Services Requested”. The funders are not locked into a specific design, but require a strong proposal which clearly and realistically supports the success of the intiative in order to score the maximum number of points in the evaluation. (20 points)

3. Description of the specific measures to be implemented by the Respondent to ensure performance outcomes and service objectives will be met. Clear measurable service utilization and performance outcomes and/or customer satisfaction data support a higher score. Performance measures should also include a discussion of specific methods for collection of data and clear evaluation criteria for measuring performance including how duplicative reporting of slots will be addressed. Score for performance measures will be commensurate with the ability of the applicant to propose ambitious but doable deliverables to support the success of the program. (20 points)

Fiscal Capacity (20 points)1. The budget provided for services is clear and easy to understand. The budget reflects sound, adequate

allocation of resources, matching the program components including staffing costs, operating costs. Adequate costs are assigned to staffing which will achieve the targets. Budget reflects allocation of staff and limits operating and indirect on pass through funding in relation to the administrative burden of the respective loans, revolving grants, and grants. The budget supports the services proposed and is competitive with other proposals. Costs are reasonable, justified, and competitive. Cost Allocation Plan is reasonable. (15 points)

2. Respondent’s ability to leverage other resources for this program, either from in-kind, and/or external resources. The proposal reflects the effective use of organizational resources/external resources, including leveraged funds, designated exclusively for the success of this program. (5 points)

23/87 RFP 513, 2/12

3. Compensation and Wage Augmentation Grants for Economic Support (C- WAGES) Fiscal Intermediary Lead Contracting Agency : HSA

Funds Available by City Department for Fiscal Year 2012-2013

DCYF First 5 SF HSA Total Funds Available

FY 2012-2013

C-WAGES Fiscal Intermediary Administrative Funding $168,318 $86,997 $150,021 $405,336

C-WAGES CTR Grants$3,700,00

0$913,003 $2,750,24

0$7,363,243

C-WAGES FCC Grants $1,140,000

$0 $916,747 $2,056,747

Total Fiscal Intermediary Grants $5,008,318

$1,000,000

$3,817,008

$9,825,326

$405,336is made available for C-WAGES: Fiscal Intermediary ($118,890), FCC Program Administration ($86,446), and Information Technology & Data Support ($200,000).

Grant administration supports pass through funding of $9,419,990 ($7,363,243 for participating qualified centers and $2,056,747 to qualified Family Child Care Quality Network members). Total grant amount is $9,825,326 annually.

IntroductionChild care administrators and family child care providers are challenged with providing affordable, quality care. In San Francisco the ability to do so is exacerbated by the high cost of living -- which is difficult particularly in the area of staffing. Staff costs are typically 80-90% of a centers costs and a troublesome for family child care homes as well. For Title 5 centers this problem is compounded by a suppressed State Reimbursement Rate (SRR) which essentially reimburses programs at a rate far below their costs or the local market cost of care.

Nationally it is understood that low compensation and high job turnover adversely affect the quality of care that child care workers are able to provide.

The Center for the Study of Child Care Employment at UC Berkeley noted “To attract and retain competent and able employees, we need a national commitment to increase compensation, improve adult work environments, and support on-going learning for our early care and education workforce.” The C-WAGES program attempts to address these concerns by supporting administrators and family child care providers with increasing the compensation package they offer to staff.

In FY 12-13 the C-WAGES Program is a redesign of WAGES Plus, DCYF center operating grants, Infant Toddler Sustaining Grants, the PFA BA bonus, and also includes a portion of the local contribution to CARES stipends. The new program, Compensation and Wage Augmentation Grants for Economic Support (C-WAGES) has been designed to-

Reduce administrative burden for participating centers and family child care providers 24/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Improve the strategic breadth and parity of the program in reaching providers, particularly Title 5 contractors and those providers caring for low-income and at-risk children

Provide flexibility for administrators and family child care providers in the compensation strategies offered to staff

Encourage and promote rational wage scales beyond the CA Child Development Permit Matrix, to highlight the need to increase compensation for degree attainment

Create transparency between administrators, family child care provides and their staff related to wages, educational attainment, professional development, and job title, through the implementation of the CA ECE Workforce Registry

More closely coordinate other city strategies such as SF CARES, ECE Pathways, Assessment and TA, and web-based data systems

The redesign of compensation investments and operating grants retains the direct Family Child Care provider support previously administered for WAGES Plus which is funded through the C-WAGES Fiscal Intermediary.

The funders recongnize that standardized system reporting for the newly designed program will require extensive data reporting support for providers. There will be a significant demand on providers to shift reporting to Cocoa (for enrollment), the ECE Workforce Registry (staffing and compensation reporting) and other systems as they are developed. Accordingly, funding in the redesign includes support for the fiscal intermediary to provider Information Technology (IT) and data reporting technical assistance for providers. It is envisioned that the Famly Child Care network reporting for C-WAGES will be completed by the C-WAGES family child care program support, embedded in the Fiscal Intermediary for C-WAGES.

In the program redesign centers and family child care providers, including those currently benefiting from ITSG, WAGES Plus, and DCYF grants, and additional center and family child care providers meeting the eligibility criteria, shall apply for the C-WAGES program in a separate Notice of Funding Availability to be issued by the city prior to April 1st, 2012. Funding will be based on formulas and eligibility criteria. Selected Family Child Care providers will become members of the Family Child Care quality network(s); administrators of the network(s) will be selected through this RFP.

Goals The goal of the Fiscal Intermediary for the Compensation and Wage Augmentation Grants for Economic Support (C-WAGES) Program is to:

efficiently and cost effectively streamline the payment and disbursement process for the C-WAGES program;

to administer the family child care C-WAGES program, thereby supporting the success of the Family Child Care Staffed Quality Network(s), and;

to develop Information Technology Technical Assistance in the form of a call center, workshops, and other avenues to assist center directors, or their designees, the C-WAGES Program Coordinator, and the Family Child Care Quality Network staff in accessing and utilizing City/County web-based data systems, Cocoa, ECE Workforce Registry, and other data systems as they become available (i.e. QRIS data system) upon the direction of City/County funders.

Services Requested 1. Beginning with FY 2012-13 fiscal year, the C-WAGES Fiscal Intermediary shall issue payments to

approved center sites based on new funding formulas and as authorized by the City/County. 2. The C-WAGES Fiscal Intermediary shall determine the eligibility and funding for 250 licensed family

child care sites served through the Family Child Care Staffed Quality Network(s) and confirm the eligibility with the FCC Staffed Quality Network(s) based on program eligibility criteria set by the city.

3. The fiscal intermediary shall train FCC Quality Network’s staff in workforce issues and C-WAGES FCC eligibility. Training and technical assistance shall also be made available to FCC Staffed Quality Network(s)’ family child care operators and their assistants.

4. Information Technology and Technical Assistance shall be made available to FCC network staff, participating C-WAGES FCC owners and staff and Center directors and staff regarding reporting and

25/87 RFP 513, 2/12

participation in the ECE Workforce Registry, Cocoa, and other web-based data systems sponsored by the City/County as they become available.

5. Family child care participants in the Family Child Care Quality Network, C-WAGES FCC, and their staff shall be linked to the ECE Workforce Registry, Cocoa, and other data systems as they are developed by the City/County.

6. FCC support shall include professional development portfolios in the CA ECE Workforce Registry. The Joint funders shall issue a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) to eligible licensed centers and family child care homes by April 1, 2012. Eligibility of C-WAGES funding shall be determined by City/County staff.

It is recognized that expertise in current data systems, some of which are in development, will need to be developed by the grantee. It is the city’s intent to support the training of the fiscal intermediary IT staff.

Performance MeasuresRequired Performance Measures include:

Minimum of 95% of payments shall be issued timely payments to C-WAGES Centers as authorized by city staff, providing payment within 5 business days from date of authorization

Perform initial and ongoing eligibility determination for 250 C-WAGES Family Child Care providers on a quarterly basis.

Examples of additional performance measures include: Monthly payments issued to 75 C-WAGES center and 250 FCC family child care providers Issue approximately 75 payments to center C-WAGES participants monthly and approximately 250 family

child care providers Provide a minimum x hours of training to FCC Staffed Quality Network staff and providers, Family Child

Care Association leadership, and to the leadership of 6 Neighborhood networks. Provide x hours of IT TA to FCC owners and center directors and staff on CA ECE Workforce Registry

and Cocoa web based data systems Percentage of C-WAGES Family Child Care provider participants rating services as “good” or better as

being informative and assisting them in successful program participation.

Guidelines for Applicant Narrative Minimum Qualifications - Provide a description and supporting information demonstrating how your

agency meets the minimum qualifications for administering the program, numbering your response to match the Minimum Qualifications.

Program Description - Provide a description of the proposed program delivery which meets the specifications of the services requested. Describe the delivery of services for fiscal intermediary, C-WAGES FCC eligibility, reporting and data support, and the design of Information and Technolody supports for providers to ensure accurate and streamlined data reporting as outlined in “Services Requested.”

Staffing qualifications and roles/Org chart - Describe the program staff roles, staff qualifications and organizational reporting including any subcontractor qualifications and organizational chart.

System positioning - Leveraging, Effectiveness, and Efficiency - Explain how your agency’s proposal provides the most effective and efficient approach to achieve the program goals including what other programs you operate or partner with which leverages or otherwise supports efficacy and efficiency.

Minimum Qualifications1. C-WAGES Fiscal Intermediary shall have a minimum of three years experience issuing checks to

licensed San Francisco child care providers2. C-WAGES Fiscal Intermediary shall have staff, either directly or through subcontract, who have

demonstrated minimum of two years experience successfully supporting licensed family child care providers with compensation and/or business issues.

26/87 RFP 513, 2/12

3. C-WAGES Fiscal Intermediary shall demonstrate the ability to link payment data to providers voucher payments, to support the cross verification of city investments with voucher enrollment.

4. C-WAGES Fiscal Intermediary shall have staff, either directly or through subcontract, with a minimum of two years of demonstrated success working effectively with licensed child care providers to meet program data reporting obligations.

Evaluation Criteria

Organizational Capacity (30 points)1. Organization’s demonstrated experience with data systems, providing support to licensed providers, and

issuing payments. The respondent clearly demonstrates that it has the organizational infrastructure and administrative capacity to effectively administer the program as proposed. (10 Points)

2. Respondent’s past performance under grant/contract for early care and education services similar to those proposed. This will include performance under previous grants/contracts with California Department of Education, SF First 5, and the City and County of San Francisco. (10 Points)

3. Demonstrated appropriate experience, professional qualifications and education of staff assigned to the project, a realistic description of the tasks to be performed by each staff person, reasonable workload demonstrating an ability to achieve the objectives, staff availability and accessibility. The staff, based on resumes or job descriptions and qualifications provided, are adequately trained or skilled to provide the services described. Adequate staffing with appropriately highly qualified staff with language capacity in minimally in Chinese, Spanish and English, or strategies to ensure language capacity in order to serve the diverse family child care community. Highly qualified and sufficient staff available July 1, 2012 shall be awarded the maximum points in this area. (10 Points)

Program Design (50 points)1. Overall Approach and Target Population: Description of Respondent’s specific program approach to

deliver the services proposed and how this program approach or service model will appropriately address the needs of the target population of C-WAGES licensed centers and family child care providers, noting that these are programs caring for low/moderate income families. Soundness and clarity of the overall approach and program design determined likely to achieve the program goals by effectiveness in supporting the target population shall result in the highest score.(10 Points)

2. Proposed Services: Respondent understanding of the services proposed, as well as the needs and issues involved in providing the services. Proposals shall be rated on the ability of the applicant to design a program that addresses the system needs and program goals as described in “Goals” and services as described in the “Services Requested”. The funders are not locked into a specific design, but require a strong proposal which clearly and realistically supports the success of the intiative in order to score the maximum number of points in the evaluation, particularly in the areas of Family Child Care program administration and in the domain of IT and Data technical assistance. (20 Points)

3. Description of the specific measures to be implemented by the Respondent to ensure performance outcomes and service objectives will be met. Clear measurable service utilization and performance outcomes and/or customer satisfaction data support a higher score. Performance measures should also include a discussion of specific methods for collection of data and clear evaluation criteria for measuring performance including how duplicative reporting of slots will be addressed. Score for performance measures will be commensurate with the ability of the applicant to propose ambitious but doable deliverables to support the success of the program. (20 Points)

Fiscal Capacity (20 points)1. The budget provided for services is clear and easy to understand. The budget reflects sound, adequate

allocation of resources, matching the program components including staffing costs, operating costs. Adequate costs are assigned to staffing which will achieve the targets. Budget reflects allocation of staff and limits operating and indirect on pass through funding in relation to the administrative burden of the respective loans, revolving grants, and grants. The budget supports the services proposed and is

27/87 RFP 513, 2/12

competitive with other proposals. Costs are reasonable, justified, and competitive. Cost Allocation Plan is reasonable. Budget limits administrative indirect costs on provider pass-through funds. (15 Points)

2. Respondent’s ability to leverage other resources for this program, either from in-kind, and/or external resources. The proposal reflects the effective use of organizational resources/external resources, including leveraged funds, designated exclusively for the success of this program. (5 Points)

28/87 RFP 513, 2/12

4. Quality Rating Services Lead Contracting Agency : First 5 SF Children and Families Commission

A maximum amount of $2,103,476 has been allocated to support the provision of rating services by this joint funding effort over a three-year period. The grant agreement will fund the costs associated with providing the rating services annually for a three year period (FY2012-2013, FY2013-2014, and FY2014-2015).

Funds Available by City Deparment for Fiscal Year 2012-2015

DCYF First 5 SF HSA Total Funds Available FY 2012-2015

$309,000 $1,580,000 $214,476 $2,103,476

Annual amounts will be negotiated with the selected bidders based on performance measures and funding availability. Contracts will be structured with a fixed amount for administration, coordination and operating expenses and a maximum earned amount based per units of service.

In fiscal year 2012-2013, it is anticipated $644,492 will be made available for rating services. Of this amount, $25,000 may be used for one-time start-up expenses (recruitment and training of assessors with bilingual capacity, development of multilingual print and electronic materials, purchase of equipment related to assessment).

Funds Available by City Deparment for Fiscal Year 2012-2013

DCYF First 5 SF HSA Total Funds Available FY 2012-2013

$103,000 $470,000 71,492 $644,492*

*The Mimi and Peter Haas Fund has been a partner with the Department of Children, Youth and their Families, First 5 SF and the Human Services Agency as the sole private funder of the city-wide assessment system since its inception in 2000. The Fund will continue to support quality early childhood education and care licensed preschool centers and family childcare homes through the rating and program improvement services for SF-QRIS. To this end, the Fund is committed to accepting a proposal from the final candidate(s) of the RFP process for additional funding.

IntroductionA growing body of research confirms that high quality early learning programs help improve children’s readiness for school and success in life, leading to higher test scores, better school attendance, reduced grade retention, higher rates of school completion, greater likelihood of attending college, and higher lifetime earnings (Reynolds et al, 2007; Karoly & Bigelow, 2005; Ramey et al, 2000).

Quality early learning programs that use research-based, developmentally appropriate practices achieve positive results. Poor-quality programs exacerbate and perpetuate the school readiness gap, and may be unsafe, unhealthy, and cause harm to our youngest children (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2002; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).

29/87 RFP 513, 2/12

In recognition of the need to build and support quality early care and education options to families, San Francisco’s early care and education (ECE) funders are working with community leaders, stakeholders, providers and advocates across the city to design a Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) for early care and education. A QRIS is a set of ratings graduated by level of quality and used to assess early learning and care programs. It is based upon early childhood research identifying the quality elements that are critical to positive child development outcomes. QRIS’s objective ratings will assist families to identify quality programs, guide providers in continuous program improvements, inform the delivery of technical assistance to early childhood educators; and provide policymakers needed information to hold programs accountable and to invest in effective quality improvement efforts.

The SF-QRIS will be modeled after the California Early Learning Quality Improvement System and will utilize a set of research-based common assessment tools as part of the framework to rate and improve quality in early care and education settings. The Environment Rating Scales (ERS), developed by Harms, Clifford and Cryer, at Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill campus has been used in San Francisco for the past six years and will be one of the tools to measure environmental quality in the SF-QRIS. Three ERS scales will be used in assessments: the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Revised (ECERS-R), the Infant Toddler Environment Rating Scale Revised (ITERS-R), and the Family Child Care Environment Rating Scale Revised (FCCERS-R). Two additional instruments are anticipated to be utilized in some capacity during the three-year grant period. Beginning in 2012-2013, the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert C. Pianta, Ph.D., Karen M. La Paro, Ph.D., and Bridget K. Hamre, Ph.D, at the University of Virginia will be incorporated to measure the quality of teacher/child interactions. By 2014-2015, the Program Administration Scale (PAS) assessment for classroom-based providers or a Business Administration Scale (BAS) assessment for family child care providers will be used in some capacity in San Francisco.

As the SF-QRIS is developed, the selected contractor for the Quality Rating Services is expected to build the capacity to use new tools and to provide provider-friendly training and rating services to support San Francisco’s early care and education programs accordingly. The SF-QRIS will utilize a centralized, cloud-based regional data management system which will consolidate and process information needed for technical assistance, rating and outcome analysis. Both the contractors for Quality Rating Services and Quality Improvement Services will use this data management system, linking accountability, program improvement and performance components of SF-QRIS.

In addition to supporting eligible programs participating in city-funded programs to raise quality through rating services, the contractor for Quality Rating Services will collaborate with the contractor for Quality Improvement Services to provide information and support for future SF-QRIS participation and to increase providers understanding, comfort, and efficacy to utilize the assessment tools of SF-QRIS.

The purpose of this RFP for Quality Rating Services is to secure a qualified contractor for the provision of citywide external rating services necessary for the optimal implementation of San Francisco’s QRIS for licensed early care and education programs, with priority for services given to publically-funded early care and education programs serving low income or children with special needs. The successful contractor of the Quality Rating Services should be aware that the possibility exists which may require multi-county collaboration and increase the need for external reviews should San Francisco move toward participation in a regional approach to QRIS.

Goals Ensure that all children, with priority to those who can have greatest benefit, have access to quality

programs Ensure that public dollars are being used efficiently to support and encourage high-quality programs Determine the availability of quality early childhood education in San Francisco

30/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Create the necessary infrastructure for the measurement of performance to inform program improvement and professional development efforts, thereby supporting programs meet and maintain the quality standards.

Develop a culture of ongoing program improvement in the early care and education community where providers are motivated and supported to improve the quality of their programs.

Services Requested

Rating Services for Early Childhood Programs1. The contractor shall perform valid and reliable ratings, using Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale–

Revised (ECERS-R), Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ITERS-R), Family Child Care Environment Rating Scale -Revised (FCCERS-R) scoring. and the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) assessment tool. Pending new funding, the Rating Services contractor shall provide external reviews of additional criteria of the SF-QRIS when it is developed, including using the Program Administration Scale assessment tool (PAS) for center-based preschools, and the Business Administration Scale.

In FY 2012-2013, the contractor shall conduct approximately 365 ERS and 184 CLASS assessments:○ ERS assessments (maintaining the City’s three-year assessment cycle for family child care

providers and moving toward an assessment schedule of every two years for center-based sites)○ CLASS assessments (creating a baseline for 50% for center-based preschool providers). ○ ERS reassessments for sites with a composite score below the baseline requirements of city-

funded programs and which have been identified by the SF-QRIS Improvement Services provider or Preschool for All.

○ Additional assessments for programs new to the system

By FY 2014-2015, the bidder shall minimally provide:○ ECERS, ITERS and/or FCCERS assessments on a schedule of every two years for center-based

sites and family child care homes that participate, or have been identified, to participate in city-funded programs.

○ CLASS assessments for center-based sites and family child care homes on a schedule of every two years.

○ Reassessment of sites with a composite score below the baseline requirements of city-funded programs and which have been identified by the SF-QRIS Improvement Services provider. Additional policies may be jointly developed by city funders and the SF-QRIS service providers as needed for selection of sites to be reassessed.

The review process must include the following components:a. Provision of informational materials (minimally available in Chinese, Spanish and English) on

the external review process, including frequently asked questions sheet.b. Notification of two-week assessment window per classroom/home.c. For ERS tools: Individual classroom/session-level external review Results Reports

in alignment with the “expanded version score sheet” developed by Harms,Clifford and Cryer.

d. Assessment report with information needed by provider agencies to clearly identify their “areas of strength” and “areas that need improvement” at the classroom/session level.

e. Options for onsite report sharing meeting, electronic or postal delivery.f. Provider satisfaction input through surveys.

2. The successful contractor will develop a fee-for-service plan and informational materials to respond to interest from early care and education educators and programs who desire rating services.

3. The contractor shall must develop an Assessment Review Process, to be triggered when sites disagree with assessment results. The Assessment Review process shall be informed by community input, approved by the funders, and shared with providers.

31/87 RFP 513, 2/12

4. The contractor is responsible for maintaining an External Review Team, a cadre of highly trained, certified and calibrated external raters.

a. The contractor may use a combination of staff and contracted personnel to make up the External Review Team. Individuals cannot serve as an external rater for the environment and provide technical assistance or coaching services through the Quality Improvement Services, Quality Family Childcare Network, or Preschool for All program in San Francisco County. (The contractor has until 12/31/2012 to comply with this requirement.)

b. Minimum qualification for members of the External Review Team is a BA in Early Childhood Education or related field. The External Review Team members should have significant experience in the provision of early care and education in a variety of ECE settings (including family child care, infant toddler care and center-based programs).

c. The External Review Team must maintain bilingual capacity at all times to meet the multi-lingual needs of San Francisco’s population and ECE workforce. A minimum of two bilingual reviewers in Spanish/English and two bilingual reviewers in Cantonese/Mandarin/English must be maintained on the External Review Team for all types of assessments.

d. To ensure the reliability of the ECERS-R, ITERS-R, FCCERS-R, and CLASS assessments, the contractor will conduct annual quality assurance reliability checks and training for their assessment staff, and identify suitable “reliability anchors” that will assist in conducting spot checks to confirm the reliability of the assessments.

5. The successful contractor shall convene regular Advisory Group meetings of key stakeholders including representation from all types of licensed providers, funders, local Child care Planning and Advisory Committee representatives, and representatives from the early childhood professional development community. The Advisory Group provides general feedback and recommendations on the administration of the assessment/reassessment process. Final decision regarding program design lies jointly with the contractor and the Funding Agencies.

Provision of Electronic and Print Media Related to the Rating Services6. The contractor shall develop and implement protocols and documents for providing clear information on

the external review process which is easy to understand, supportive to providers and contributes to the culture of ongoing program improvement tied to child readiness outcomes. This should include provider-friendly information regarding the assessment process, including resource information such as tip sheets, frequently asked questions, and articles. Materials should be multilingual, in both electronic and print format.

Database Utilization, Tracking, Analysis and Reporting7. The successful contractor will utilize and maintain appropriate fields using the data base management

system identified by the city funders. The contractor will participate in TA and training from the database management system vendor. The successful contractor shall provide quarterly reports, using the identified QRIS data management systems to update the funders of current status and scheduling of assessments, including projections for meeting annual targets.

8. The successful contractor will track ERS results reports and identify sites eligible for technical assistance to the Quality Improvement Services contractor on a regular basis, but no less than quarterly basis.

9. The successful contractor will participate and contribute to community planning and collaborative meetings as necessary to achieve goals of this RFP.

a. The successful contractor will participate in quarterly meetings with the funders, the contractor for Quality Improvement Services and other key stakeholders for reporting and planning purposes.

b. Regular meetings will be necessary with Quality Improvement Services contractor for coordination, communication and shared knowledge.

c. The contractor will review performance data, analyze and provide an annual report summarizing the current status of quality of early care and education sites. This report should include a trend analysis to inform training and technical assistance plans and investments.

Training Services

32/87 RFP 513, 2/12

10. In collaboration with the Quality Improvement Service contractor, the successful contractor will provide training which is related to the external review instruments which are used in San Francisco:

a. In-depth training (of at least 8 hours each) on CLASS and the ERS family of tools and it’s use in assessment and program improvement strategies for technical assistance specialists in SF. (coaches, instructors, trainers, family child care network staff).

b. Development and/or provision of web-based or onsite training to support meaningful use of quality improvement assessment instruments identified by SF-QRIS to new and existing providers, in collaboration with the Quality Improvement Services contractor.

Performance MeasuresProvided the guidance in the overview section of this RFP, respondents are encouraged to review and integrate both required performance measures and to develop salient, meaningful, and manageable process and outcome measures in their response.

Required Performance Measures: Content and Targets Pre-determined In Year 1, the contractor will provide:

o ERS   assessments for 50% of all publicly Preschool for All and C-Wages centers.o ERS  assessments for 30% of all family care homes in the FCC Quality Networko ERS  assessments for 100% of newly identified FCC Quality Network members and identified

Pre-PFA siteso ERS assessments for 100% of all sites requiring ERS re-assessment (following implementation of

Quality Improvement Plans and with approval by Quality Improvement Services or Preschool for All staff)

o CLASS  assessments for 50% of center-based preschool providers 100% of   External Reviewers will receive annual quality assurance and reliability checks. Contractor will participate in a minimum of xxx training and/or coordination sessions  with  TA providers By December 2012, contractor will develop in-depth training for TA community on ERS tools. By September 2012, contractor will establish a fee-for-service plan. By July 30 2012, contractor will submit and share an annual report on the findings from rating services.

Examples of Additional Outcome Performance Measures Percent of TA providers and stakeholders reporting high satisfaction with timeliness and

comprehensiveness of data and information reports. Percent of  sites reporting that the assessment process was informative and educational Percent of sites reporting that the assessment process lead to a meaningful and

useful quality improvement plan Percent of sites  report receiving external review reports within xx days of assessment. Percent of assessment review requests acknowledged within xx hours. Percent of assessment review concerns resolved within xx working days;remaining 25% of  assessment

review concerns  resolved within xx working days.

Guidelines for Applicant Narratives Minimum Qualifications - The joint funders seek a contractor with established expertise in both provision

of training and technical assistance, the development of conventional and web-based outreach materials, and the administration and monitoring of contracts. Provide a description and supporting information demonstrating how your agency meets the minimum qualifications for administering the program, numbering your response to match the Minimum Qualifications.

Program Description - Provide a description of the proposed program delivery which meets the specifications of the services requested.

o The contractor shall provide a plan for how the External Review Team will recruited and trained.

33/87 RFP 513, 2/12

o The contractor shall provide a plan for maintaining and expanding bilingual capacity ensuring that all sessions shall receive a timely external review in a linguisticallyappropriate language during the 2012-2015 program years.

o The contractor shall provide a plan for how it will coordinate the caseload and manage the schedules of their External Review Team and will provide a draft External Review schedule for administering the ECERS-R, ITERS-R, FCCERS-R and CLASS assessments for Year One of the project.

o The contractor shall provide a proposed schedule for how often it shall convene its External Review Team to provide calibration activities for the ECERS-R, ITERS-R, FCCERS-R, CLASS; and appropriate policy and procedures that shall ensure a timely and comprehensive external review process for all city-funded providers.

o The contractor shall describe the types of electronic and print materials that will be developed to support optimal use of the rating services by providers in San Francisco.  Please include strategies for dissemination.

o The contractor shall provide a plan for how the External Review Team shall successfully coordinate the process of collecting all required external review data, document all external review results, and provide quality control procedures including: proof reading reports and performing quality assurance checks to ensure the accuracy of all external review data, preparing external review results for import into the identified database and ensuring the timelydistribution of individual and agency trend analysis report documents to all agency directors and family child care network administrators.

o The contractor should include a description of the training content and/or processes as it relates to training services to technical assistance specialists.  Also include key elements which would be incorporated into training for providers who are new to ERS/CLASS tools and possible strategies for collaboration with the contractor of Improvement Services for these training sessions.

o Describe how you will integrate the work of multiple service partners in early care and education to support outreach to programs participating in the Quality Rating and Improvement System to help them achieve demonstrated quality improvement in child care environments and teacher-child relationships, child health and well being, family involvement and program leadership practices

Staffing Qualifications and roles/Org chart - Describe the role each will play and state the estimated percentage of time they will spend on the project.  Describe how the staff will work together and collaborate with any community partners and subcontractors.    

o Contractors - Provide qualifications of current external review team members and the minimum staff qualifications required to be employed as a member of the External Review Team, including existing bilingual capacity to meet the multi-lingual needs of San  Francisco’s population and ECE workforce.

o Subcontractors - Identify the subcontracting agencies staff that will work on this project. Describe the role each will play and state the estimated percentage of time they will spend on the project. Describe the capacities and experience the subcontractor will bring to the project.  Provide examples of a past accomplishment or a current project that relates to the organization’s role.

System Positioning - Leveraging, Effectiveness, and Efficiency -Explain how your agency’s proposal provides the most effective and efficient approach to achieve the program goals including other programs you operate or partner with which leverage or otherwise support efficacy and efficiency.

Minimum Qualifications1. Ability to complete valid and reliable  external ratings, utilizing the following materials: Early Childhood

Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R), Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ITERS-R), and the Family Child Care Environment Rating Scale Revised (FCCERS-R), developed by Thelma Harms, Richard M. Clifford and Debby Cryer.  Classroom Assessment and Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert C. Pianta, Ph.D., Karen M. La Paro, Ph.D., and Bridget K. Hamre, Ph.D.

2. Ability to deliver training services in a provider-friendly and professional  manner to diverse types of ECE/child care settings (e.g., center-based, family child care homes).

34/87 RFP 513, 2/12

3. Demonstrated effectiveness in fostering community partnerships and collaboration with other agencies/organizations.

4. Knowledge of Quality Improvement and Rating systems and their implementation in other states.5. Experience in design and  creation of  user-friendly media for raising public awareness and knowledge

among the early childhood community.6. Demonstrated experience with or plan for developing fee-for service capability.7. Has expertise and demonstrated experience with providing  project management for the delivery of user-

friendly services.8. Be able to comply with the proposed or required time of delivery or performance schedule.9. Capacity to use a “cloud-based” data management system.

Evaluation CriteriaOrganizational Capacity (30 points)1. Agency experience and capacity in designing, implementing, and administering activities similar to those

requested in this RFP. Agency demonstrates it has organizational resources and identifies developed or ongoing activities that will be dedicated or leveraged to support the activities requested in this RFP. (10)

2. Agency experience working with the population targeted by this RFP. Agency should have demonstrated knowledge of the intended target population and capacity to meet their target population's identified needs. (5)

3. Demonstrated appropriate experience, professional qualifications and education of staff assigned to the project, a realistic description of the tasks to be performed by each staff person, reasonable workload demonstrating an ability to achieve the objectives, staff availability and accessibility. The staff, based on resumes or job descriptions and qualifications provided, are adequately trained or skilled to provide the services described. (10)

4. Agency experience developing and/or working with collaborative partnerships. (5)

Program Design (50 Points) 1. Agency's overall approach demonstrates understanding of the target population and proposes strategies that

will appropriately address the needs of the target population. Overall approach and program design demonstrates sound practice with strong evidence base, shows clarity of purpose, and has a high likelihood of achieving intended goals. (10)

2. Applicant has clearly described significant activities to be accomplished for the successful implementation of the initiative/program and provided an anticipated timeframe. Agency has described activities in the context of the "Goals" and "Services Requested" sections and has sufficiently addressed the Guidelines for Applicant Narrative. (20)

3. Applicant has identified challenges that will need to be addressed to assure the successful implementation of the project, if applicable, and has identified existing resources and partnerships in the community that can be utilized to achieve success for the project. (10)

4. Applicant has clearly described their commitment and capacity to implement and track required performance measures and has proposed targets for required performance measures, if applicable. Applicant has proposed additional measures and targets to support tracking of quality, outcomes and impact. Additional measures are specific, achievable, have readily available data sources, and tie back to goals intended for the project. Applicant has clearly described their approach to continuous quality improvement, including identification of evaluation strategies, previous experience implementing evaluation, and methods for ensuring that evaluation findings inform programmatic improvements. (10)

Fiscal Capacity (20 points)

35/87 RFP 513, 2/12

1. The budget provided for services is clear, easy to understand and in accordance with provided forms and instructions. The budget reflects sound, adequate allocation of resources, matching the program components including staffing costs, operating costs. The budget supports the services proposed and is competitive with other proposals.  Costs are reasonable, justified, and competitive.  Cost Allocation Plan is reasonable. (10)

2. Applicant’s ability to leverage other resources for this program, either from in-kind, and/or external resources. The proposal reflects the effective use of organizational resources/external resources, including leveraged funds, designated exclusively for  the success of this program. (10)

36/87 RFP 513, 2/12

5. Quality Improvement Services Lead Contracting Agency : First 5 SF Children and Families Commission

Funds Available by City Department for Fiscal Year 2012-2013

DCYF First 5 SF Total Funds AvailableFY 2012-2013

$233,000 $550,000 $783,000*

*Program Enhancement Funding: of the annual total funds available in Year 1, up to $50,000 may be allocated to support programs participating in technical assistance strategies to advance their program’s level of quality based on ERS assessment.* SF CLASS Plus Program: of the annual total funds available, $150,000 is restricted for the implementation of a focused strategy to improve teacher/child interaction through the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). *The Mimi and Peter Haas Fund has been a partner with the Department of Children,  Youth and their Families, First 5 SF and the Human Services Agency as the sole private funder of the city-wide assessment  and technical assistance system since its inception in 2000.  The Fund will continue to support quality early childhood education and care licensed preschool centers and family childcare homes through the rating and program improvement services for SF-QRIS. To this end, the Fund is committed to accepting a proposal from the final candidate(s) of this RFP process for additional funding.

To streamline and better coordinate services, the ECE joint funders expect to fund one grant award to an entity with the capacity to provide citywide services.  There may be the opportunity to increase scope and funding, should it become available, through this initiative.

IntroductionA growing body of research confirms that high quality early learning programs help improve children’s readiness for school and success in life, leading to higher test scores, better school attendance, reduced grade retention, higher rates of school completion, greater likelihood of attending college, and higher lifetime earnings (Reynolds et al, 2007; Karoly & Bigelow, 2005; Ramey et al, 2000).

Quality early learning programs that use research-based, developmentally appropriate practices achieve positive results. Poor-quality programs exacerbate and perpetuate the school readiness gap, and may be unsafe, unhealthy, and cause harm to our youngest children (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2002; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).

In recognition of the need to build and support quality early care and education options for families, San Francisco’s early care and education (ECE) funders are working with community leaders, stakeholders, providers and advocates across the city to design a Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) for early care and education. A QRIS is a set of ratings graduated by level of quality and used to assess early learning and care programs.  It is based upon early childhood research identifying the quality elements that are critical to positive child development outcomes. QRIS’s objective ratings will assist families to identify quality programs, guide providers in continuous program improvements, inform the delivery of technical assistance to early childhood educators; and provide policymakers needed information to hold programs accountable and invest in effective quality improvement efforts.

The SF-QRIS will be modeled after the California Department of Education’s federal grant award for the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Grant..  Through this award, San Francisco will participate as regional consortia for  the creation of a Quality Rating and Improvement System(QRIS), with the accountability component to utilize a set of research-based common assessment tools.  The Environmental Rating Scales (ERS) family will be one of the tools of the framework to rate and improve quality in early care and education settings. 37/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Beginning in 2012-2013, the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Pianta, La Paro, and Hamre, at the University of Virginia will be incorporated to measure the quality of teacher/child interactions in San Francisco.  The PAS (Program Administration Scale) assessment for classroom-based providers and the BAS (Business Administration Scale) for family child care providers will be utilized by 2015.

Assessments alone will not yield desired results for young children unless they are coupled with investments to support high-quality services and ongoing technical assistance and professional development efforts to improve the quality and effectiveness of all programs.  Consequently, an essential component for the optimal implementation of SF-QRIS will be the creation of infrastructure to support early care and education providers to 1) to improve the quality of care and experiences offered, as defined by the SF-QRIS, which should result in children being better prepared for school and 2) to assist providers in understanding and participating in the SF-QRIS.     

The purpose of the RFP for Quality Improvement Services is to secure a qualified applicant for the provision of citywide technical assistance, coaching and training services for early care and education providers in the city, with initial priority for services given to low performing, publicly-funded early care and education programs serving low income or children with special needs.  

For the purposes of this RFP, on-site technical assistance is defined as an intentional process that uses various strategies over time to improve the quality of a child care program or an individual provider’s practices through visits to the program.  Coaching is defined as a relationship-based process led by an expert with specialized and adult learning knowledge and skills, who often serves in a different professional role than the recipient.  Coaching is designed to build the capacity for specific professional dispositions, skills, and behaviors, and is focused on goal-setting and achievement for an individual or group.  (Early Childhood Education Professional Development: Training and Technical Assistance Glossary developed by the National Association for the Education of Young Children and the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral)

In addition to supporting  eligible programs participating in city-funded programs to raise quality, the successful contractor for Quality Improvement Services will be responsible for providing information and support for future SF-QRIS participation and for increasing providers understanding, comfort, and efficacy to utilize the assessment tools of SF-QRIS as it is developed. Goals

Ensure all children, with priority to those who can have greatest benefit,  have access to quality programs. Ensure public funds are used efficiently to support and encourage high-quality programs. Increase the quality of care for family child care homes and centers, particularly those caring for

subsidized and unsubsidized low-moderate income infants and toddlers, through targeted technical assistance, training and supports.

Develop a culture of ongoing program improvement in the early care and education community where providers are motivated and supported to improve the quality of their programs.

Create the necessary infrastructure for technical assistance linked to performance and ensure programs meet and maintain the quality standards.

Create a vehicle for ongoing outreach and support to a wide range of programs and ECE practitioners to effectively participate in the future SF-QRIS and focus on continuous quality improvement.

Services RequestedThe city’s ECE funders, hereby solicit proposals from qualified contractors to identify a provider of quality improvement services needed to enhance the capacity to publicly funded early care and education providers to raise levels of program quality and to participate in a  locally designed QRIS.

The successful applicant for Quality Improvement Services is expected to:

38/87 RFP 513, 2/12

1. Establish a pool (staff and/or consultants) of qualified, multilingual technical assistance specialists that offer customized onsite technical assistance, coaching and/or training for centers and Family Child Care (FCC) programs that will increase program quality required for participation in city-funded programs (Year 1), and to support participating programs to achieve quality improvements and a higher QRIS rating.

a. The successful contractor shall commit to obtaining a clearance on criminal background check of all staff and subcontractors that enter early care and education programs for any reason.

b. The successful contractor will provide training and support for the cadre to work from a strength based, culturally and linguistically competent perspective.

c. The successful contractor shall utilize staff/consultants with a graduate-level degree in early childhood education or under-graduate degree with 5 years experience in ECE program implementation.

d. The contractor will provide in-depth training on CLASS and ERS, and the discussion of role of assessment and technical assistance as it relates to SF-QRIS with staff of Quality Rating Services. In Year 1, training shall include an orientation to the California Early Childhood Educator Teacher Competencies.

e. The pool of  specialists will as a group, at a minimum, have the following qualifications: In-depth knowledge of tools for measurement of quality in San Francisco and

program/professional development (ERS family, CLASS, BAS, PAS) Trainer-level knowledge of Center for Social Emotional Foundations in Early Learning

(CSEFEL) approach Program for Infant Toddler Care certified specialists Expertise in supporting dual language learners and working with children and families

from diverse backgrounds (identify training certification) Training and demonstrated experience in instructional coaching and adult learning Experience in the delivery and forms of quality assistance for diverse programmatic

types in the early childhood field (Preschool, Infant Toddler, Center and Family-child Care settings)

Expertise in a variety of evidence-based curriculum. Knowledge of  and ability to align support with the  California Preschool Learning

Foundations, the California Infant/Toddler Learning & Development Foundations, the California Preschool Curriculum Framework, the California Department of Education’s Desired Results Developmental Profile system for  child assessment.

2. The successful contractor will oversee the provision of onsite program improvement services to sites identified most in need of assistance to improve the city’s ECE settings for infant/toddler, preschool-aged children and family child care homes; and support providers’ capacity to meet program quality assurances as measured by Environmental Rating Scales and other baseline requirements of city-funded programs. The SF Quality Rating Services will provide a list of programs/sites that are eligible to participate in

program improvement services on a regular basis, but no less than quarterly. First priority for services include sites with assessment scores below 3.0. Second priority for services include sites who are working to increase quality to as measured by ERS from 3.0 - 4.0.  The chart below can be used to estimate work load for targeted program improvement services:

Score distribution from assessments performed in July 1 2008, through Dec 31, 2011 (Gateway 2011)3 and under 3.1- 4.0 4.1 - 4.4 4.5 and higher

ECERS 9 29 38 215

ITERS 4 16 5 54

FCCERS 50 83 33 52

63 128 76 321

39/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Specialists will be available by phone and/or appointment to identified providers in FCC networks or centers to assist them in developing and monitoring the implementation of Quality Improvement Plans to enhance the quality of care given in their programs, as identified by the ERS or CLASS assessments.  Specialist will work with FCC Quality Network staff to assist with the development of Quality Improvement Plans for network providers.  Specialists will provide program improvement supports, document whether recommended changes are implemented and notify the Quality Rating Services when follow-up assessment can be scheduled.

In the case of providers in the FCC Quality Networks, specialists will collaborate with identified network staff  regarding provision of all program quality improvement efforts and when appropriate, provide support to providers new to the ERS assessment system prior to assessment..

In the provision of targeted program improvement services, the successful contractor will develop and implement procedures and policies for the use of Program Quality Enhancement Funds.  Funds can only be used for the purchase of materials that advance the quality of an eligible site, based on the ERS assessment.

The Quality Improvement Services contractor will be required to use the SF-QRIS identified database for developing program improvement plans, monitoring program performance, and documentation of technical assistance provision.

3.   The Quality Improvement Services contractor, working collaboratively with staff of the Quality Rating contractor, shall oversee and provide training to support meaningful use of quality improvement assessment instruments identified by SF-QRIS. Training shall be offered to assist early education and care professionals, in understanding the

complexities of the ERS and the conditions under which they will be used in the SF-QRIS.  The training must be interactive and may take place in a classroom setting with an instructor, on-site at a child care center or family child day care home or via distance learning (computer-based). The contractor will be required to offer a minimum of 6 training sessions per quarter at various times. The contractor must provide training throughout the entire contract period.

The contractor shall market the availability of the training throughout the city. Training will be provided  in locations and at times designed to support broad participation by early care and education providers.

The successful  contractor, with the Quality Family Network staff,  shall develop a plan for addressing the concerns and desires of the family child care providers for strengthened orientation and training on the FCCERS-R instrument.  This plan should incorporate a combination of group and individual training, including videos and live testimonials from longstanding participants or mentors with demonstrated program excellence.

In collaboration with First 5 San Francisco, the successful contractor will be responsible for subcontracting  the SF CLASS Plus Program focused on improving teacher/child interaction through the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) with the Children’s Council of San Francisco to maintain continuity of implementation in Year 2.

5. The successful contractor will provide citywide training activities which will be informed by trend reports, the growth of SF QRIS, and funding availability.  In Fiscal Year 2012-2013, the training and technical assistance plan must include access to PITC, DRDP, and CSEFEL training.

All trainings provided by the successful contractor (including all subcontractors) shall be aligned with and make reference to the California Preschool Learning Foundations, the California Infant/Toddler Learning & Development Foundations, the California Preschool Curriculum Framework, the California Department of Education child assessment tools (DRDP family, and the environmental rating scales that provide research-based, effective practices for optimal program quality.)

Participants in city-funded programs shall have first priority to all trainings.  Staff working in city-funded homeless shelters where child care is provided shall  be targeted for participation in city-funded PITC training and technical assistance, as will staff of the Family Child Care Staffed Quality Network.

40/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Training and technical assistance strategies targeted to increasing the quality of infant toddler care shall primarily utilize the Program for Infant Toddler Care (PITC) approach. Training and technical assistance strategies targeted to increasing the social and emotional well being of children shall primarily utilize the CSEFEL approach.   Individuals providing training or technical assistance shall be certified or under the supervision of certified PITC or CSEFEL trainers/instructors.

The successful contractor shall use the Workforce Registry system to conduct outreach and track training participation.  When the workforce registry functions are available, the contractor shall ensure that all trainers are entered in the workforce registry, and conduct outreach (through varied sources) to inform providers of specific training and technical assistance opportunities;

6. The successful contractor will provide information and workshop sessions on the SF-QRIS to assist providers in understanding and participating in the SF-QRIS. The successful contractor shall develop electronic and print media for distribution and online access

of information regarding SF-QRIS. The successful contractor shall develop and deliver information sessions and technical assistance

workshops to assist in participation in SF-QRIS as it develops in 2012-2013.  (Workshops may be online/web-based or combination to reach target audience.)

Beginning in FY 2013-2014, the Quality Rating and Improvement Service grantee shall be expected to provide consultation and mentoring support to  identified early education providers in staff professional development, curriculum and instruction, child assessment, and/or program management, assisting them to make program-specific improvements and action steps determined by programs in alignment with SF-QRIS standards.

7. The successful contractor will develop a fee-for-service plan and informational materials to respond to interest  from early care and education educators and programs who work in the private sector who desire technical assistance or access to training (on space available basis).

8. The contractor for citywide Quality Improvement Services shall provide an annual report summarizing the availability and content of professional development, training, and technical assistance services available in the city of San Francisco. The intent of the report is to assess the availability of quality training and technical assistance which supports teachers to gain the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that early childhood educators need to support young children’s learning and development across program types. This report should be guided by the California Early Childhood Educator Competencies and informed by San Francisco QRIS data on early care and education program performance. http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/re/documents/ececompetencies2011.pdf

9. The successful contractor will participate in community planning and collaborative meetings as necessary to achieve goals of this RFP.  The successful contractor shalll participate in quarterly meetings with the contractor for Quality Rating Services, the leadership of the Family Childcare Quality Networks, Preschool for All and other key stakeholders for coordination, reporting, and planning purposes.   It is anticipated that regular meetings will be necessary with the contractor for Quality Rating Services management for coordination, communication and shared knowledge.

Performance MeasuresProvided the guidance in the overview section of this RFP, respondents are encouraged to develop salient, meaningful, and manageable process and outcome measures in their response.

Required Performance Measures – Targets Determined 100% of TA specialist in cadre will have and receive in-depth training on ERS family and CLASS. Provide outreach to 100% of identified sites referred for program improvement services Produce accurate and quarterly reporting on the status of sites participating in program improvement

services. Provide 4 information sessions annually to assist in participation in SF-QRIS as it develops. A minimum of 80% of centers and family child care homes, receiving technical assistance will meet

minimum baseline quality requirements and/or demonstrate improved performance as measured by reassessment using the ECERS-R, ITERS or FCCERS-R tools.

41/87 RFP 513, 2/12

By July 31, 2013, an annual report summarizing the availability and content of professional development, training, and technical assistance services available in the city of San Francisco will be submitted to funders.

Examples of Additional Outcome Performance Measures Develop program improvement plans and provide technical assistance to xx% of identified sites. Provide a minimum of xx training sessions per quarter on ERS tools, including sessions on FCCERS-R in

multiple languages for family child care subsidy network participants. Percentage of identified FCC providers increase quality from “below 3” to “above 4.0”. Percentage of providers served who are satisfied with program improvement services Percentage of providers reporting that they were able to receive services in their preferred language. Provide information and technical assistance on understanding CLASS to xx% of all center-based

preschool sites. Percentage of providers surveyed who say that they understand what a QRIS system is and how they will

be affected. A minimum of xx% of all Title V centers, responding to an annual survey to be conducted in March will

be aware of and rate their understanding of the CLASS instrument as “good”, “very good” or “excellent”.Guidelines for Application Narrative

Minimum Qualifications - Provide a description and supporting information demonstrating how your agency meets the minimum qualifications for administering the program and numbering your response to match the Minimum Qualifications.  

Program Description - Provide a description of the proposed program delivery which meets the specifications of each of the services requested. (Please correlate descriptions with each of the eight services described above.)

o Describe your vision for how the pool of specialists will function?  How will you support specialists to handle challenging situations that are sometimes present in low performing programs?  What policies might enure that the amount of onsite assistance delivered is reasonable and consistent with quality improvement goals?

o Describe key coaching and technical assistance strategies and methodologies.  Include relevant past activities, evidence-based practice or research to explain how proposed strategies will effective.  

o How will training activities be linked to on-site quality assistance to increase the likelihood of application of new skills or knowledge?

o Describe your solutions for addressing challenges of implementing a fee-for-service system for TA and Training?

o Based on your knowledge of and experience with working with stakeholders in your community, what strategies will be most effective for preparing for and participating in SF-QRIS?  

o Describe key elements which you consider important to include in an annual report on Program Improvement for San Francisco? (for example: saturation rates for BAS/PAS training, performance data for recipients of targeted program improvement services).

Staffing qualifications and roles/Org chart - Identify key staff your organization will assign to fulfill the contract requirements.  If known, indicate who will be contract manager(s), technical assistance staff/consultants.  Provide resumes for the people you envision will oversee the project. Provide synopses describing the educational and work experience for each of the key staff who will be assigned to the Quality Improvement Services.  Detail the number of hours for each key staff member that you estimate will be needed to fulfill the contract requirements. To the degree possible, include:

o Identify consultants who you anticipate to work with  or who have provided CA Early Learning Standards training, PITC / CSEFEL, CLASS, or ERS training, and the number of trainings offered during the past twelve months.

o Include training and experience of proposed staff and or consultants with Environment Rating Scales, CLASS assessment,  and with business practice rating scales.

o Subcontractors:  Identify the subcontracting agencies staff that will work on this project. Describe the role each will play and state the estimated percentage of time they will spend on the

42/87 RFP 513, 2/12

project.  Describe the capacities and experience the subcontractor will bring to the project. Provide examples of a past accomplishment or a current project that relates to the organization’s role.

System positioning - Leveraging, Effectiveness, and Efficiency - Describe your agency’s expertise as it relates to this RFP and your agency’s ability to leverage additional funding or support for this RFP. Explain how your agency’s proposal provides the most effective and efficient approach to achieve the program goals including what other programs you operate or partner with which leverages or otherwise supports efficacy and efficiency.

Minimum QualificationsThe city’s joint ECE funders seek a qualified vendor with established expertise in both provision of training and technical assistance, the development of conventional and web-based outreach materials, and the administration and monitoring of contracts. Applicant agency or collaboration must have the following qualifications.

1. Three years experience in the provision and coordination of training and technical assistance to ECE provider with demonstrated positive outcomes.

2. Ability to provide training and support which addresses the cultural, linguistic, and programmatic needs of the ECE workforce in San Francisco beyond translation of materials and trainings. This includes the demonstrated capacity to tailor the provision of technical assistance to diverse types of licensed ECE settings (e.g., center-based, family child care homes).

3. Well-trained, highly qualified staff (including cadre of technical assistance specialists), experienced and able to deliver the technical assistance as described in the services requested.

4. Demonstrated effectiveness in community partnerships and collaboration with other agencies/organizations.

5. Awareness of and well-versed in the broad array of citywide resources available to support quality improvements in ECE settings

6. Knowledge of Quality Rating and Improvement Systems and their implementation in other states. 7. Development of Electronic and Print Media. The successful contractor must have experience in design

and implementation of strategies to create user-friendly media to raising public awareness and knowledge.

8. Administrative Oversight and Monitoring. The successful contractor must have the a) ability to secure, negotiate and manage subcontracts for services; b) demonstrated experience with or plan for developing fee-for service capability; c) Expertise regarding program improvement project management (e.g. awareness of the costs of projects, equipment, etc. and access to experienced advisors as needed); and c) Capacity to use a “cloud-based” data management system.

Evaluation Criteria

Organizational Capacity (30 points)1. Agency experience and capacity in designing, implementing, and administering activities similar to those

requested in this RFP. Agency demonstrates it has organizational resources and identifies developed or ongoing activities that will be dedicated or leveraged to support the activities requested in this RFP. (10)

2. Agency experience working with the population targeted by this RFP. Agency should have demonstrated knowledge of the intended target population and capacity to meet their target population's identified needs. (5)

3. Demonstrated appropriate experience, professional qualifications and education of staff assigned to the project, a realistic description of the tasks to be performed by each staff person, reasonable workload demonstrating an ability to achieve the objectives, staff availability and accessibility. The staff, based on resumes or job descriptions and qualifications provided, are adequately trained or skilled to provide the services described. (10)

43/87 RFP 513, 2/12

4. Agency experience developing and/or working with collaborative partnerships. (5)

Program Design (50 Points) 1. Agency's overall approach demonstrates understanding of the target population and proposes strategies that

will appropriately address the needs of the target population. Overall approach and program design demonstrates sound practice with strong evidence base, shows clarity of purpose, and has a high likelihood of achieving intended goals. (10)

2. Applicant has clearly described significant activities to be accomplished for the successful implementation of the initiative/program and provided an anticipated timeframe. Agency has described activities in the context of the "Goals" and "Services Requested" sections and has sufficiently addressed the Guidelines for Applicant Narrative. (20)

3. Applicant has identified challenges that will need to be addressed to assure the successful implementation of the project, if applicable, and has identified existing resources and partnerships in the community that can be utilized to achieve success for the project. (10)

4. Applicant has clearly described their commitment and capacity to implement and track required performance measures and has proposed targets for required performance measures, if applicable. Applicant has proposed additional measures and targets to support tracking of quality, outcomes and impact. Additional measures are specific, achievable, have readily available data sources, and tie back to goals intended for the project. Applicant has clearly described their approach to continuous quality improvement, including identification of evaluation strategies, previous experience implementing evaluation, and methods for ensuring that evaluation findings inform programmatic improvements. (10)

Fiscal Capacity (20 points)1. The budget provided for services is clear, easy to understand and in accordance with provided forms and

instructions. The budget reflects sound, adequate allocation of resources, matching the program components including staffing costs, operating costs. The budget supports the services proposed and is competitive with other proposals.  Costs are reasonable, justified, and competitive.  Cost Allocation Plan is reasonable. (10)

2. Applicant’s ability to leverage other resources for this program, either from in-kind, and/or external resources. The proposal reflects the effective use of organizational resources/external resources, including leveraged funds, designated exclusively for  the success of this program. (10)

6. Professional Development for Early Care and Education (ECE) Workforce Lead Contracting Agency : DCYF

Funds Available by City Department for Fiscal Year 2012-2013

DCYF First 5 SF HSA AB 212 Total Funds Available FY 2012-2013

$100,000 $75,000 $225,000 $562,000 $962,000

IntroductionUp to $962,000 in local/state/federal funding is made available to support professional development stipends and financial support to qualified individual providers participating in program approved professional development or training. 44/87 RFP 513, 2/12

For more than a decade, the SF CARES program has provided annual stipends to eligible early care and education (ECE) teachers as incentives for continuing education. Throughout its history, the program has received funding from First 5 San Francisco, the Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, and the state via AB 212 funds. From longitudinal program data, we know that the program has been successful in moving large segments of the ECE workforce up the education ladder, including the attainment of increasingly higher child development permit levels, associate’s and bachelor’s degrees. San Francisco now has one of the most highly educated ECE workforces in the state.

In 2010-11, the SF CARES program was revamped to focus on unit-bearing coursework, permit acquisition, transfer readiness, and degree attainment. This was done, in the context of reduced funding, to discourage haphazard training and education patterns that failed to lead to higher levels of certification or degrees and instead reward teachers enrolling in specific courses, including general education classes, leading to associate’s and bachelor’s degrees. In 2010-11, there were 556 stipends awarded through SF CARES, with an average stipend award of about $1,500. For the current fiscal year (2011-12), 640 participants are projected to earn an average stipend of $2,000.

San Francisco has agressively worked to design a system of stipends and and career pathway supports based on the SF CARES experience and informed by initiatives in various states. (For example, North Carolina’s program, T.E.A.C.H provides an example of a comprehensive stipend and scholarship program designed to improve educational levels and reduce turnover rates http :// www . childcareservices . org /_ downloads / TEACH %20 annual %20 report _08. pdf .)

Under the next generation of SF CARES, the program will include two primary components: “Incentives” and “Pathways” that will be implemented utilizing the CA ECE Workforce Registry:

1. Incentives $590,000 is made available for the administration of a stipend program including tuition, fee and book reimbursement. Scope of eligibility (i.e., reimbursement of college tuition and fees or alternative criteria for eligibility) may be impacted by California Department of Education criteria for state SB212 funding, which shall be part of the revenue for the Professional Development for SF ECE Workforce grant. Program scope and eligibility is in negotiation between CPAC and state staff. Annual determination of participant eligibility for city funds shall be determined by program staff in partnership with city funders and a program advisory.

The workforce registry will be the reporting system for stipend participants. Reporting on educational advancement and linkage of participants with Title 5 classrooms will also be managed through the CA ECE Workforce Registry.

2. PathwaysThe pathways component of SF CARES would constitute approximately $268,000 of the budget in FY 12-13 ($349,077 FY 13-14 and FY 14-15) and would build from lessons learned from the Dual-Language BA Cohort Program (previously supported by First 5 SF), the JOBS NOW! LIFT Program (supported by the Human Services Agency), and the Metro Early Childhood Academy (supported by the Mimi and Peter Haas Fund), each of which successfully improved the educational attainment of ECE teachers through cohort-based instructional models. The SF CARES pathways would support local institutions of higher education in providing specially tailored courses to target populations, with the ultimate goal of increasing the numbers of ECE teachers with bachelor’s degrees in child development:

Metro Early Childhood Academy: ECE teachers, primarily from state-subsidized, Title 5 child care centers, complete lower-division coursework in ECE and general education at City College in order to transfer to San Francisco State University to achieve bachelor’s degrees in Child and Adolescent Development. Metro is currently funded by the Mimi and Peter Haas Fund, and City funding will allow expansion and diversification of the target population and participants to continue upper division coursework at SFSU. (Funding will be a pass through of funds to institutions of higher education.)

Core Program Components:45/87 RFP 513, 2/12

o Upper Division Coursework: The program of study, which will organize students into cohorts, will meet current ECE teachers’ needs through evening and weekend classes and on-line instruction. In addition, SFSU first generation college students who are working to become ECE teachers will join the working professionals’ cohort to increase the quality and experience of students graduating with CAD degrees with an Early Childhood concentration.

o Faculty Learning Community Meetings: Faculty instructors in this CAD Metro BA Degree Completion Program will participate in Metro’s Faculty Learning Community meetings. These meetings provide faculty with the opportunity to discuss best practices in teaching among departments and at CCSF and SFSU. In these meetings faculty are encouraged to assess continually, their impact; to focus on building writing, critical thinking, oral communication and quantitative reasoning skills in themselves and their students; and to hold high expectations of each individual involved in the program. The goal is for faculty to engage in a critical analysis of complex social problems, create authentic assignments, and teach meaningful content.

o Student Support: Metro works closely with a variety of departments and programs on campus to ensure students have access to tutoring, academic advising, counseling, and financial aid services. Wherever possible these services will be integrated into class time to support students who work.

o Upper Division Coordinator: The Upper Division Coordinator will support the mission of the Metro Academy’s ECE BA Degree Completion Program, to prepare students to be competent professionals in their work with children and families. The Child and Adolescent Development Department values teaching, and experiential learning that incorporates diversity of background, experiences, current and relevant research, and high quality instruction

o Tutor: Through this intentional support, our aim is to increase the number of professionals working in the early childhood workforce who meet the cultural and linguistic needs of San Francisco’s children and families.

Learning with Income, Foundations to Teach (LIFT): Individuals making the transition from CalWORKs public assistance are screened and placed into entry-level employment in participating child care centers and family child care homes while they take concurrent ECE coursework at City College to improve their job skills and develop their educational pathway. In the next iteration of the program, participants will be placed in two tracks based on their readiness to enter the Metro program. Most of the LIFT participants are placed in Title 5 programs. Funding will also be set aside to fund FCC coursework for the field. (Funding will be a pass through of funds to institutes of higher education)

Basic Skills: Using English/ESL and math placement test data collected by SF CARES in the last two years, ECE teachers with similar English and math proficiency would be taught together in a supportive environment to increase their likelihood of passing general education requirements, a current obstacle in their path to degree attainment. This pathway is to be developed with City/County funder input.

3. Professional Development Project - City College of San Francsico

Scope of Serviceso Counseling and Advising: City College of San Francisco will provide academic counseling throughout

the year with office hours to meet a minimum of 600 city-funded Child Development students (SF CARES applicants, C-WAGES participants, FCC Quality Network participants and their staff) during one-on-one appointments, workshops, and outreach to Child Development classes and will provide education plans as needed to be tracked through the CA ECE Workforce Registry. Educational Plans will include the student’s placement test scores and dates. Counselors will be available to meet with students during academic semesters and during semester breaks at hours that are convenient for students, to the degree possible, according to counselor availability and union regulations. City College of San Francisco

46/87 RFP 513, 2/12

will provide Professional Development through the Professional Development Project (PDP) advisors, equivalent to .8 FTE, to meet with a minimum of 600 city-funded SF ECE Workforce participants (SF CARES applicants, C-WAGES participants, FCC Quality Network participants and their staff) during one-on-one appointments and outreach through Child Development courses, community events, and workshops to assist them in applying for the California Child Development Permit with the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Advisors strongly recommend that their clients make appointments with Academic Counselors to set goals and an Education Plan.

o Meetings: A minimum of two in person meetings with ECE Workforce stakeholders (funders, C-WAGES and CARES staff) and Counselor and Advisors who provide the above services to Child Development students and city-funded ECE Workforce participants (SF CARES applicants, C-WAGES participants, FCC Quality Network participants and their staff). One meeting should happen before the CARES application is released, before November 13, and the second meeting should happen before March 1. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss the application and guidelines and strategize support systems for SF ECE Workforce participants and to discuss trends and needs of the field.

o Program Reports: City College of San Francisco will track and record data of Child Development students, including city-funded SF ECE Workforce Participants seen by Advisors and Counselors. Monthly reports will include: employment status, job title, permit level, education and permit goals. In addition, program narratives analyzing data trends and program developments will be provided to contractor through email quarterly due, by 15th of October (July – September), January (October-December), April (January – March, and June (April – June).

o Transcripts: City College of San Francisco will provide transcript review services for San Francisco participants of the CA ECE Workforce Registry.

Goals To provide incentives and support to the early care and education workforce to support professional

development and career advancement. To assist those on the educational pathway that need support in their course work and studying that will

better enable them to be transfer-ready from City College San Francisco. Facilitate pathways towards degree attainment, targeting transfer students from City College San

Francisco and students working full-time, especially those working in Title 5 programs and other programs serving low income children.

Services RequestedThe RFP for SF CARES seeks to identify a qualified organization to administer and oversee both the incentives and pathways components of the program. Deliverables include:

1. Restructure the SF CARES Incentives program based on budget constraints, City/County pathway goals, and rational incentive structure.

2. Develop Basic Skills Pathway with Provider Association, Family Child Care Association, key stakeholders from the ECE field and City/County funder input

3. Coordinate Incentive and Pathway work in the context of C-WAGES, ECE Workforce Registry, and other emerging workforce developments locally, regionally, and statewide.

4. Demonstrate fiscal and management capacity commensurate with the scope and scale of the program.

Performance MeasuresProvided the guidance in the overview section of this RFP, respondents are encouraged to develop salient, meaningful, and manageable process and outcome measures in their response.

Required Performance Measures: Targets Determined A minimum of 400 ECE workforce participants will receive educational stipends for eligible non-unit and

unit-bearing coursework completed each year of contract. (Data to be tracked through the CA ECE Workforce Registry.)

47/87 RFP 513, 2/12

A minimum of 40 ECE workforce participants will be provided with coursework to complete their Bachelor’s of Science in Child and Adolescent Development at SFSU annually. (Data to be tracked through the CA ECE Workforce Registry.)

A minimum of 40 individuals will have access to coursework at City College of San Francisco based on their work schedule through the LIFT program. (Data to be tracked through the CA ECE Workforce Registry.)

A minimum of 40 individuals will have access to coursework at San Francisco State University based on their work schedule through the Metro Academy program. (Data to be tracked through the CA ECE Workforce Registry.)

Required Performance Measures: Applicant to Specify Targets A minimum of (applicant to specify target) number of ECE workforce participants will improve their

Basic Skills by taking recommended coursework in English as a Second Language, pre-requisite Math and English, to ensure they are eligible to enroll in General Education courses at institutions of higher education. (Baseline will be determined through implementation of the CA ECE Workforce Registry.)

A minimum of (applicant to specify target) number of workforce participants will increase and complete their General Education courses by December 31, 2014. (Baseline will be determined through implementation of the CA ECE Workforce Registry.)

A minimum of (applicant to specify target) number of collaborative meetings will be held quarterly between higher education faculty participating in Metro Academy, LIFT, and Basic Skills pathways and CTAS (City-wide Technical Assistance System) staff to inform coursework and Technical Assistance content.

A minimum of (applicant to specificy target) number of transcripts will be reviewed and inputted into the CA ECE Workforce Registry by qualified staff.

Guidelines for Applicant Narrative Minimum Qualifications - Provide a description and supporting information demonstrating how your

agency meets the minimum qualifications for administering the program, numbering your response to match the Minimum Qualifications.

Program Description - Provide a description of the proposed program delivery which meets the specifications of the services requested. Clarify partnerships and the approach for effectively linking the stipend program with the pathways supports.

Staffing qualifications and roles/Org chart - Describe the program staff roles, staff qualifications and organizational reporting including any subcontractor qualifications and organizational chart.

Subcontracting: Describe the sub-contracting agency or agencies roles and responsibilities. Identify key positions and their qualifications in implementing the subcontracted work plan. Submit an MOU outlining the agreed reporting structure and working agreements.

System positioning - Leveraging, Effectiveness, and Efficiency - Explain how your agency’s proposal provides the most effective and efficient approach to achieve the program goals including other programs you operate or partner with which leverage or otherwise support efficacy and efficiency.

Minimum QualificationsApplicant agency or collaboration must have

1. A minimum of three (3) years demonstrated experience in reviewing and analyzing higher education transcripts and disbursing stipends to ECE teachers.

2. A minimum of three (3) years demonstrated experience as a financial intermediary managing and dispersing funds.

3. In addition, if not an institution of higher education, the selected entity would need to coordinate with and fund institutions of higher education to develop and implement the pathways models qualified staff with expertise in facilities development, financing, and child care licensing.

4. Demonstrate cultural and linguistic competence essential to serve the diverse population of San Francisco County

48/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Evaluation Criteria

Organizational Capacity (30 points)1. Organization’s experience in providing proposed services to the target population. The respondent

clearly demonstrates that it has the organizational infrastructure and administrative capacity to deliver the program as proposed. Organization has the demonstrated ability to provide lead agency administration of the program (10 points)

2. Respondent’s past performance under grant/contract for services similar to those proposed. This will include performance under previous grants/contracts with the Department of Education and/or the City and County of San Francisco. (10 points)

3. Demonstrated appropriate experience, professional qualifications and education of staff assigned to the project, a realistic description of the tasks to be performed by each staff person, reasonable workload, staff availability and accessibility. The staff, based on resumes or job descriptions and qualifications provided, are adequately experienced, trained and skilled to provide the services described. (10 points)

Program Design (50 points)1. Overall Approach and Target Population: Description of Respondent’s specific program approach to

deliver the services proposed and how this program approach or service model will appropriately address the needs of the target population. (10 points)

2. Proposed Services: Rating of the program design will be based on respondent’s proposed service model, the level the service model reflects the requested services, and the likelihood that the model will achieve the goals outlined for the initiative in this RFP. Highest scores will be awarded to proposals services designed to respond to the needs and issues involved in successfully providing the services. Maximum score results from a design the reflects strong understanding of the career pathways, strategies for reducing barriers and how stipends may strategically complement the success of providers moving through career pathways. (20 points)

3. Description of the specific measures to be implemented by the Respondent to ensure performance outcomes and service objectives will be met. This should also include a discussion of specific methods for collection of necessary service utilization and performance outcome and/or customer satisfaction data both for the stipend program and the pathways.(20 points)

Fiscal Capacity (20 points)1. The budget provided for services is clear and easy to understand. The budget reflects sound, adequate

allocation of resources, matching the program components including staffing costs, operating costs and capital costs (as appropriate). The budget supports the services proposed and is competitive with other proposals. Costs are reasonable, justified, and competitive. Cost Allocation Plan is reasonable. (15 points)

2. Respondent’s ability to leverage other resources for this program, either from in-kind, and/or external resources. The proposal reflects the effective use of organizational resources/external resources, including leveraged funds, designated exclusively for this program. (5 points)

49/87 RFP 513, 2/12

7. Family Child Care Staffed Quality Network(s) Lead Contracting Agency: HSA

Funds Available by City Department for Fiscal Year 2012-2013

DCYF HSA Total Funds Available FY 2012-2013

$225,000 $658,087 $883,087

IntroductionThe funding agencies are seeking 1-2 qualified administrator(s) to develop 1-2 licensed Family Child Care Staffed Quality Network(s) to support quality improvement. FCC Network providers shall initially be recruited from existing licensed family child care providers who are participants in one or more of the following: Infant/Toddler Sustaining Grants, WAGES Plus Family Child Care, Gateway Assessment and/or ACCESS quality network, serve children through various local subsidy programs, and/or reside in neighborhoods with high voucher enrollments and disproportionately low linkages to the aforementioned quality initiatives. Recruitment of member family child care providers shall be conducted through a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) to be administered by city funders with preliminary selection determination to be made by June 2012. The FCC Network providers shall enroll subsidized children through the San Francisco Child Care Connection (SF3C) which includes but is not limited to subsidies for Family and Children’s Services (FCS) clients and families, ACCESS eligible homeless families with infants and toddlers and their siblings, and City Child Care subsidy vouchers serving low-income families with infants and toddlers.

BackgroundFamily Child Care providers are an important care option for families and the city’s early care and education system. Family child care providers typically offer flexibility for families in terms of hours, ages of children cared for and often a smaller group size, in a more homelike setting. Many families choose family child care for reasons of affordability. Language and culture are also important considerations for many families in choosing a child care provider. Some families find family child care a preferable setting that has an increased ability to address their child’s special needs.

In San Francisco there are over 700 licensed family child care homes which are an important part of the economic vitality of the city and serve as an important role in San Francisco’s early care and education system. These small business owners and caretakers are diverse culturally and linguistically, providing care throughout the many neighborhoods in the city. These providers have been hard hit by the economy, which has reduced enrollment in some neighborhoods. State budget cuts have further impacted providers by suppressing the Regional Market Rate (RMR) voucher rerimbursement which has, due to state budget pressures, been artificially frozen at the 85th percentile of the 2005 RMR survey ceiling.

For several years the city has invested in subsidies limited to family child care enrollment. The city has also invested in quality improvement efforts and wages and compensation initiatives (Gateway quality assessment, quality grants, CARES, WAGES+, Infant/Toddler Sustaining Grants, Mentorship, to name a few). The variety of supports available, while well intentioned, often caused confusing for providers who already work long hours and long schedules and find it challenging to stay informed and connected regarding program and training opportunities, program and policy changes, licensing requirements, subsidy policy, etc. The Infant Toddler workgroup in CPAC Citywide Planning process identified related to potential strategies for increasing access to quality care for infants and toddlers, including the potential for increasing access to care through supported networks. In this process it was determined that of the family child care providers benefiting from WAGES Plus or Infant Toddler Sustaining Grants (ITSG), most, (75%) participated in both programs and were subjected to the dual administrative burden of reporting to and being accountable to both initiatives. 50/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Approximately 200 family child care providers participate in ITSG, WAGES plus or both, with the majority of homes -- over 150, participating in both. While both program were identified as being supportive of providers, it was determined that improvements in the city investment strategy of support were possible and recommended.

Follow-up meetings with Family Child care subsidy network members and administrators revealed that current State contracted family child care subsidy networks are under resourced and not meeting the needs of providers or families. Moreover, efforts to improve quality through the state paradigm did not translate to adequate support to providers nor did they appear to make a meaningful difference in quality amongst network providers.

Over five years ago the city developed a closed network of licensed center and family child care homes, the ACCESS Homeless Child Care program, to provide care for homeless infants and toddlers and their siblings whose families were case managed in accessing care The success of ACCESS as a model for ensuring enrollment of the most at-risk children with quality providers is an important backdrop for the development of the city’s vision of identifying one to two networks of quality providers.

An analysis of children using city vouchers (Family and Children’s Services, ACCESS, and City Child Care) in family child care homes in FY 10-11 revealed that of over 900 children who used their voucher in licensed family child care in the city, less than half of these children were enrolled in homes that had a quality assessment or participated in any of the city’s quality initiatives.

Consequently the city has redirected resources from various initiatives to support a development of 1 to 2 Family Child Care Staffed Quality Network. Through the incorporation of planning input from the field, research identifying best practices for quality improvement support amongst licensed family child care providers, and feedback from the success of ACCESS, the city is rethinking how to support family child care providers through connecting them to a staffed quality network -- a network ensuring improved access to quality for city subsidized children -- the same group that research shows benefit most from a high quality child care experience.

Through the provision of supports and connections to the agencies administering voucher subsidies for families, the Family Child Care Staffed Quality Networks will improve access to quality care options for the city’s most vulnerable children.

Extensive supports are funded for the Quality Family Child Care Network external to the Network Administration. These include, but are not limited to:

Local subsidies for low income families with infants and toddlers, ACCESS homeless child care, and Family and Children’s Services linked families; infant toddler subsidy rates to be tiered for quality

C-WAGES financial support for providers (see budget in C-WAGES Fiscal Intermediary) Mental Health consultation through the Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Health consultation through DPH -- both staff at Maternal and Adolescent Health and staff under contract

through Environmental Health Inclusion training and transdisciplinary supports TA through the Quality Improvement system for a select set of providers requiring this intervention Professional Development supports through stipends and pathways (See Professional Development and

pathways section of the RFP) Tangible supports such as facilities grants, ionators, disaster preparedness materials, etc.

51/87 RFP 513, 2/12

52/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Goals Increase quality of licensed family child care homes, particularly those caring for subsidized and

unsubsidized low-moderate income infants and toddlers, through the administration of a professionally staffed, highly qualified network.

Maintain or increase the number of culturally and linguistically diverse providers actively participating in continuous quality improvement

Increase the pool of providers participating in the city’s quality improvement process and supports to reflect the language, cultural and logistical needs and preferences of target voucher families.

Increase the enrollment of city-funded vouchered infants and toddlers and at-risk children cared for in quality family child care settings.

Increase the capacity of quality family child care particularly in low-income San Francisco neighborhoods.

Improve the benefits of peer support through the support of a Citywide Family Child Care Association and six neighborhood network reaching hundreds of family child care providers both within and external to the network.

Services Requested In order to achieve the programmatic goals the city is seeking to develop 1-2 Family Child Care Staffed Quality Network(s) through 1-2 lead network administrators.

1. The Network Administrator(s) shall develop and maintain 1-2 network(s) of up to a combined 250 licensed family child care homes; the minimum network size should consider the overall system with particular attention provided to ensure the inclusion of and accommodation for the full range and diversity of neighborhoods, languages, and cultures citywide. Collaborations for joint administration will be considered.

2. Staff the Network with qualified staff experienced in working with children and family child care providers at an appropriate ratio to ensure that effective case work and field support is consistently and broadly provided to the FCC Network members. Network administrator agencies shall have a minimum of two years experience working to support licensed family child care providers, and have a demonstrated ability to appreciate the unique strengths and challenges of licensed family child care.

3. Staff the Network with linguistically appropriate and culturally competent staff able to meet the needs of the diverse family child care network in order to develop and maintain a network reflective of the needs and preferences of the target subsidy families seeking care.

4. Network staff shall assist network providers in the development of quality improvement plans based upon external quality assessment (i.e. FCCERS and CLASS or other state QRIS set of metrics)

5. Network staff shall regularly meet with providers, provide training and in-home visits, supporting members and linking network providers to external supports including: training (i.e., PITC), Technical Assistance on quality, business assistance, C-WAGES, professional development opportunities, facilities grants, as well as peer support. Network staff shall also manage a toy lending library for providers, and develop other shared resources internal or external to the network.

6. Network staff shall provide support regarding subsidy administration and attendance reporting.7. The network administrator shall work with providers and the Resource and Referral agency to develop

web based profiles of homes to be made available to CalWORKs or SF3C families, and private payers seeking care. The profiles will include ages served, pictures of the child care home, professional qualifications, curriculum approach, hours, fees and scope of services (i.e, field trips, whether parent must provide own diapers, whether meals are included.)

8. Remuneration to support the network members is managed indirectly by the C-WAGES Fiscal Intermediary and through subsidies administered by Children’s Council of SF and Wu Yee Children’s Services. Detail of the compensation supports may be found in the C-WAGES Fiscal Intermediary section of the Joint Solicitation. Additionally, Network members will receive adjustment factors for the following subsidies: ACCESS homeless children, City Child Care, and Family and Children’s Services adjusted based upon the quality scores.

9. A proposal to Administer the Network shall require close collaboration with family child care leadership.

53/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Performance MeasuresExamples of process measures:

By Aug. 31st, 2012 qualified staff shall be in place with assigned family child care homes. By Jan. 2013 a minimum of x qualified family child care homes shall be recruited and maintained

in the network. Annually a minimum of x active members shall actively be caring for or be available to enroll

target subsidy children By March 31, 2013 100% of family child care applicant homes not yet assessed as of July 2012,

will be provided training in FCCERS-R. By June 30, 2013 a minimum of x qualified family child care homes shall be recruited and

maintained in the network. By June 30, 2013 90% of network providers shall participate in 3 or more quality trainings.

Examples of outcome measures: In a survey of network providers, administered anonymously, a minimum of 80% of providers

indicate that network staff have performed “well” or “very well” in assisting them in providing quality care.

By July 30, 2013 the network increases the enrollment of target voucher children (ACCESS, FCS, City CC) cared for in SF licensed FCC homes linked to city quality supports shall increase from the current 49% to a minimum of 80%.

A minimum average of 20 family child care providers in the network improve their quality assessment score by .5 or more by June 30, 2013

o and/or a minimum average of 50% family child care providers in the network improve their score by .25

or more by Jan. 1, 2014o and/or

A minimum average scores of family child care providers will improve by .25 over baseline scores by June 30, 2014

Examples of performance objectives for the citywide family child care association and six neighborhood provider networks:

Cultivation of a diverse and growing membership base which actively participates in setting the vision, goals, and activities of the program.

Provision of an office or resource center to provide a meeting space, resource library, and share materials on a part time schedule at a minimum which is accessible to all ECE providers.

Publication of a peer-to-peer newsletter a minimum of at least quarterly. Staffing of peer-to-peer phone line on a part-time schedule, which is accessible to providers,

including a minimum proposed number of evening hours. Development and maintenance of an FCC website offering up-to-date information and resources. Cultivation of six (6) neighborhood based networks($18,000 maximum budget allocation for the

total of 6 networks) for peer-to-peer support and resource sharing and administration of mini-grants to neighborhood associations serving a high concentration of children receiving CalWORKS child care subsidies.

Development of a range of peer- to-peer support, resource sharing, and learning opportunities, including but not limited to annual conference, list serves, membership meetings, community events and celebrations.

Training and development of ECE leaders to increase resource linkage, engage in advocacy, and improve representation of providers in key forums, initiatives and ECE/child care system building efforts.

Offer technical assistance and trainings, collaborating with the Family Child Care Staffed Quality Network in communicating with providers regarding provider supports, program eligibility, licensing requirements.

54/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Convene bi-annual meetings on behalf of funders to disseminate information about policy changes and other updates and to facilitate feedback, to support the provider voice in program design and implementation.

Prudent fiscal and contract management in accordance with the scale and scope of proposed activities

All services should be provided multi-lingual, and minimally meet the needs of English, Spanish, and Chinese-speaking providers.

Satisfaction Impact: Percentage of Family Child Care Association members who report increased effectiveness as a family child care provider due to the benefits of membership

Work Plan Target: Minimum of 90% of deliverables met annually.

Guidelines for Applicant NarrativeApplicant narrative should describe the approach of the staffed network in managing Family Child Care providers connections to quality supports. Define tiers of intervention and support based on research, including, but not limited to:

Minimum Qualifications - Provide a description and supporting information demonstrating how your agency meets the minimum qualifications for administering the program, numbering your response to match the Minimum Qualifications. Demonstrated experience supporting family child care providers shall demonstrate an understanding of licensed family child care as a small business and the unique position of family child care to meet families and children’s care needs.

Program Design Description - Provide a description of the proposed program delivery which meets the specifications of the services requested.

o Describe the design of:1. The Family Child Care Staffed Network2. Tying the delivery of quality supports to the organizational structure3. A supportive and interactive model of service delivery between the network’s staff, its

membership and outside quality supportso Provide description of the ratio of support staff to providers and the target number of providers in

the network.o Provide descriptions of your proposed minimum qualifications including any specific training or

educational requirements for FCC Network staff at various levelso Provide an implementation timeline which clearly demonstrates an ambitious but reasonable

approach to developing the network.o Describe how staff will successfully support family child care providers through the assessment

process and reassessment process, including linking reflective quality practice to elements of the FCCERS-R or other tools.

o Briefly describe how the staff will successfully support family child care providers to receive internal direct training and home visitation. Reference research where appropriate, including how such support may be cascaded or tiered to be more effective. Trainings should be made available in the times and languages that best meet the providers needs. Suggested topics include developmentally appropriate curriculum and working with mixed age groups, health and safety, child guidance, nutrition, child growth and development, communication with parents, changes in state licensing requirements. Describe the metrics the program proposes to monitor and support, and which supports a network-wide and which supports are targeted.

o Include the proposed structure of what is required of the network members and what is available as support, based on the tiered strategy, or differential levels of support within the network.

o Describe how staff will successfully support family child care network providers to receive external supports such as Technical Assistance, Health Consultation, inclusion support, and Mental Health Consultation, facilities grants. Include the linkage to C-WAGES support provided through the C-WAGES Fiscal Intermediary. [Note - each of these resources are made available through other initiatives funded by the ECE Joint Funders or other sources].

55/87 RFP 513, 2/12

o Describe how staff will assist linking providers with professional development including training and unit bearing classes.

o Describe specific linkage strategies to the target subsidies: ACCESS homeless families, Family and Children’s Services, and City Child Care (including Vendor Voucher) and families in need of care. Describe how staff will support the reporting and payment issues related to voucher enrollment and attendance reporting.

o Outline proposed approach to tiering supports for providers based on research and/or your agency experience. For example, not all providers may require the same level of supports, [Note - Tiering of compensation support through C-WAGES and subsidy differentials shall be initially set by the city but may be modified through negotiations to improve program effectiveness over the three year contract period.]

Staffing qualifications and roles/Org chart - Describe the program staff titles, roles, staff resumes and/or qualifications, including language abilities and cultural competency. Provide a description or visual depiction of organizational reporting. Include subcontractor qualifications, organizational chart, and reporting for program staff where applicable. Staffing titles and detail should match budget personnel. If staff are not currently in place with qualifications, proposal should detail a timeline of what training staff will receive, when staff will receive the training and how training will be put into place including training in FCCRS-R, PITC, Business Administration Scale (BAS), etc.

System positioning - Leveraging, Effectiveness, and Efficiency - Explain how your agency’s proposal provides the most effective and efficient approach to achieve the program goals including other programs you operate or partner with which leverage or otherwise support efficacy and efficiency.

Minimum Qualifications1. Network staff shall have a minimum of two years experience working to support licensed family child

care providers, and be trained or have an agressive training plan adequate to ensure the expert promotion and partnership with family child care providers in order to improve the quality of care.

2. Network administrators shall demonstrate a minimum of three years of successful management of licensed ECE provider supports with an emphasis on care for ages 0-5 year old, with a minimum of 2 years of successfully demonstrated experience caring for, or supporting those who care for, infants and toddlers (aged 0 to < 3 years old).

3. Network administrators shall demonstrate a minimum of 2 years experience hiring, developing, and managing a team of professional case managers/coordinators.

Evaluation Criteria

Organizational Capacity (30 points) 1. Organization’s experience in providing proposed quality improvement training and/or support services to

family child care providers. The respondent clearly demonstrates that it has the organizational infrastructure and administrative capacity to deliver the program as proposed. (10 points)

2. Respondent’s past performance under grant/contract for services similar to those proposed. This will include performance under previous grants/contracts with the California Depatment of Educations and City and County of San Francisco. (10 points)

3. Demonstrated appropriate experience, professional qualifications and education of staff assigned to the project, a realistic description of the tasks to be performed by each staff person, reasonable workload, low ratio of family child care staff to family child care homes, staff availability and accessibility. The staff, based on resumes or job descriptions and qualifications provided, are adequately trained or skilled to provide the services described. Highest scores will be awarded to proposals reflecting expert, experienced staff prepared to begin on July 1 and opportunity for the city to leverage other programs administered by the respondent(s). (10 points)

56/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Program Design (50 points) 1. Overall Approach and Target Population: Description of Respondent’s specific program approach to

deliver the services proposed and how this program approach or service model will appropriately address the particularly needs of licensed family child care providers. (10 points)

2. Proposed Services: Program design reflects respondent’s well thought out understanding of the services proposed, as well as the needs and issues involved in providing the services. Design reflects the necessary tiering of services for providers. Proposal demonstrates program architecture designed to partner with providers and, based on research, effectively support providers to improve quality. Service model ensures an increase in numbers of targeted subsidized children served in quality family child care settings and clearly demonstrates strategies for supporting family child care providers. Program model reflects research and best practices in family child care network administration. (20 points)

3. Description of the specific measures to be implemented by the Respondent to ensure performance outcomes and service objectives will be met. This should also include a discussion of specific methods for collection of necessary service utilization and performance outcome and/or customer satisfaction data. Highest scoring proposals in this area will reflect ambitious but reasonable performance measures, including outcomes reflecting achievement of the goals set forth in the RFP for Family Child Care Quality Network(s). (20 points)

Fiscal Capacity (20 points) 1. The budget provided for services is clear and easy to understand. The budget reflects sound, adequate

allocation of resources, matching the program components including staffing costs, operating costs and capital costs (as appropriate). The budget supports the services proposed and is competitive with other proposals. The budget reflects a reasonable set aside for classroom materials, toy lending library, and/or other tangible support to improve quality care. Budget reflects limited and reasonable indirect on pass through funds the Family Child Care Association. Costs are reasonable, justified, and competitive. Cost Allocation Plan is reasonable. (15 points)

2. Respondent’s ability to leverage other resources for this program, either from in-kind, and/or external resources. The proposal reflects the effective use of organizational resources/external resources, including leveraged funds, designated exclusively for this program. Respondent is able to provide a more robust program due to building on other organizational infrastructure or funding. (5 points)

57/87 RFP 513, 2/12

8. Field Building and Peer Support Lead Contracting Agency : DCYF

Funds Available by City Department for Fiscal Year 2012-2013

DCYF HSA Total Available FY 2012-2013

$25,000 $44,086 $69,086

IntroductionAssuring the provision of high quality early childhood programs for young children necessitates having a highly competent workforce. To effectively support the quality of early care and education settings there must be targeted, coordinated, aligned, and multi-pronged efforts focusing on evidence-based strategies that can serve as catalysts to improving the field, including both family child care providers and center-based workforce. The purpose of the field building is to strengthen the field by ensuring a balanced combination of education, training and continuing education, as well as peer-to-peer support and encouragement, business practices, leadership development, resource sharing, policy updates and access to diverse meaningful learning opportunities.

Goals● Strengthen licensed provider community through peer support, connecting providers across programs

with one another and with public and private supports for professional development, quality improvement, and business practices

● Support and improve the communication to providers from city funders, and to city funders from providers

[Note - support for Family Child Care Field Building and Peer Support is embedded in the Family Child Cate Staffed Network initiative described above.],

Services Requested The funding agencies seek to fund a qualified applicant or a collaboration of agencies with the vision and knowledge in providing field building activities for the early childhood workforce. Proposals must address the needs of Center Directors and the center-based workforce and must include the following activities:

1. Cultivation of a diverse and growing membership base which actively participates in setting the vision, goals, and activities of the program.

2. Provision of an office or resource center to provide a meeting space, resource library, and share materials on a part time schedule at a minimum which is accessible to all ECE providers.

3. Publication of a peer-to-peer newsletter a minimum of at least quarterly.4. Staffing of peer-to-peer phone line on a part-time schedule, which is accessible to providers, including a

minimum proposed number of evening hours. 5. Development of a range of peer- to-peer support, resource sharing, and learning opportunities, including

but not limited to annual conference, list serves, membership meetings, community events and celebrations.

6. Training and development of ECE leaders to increase resource linkage, engage in advocacy, and improve representation of providers in key forums, initiatives and ECE/child care system building efforts.

7. Convene meetings on behalf of funders to disseminate information about policy changes and other updates and to facilitate feedback, to support the provider voice in program design and implementation.

8. Provide the voice of providers in ECE planning by representing providers interests in CPAC and other planning meetings.

9. Prudent fiscal and contract management in accordance with the scale and scope of proposed activities

58/87 RFP 513, 2/12

All services should be provided multi-lingual, and minimally meet the needs of English, Spanish, and Chinese-speaking providers.

Performance MeasuresProvided the guidance in the overview section of this RFP, respondents are encouraged to develop salient, meaningful, and manageable process and outcome measures in their response.

Required performance measures: Work Plan Target : Minimum of 90% of deliverables met annually Capacity Building : Minimum average of 2% annual increase in membership in each of the three contract

years.

Examples of outcome measure for this Program can include: Capacity Building : Minimum of x community meetings convened annually. Satisfaction Target : A minimum of 75% participating providers responding to an annual survey will

respond positively that the services provided assisted in keeping them informed of changes and resources. Impact : Percentage of members who report increased effectiveness as providers due to the benefits of

membership.

Guidelines for Applicant Narrative Minimum Qualifications: Provide a description and supporting information demonstrating how your

agency meets the minimum qualifications for administering the program, numbering your response to match the Minimum Qualifications.

Program Description: Provide a description of the proposed program delivery which meets the specifications of the services requested. Develop a work plan that effectively meets the “Goals” and “Service Requested”. Demonstrate your unique qualifications for providing peer-to-peer support for the target population(s), referring to the qualifications listed below and other similar projects successfully undertaken. Describe your approach and method for periodically assessing the dynamic needs of the target population(s) and tools and strategies for shifting strategies to meet new and emerging needs. Outline a proposed 12-month work plan for key activities. Clearly communicate a vision, goals, activities, responsible parties and time lines. Address the services requested as well as other activities to meet the needs of target population(s). Use the work plan to demonstrate the scope, timeline and deliverables related to 12-months of activities. Identify any challenges you have encountered in previous efforts in the past and what you anticipate in the future, and how you will effectively address them.

Staffing qualifications and roles/Org chart: Describe the program staff roles, staff qualifications and organizational reporting including any subcontractor qualifications and organizational chart. Communicate a staffing plan adequate to achieve the work plan outlined. Include all positions and key qualifications. The staffing plan should address programmatic, fiscal, and management functions. In addition, include roles responsibilities for board officers, members, and key staff.

Subcontracting: Describe the sub-contracting agency or agencies roles and responsibilities. Identify key positions and their qualifications in implementing the subcontracted work plan. Submit an MOU outlining the agreed reporting structure and working agreements.

System positioning - Leveraging, Effectiveness, and Efficiency - Explain how your agency’s proposal provides the most effective and efficient approach to achieve the program goals including other programs you operate or partner with which leverage or otherwise support efficacy and efficiency.

Minimum Qualifications1. Demonstrated knowledge and experience running a field lead membership organization for the early

childhood workforce, including a demonstration of two years of leadership in supporting members to local and regional support and advocacy networks.

2. Linguistically and culturally diverse staff and/or leadership with a minimum of two years experience performing peer network support in early care and education including non-English speaking providers. Minimum of two years of demonstrated experience in explicitly linking providers to other community-

59/87 RFP 513, 2/12

based advocacy, leadership, quality enhancement, technical assistance, support programs, organizations, and initiatives available to assist the early childhood workforce.

3. Demonstrated ability to effectively manage a diverse membership and cultivate effective governance by members.

4. Demonstrated fiscal and management capacity in line with the scope and scale of the program.

Evaluation Criteria

Organizational Capacity (30 points) 1. Organization’s experience in providing proposed services to the target population. The respondent

clearly demonstrates that it has the organizational infrastructure and administrative capacity to deliver the program as proposed. (10 points)

2. Respondent’s past performance under grant/contract for services similar to those proposed. This will include performance under previous grants/contracts with the City and County of San Francisco. (10 points)

3. Demonstrated appropriate experience, professional qualifications and education of staff assigned to the project, a realistic description of the tasks to be performed by each staff person, reasonable workload, staff availability and accessibility. The staff, based on resumes or job descriptions and qualifications provided, are adequately trained or skilled to provide the services described. Is the staff experienced? Is staffing sufficient to start on July 1? (10 points)

Program Design (50 points) 1. Overall Approach and Target Population: Description of Respondent’s specific program approach to

deliver the member services proposed and how this program approach or service model will appropriately address the needs of the Directors and providers. (10 points)

2. Proposed Services: Respondent understanding of the services proposed, as well as the needs and issues involved in providing the services. Proposals will be rated according to adequacy of the work plan in meeting the requested services and goals. (20 points)

3. Description of the specific measures to be implemented by the Respondent to ensure performance outcomes and service objectives will be met. This should also include a discussion of specific methods for collection of necessary service utilization and performance outcome and/or customer satisfaction data. (20 points)

Fiscal Capacity (20 points) 1. The budget provided for services is clear and easy to understand. The budget reflects sound, adequate

allocation of resources, matching the program components including staffing costs, operating costs and capital costs (as appropriate). The budget supports the services proposed and is competitive with other proposals. Costs are reasonable, justified, and competitive. Cost Allocation Plan is reasonable. (15 points)

2. Respondent’s ability to leverage other resources for this program, either from in-kind, and/or external resources. The proposal reflects the effective use of organizational resources/external resources, including leveraged funds, designated exclusively for this program. (5 points)

60/87 RFP 513, 2/12

9. San Francisco Center for Inclusive Early Education Lead Contracting Agency : First 5 SF Children and Families Commission

Funds Available by City Departments for Fiscal Year 2012-2013

First 5 SF HSA Total Funds Available FY 2012-2013

$1,118,250 $109,500 $1,277,750

IntroductionThe city’s early care and educational funders - First 5 San Francisco, Department of Children Youth and Their Families (DCYF) and Human Services Agency (HSA) - have focused much of their work on ensuring all children enter kindergarten ready to learn. We underscore all, as we know that children with special needs require additional focus and attention to ensure early intervention services are provided in a timely and coordinated manner. We believe this can happen by offering young children with special needs opportunities to learn and play alongside children who are typically developing in high quality early education programs. To be inclusive, we believe early education environments are those where children with special needs are not only present, but have a feeling of truly belonging. Research shows that inclusion can benefit children with and without disabilities, particularly with respect to their social development. (National Professional Development Center on Inclusion, Frank Porter Graham Center, www . fpg . unc . edu /~ npdci ).

Special Needs Defined: Various definitions are used to identify children with special health care needs. For purposes of this RFP, we are using the following: The Maternal and Child Health Bureau defines children with special health care needs as those who have or are at increased risk for chronic physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional conditions and who also require health and related services of a type or amount beyond that required by children generally.

Inclusion Defined: The following definition of inclusion will be used for the RFP. It was adopted by the Childcare Planning and Advisory Committee (CPAC) Citywide Early Education and Out of School Time Childcare Plan. It is based on the definition developed by the Division of Early Childhood and the National Association for the Education of Young Children: Inclusion embodies the values, policies, and practices that support the right of every child and his or her family, regardless of ability, to participate in a broad range of activities and contexts as full members of families, communities, and society. The desired results of inclusive experiences for children with and without disabilities and their families include a sense of belonging and membership, positive social relationships and friendships, and development and learning to reach their full potential.

Access, Participation, and Supports Defined: The fundamental aspects of inclusion that can be used to identify high quality childcare and educational programs and services are access, participation, and supports.

Access – means providing a wide range of activities and environments for every child by removing physical barriers and offering multiple ways to promote learning and development.

Participation – means using a range of instructional approaches to promote engagement in play and learning activities, and a sense of belonging for every child.

Supports – refers to broader aspects of the system such as professional development, incentives for inclusion, and opportunities for communication and collaboration among families and professionals to assure high quality inclusion.

61/87 RFP 513, 2/12

The Need for Inclusive Care: San Francisco’s school age child population has declined significantly over the past several decades, while the general city population has increased. However, the city’s population of young children has grown with approximately 40,150 young children birth to 5 in the city, an 11% increase since the year 2000.

There is no comprehensive data collection system in San Francisco for identifying, tracking, and monitoring children with special needs, or their use of and need for child care. Determining the exact number of children with special health care needs is virtually impossible. Kidsdata.org reports that in California, 7% of the children from birth to 2-years-old have special health care needs. First 5 San Francisco’s Kindergarten Readiness Survey found that 8% of the families surveyed had children with special needs entering kindergarten. Based on that data, we estimate that between 2,811 and 3,212 children ages 0-5 have special health care needs.

During the past three years, the CPAC Inclusion Committee and First 5 San Francisco jointly convened the Inclusion Roundtable in order to assess the state of inclusive practices in the city. Participants in the Inclusion Roundtable represented the school district, specialized service providers, child care providers, San Francisco public agencies, technical assistance providers and consultants, university faculty, and family resource centers, among others. Key Stakeholder interviews were also conducted for the inclusive practices system design in the fall of 2011. Similar challenges emerged across all discussions; these were also reflected in the CPAC Inclusion Committee Strategic Plan:

Inadequate training and ongoing support of child care and therapeutic providers -Professional development emerged as the main area to focus upon in order to create inclusive programs. Stakeholders were clear about the meaning of staff development: it should not be just training, but training accompanied by coaching/consultation and modeling in the classroom so teachers can practice the strategies they recently learned. Research supports their beliefs: training tied with coaching is more effective than training alone. (Preparing Teachers for the Early Childhood Classroom: Proven Models and Key Principles, Paul Brooks, Inc. 2010)

Insufficient or inconsistent information available to parents and providers – Families expect service providers to be able to inform them of the array of available services and supports. Parents wish to connect with parents who have similar situations and are in their neighborhoods. Family Resource Centers, childcare providers and other professionals in the service delivery network need to be educated about existing programs and services and provide appropriate information and referral to support families through the process.

System fragmentation – While there were many specialized services available to young children throughout San Francisco, the service delivery system is fragmented and services are not always delivered in locations accessible to children and families.

Access to quality programs - Families who are seeking services for their young children with special needs find it difficult to get their children into the programs and services that can help. Cultural and language barriers and complicated systems add to the difficulties families face.

In response to the needs expressed by the community for more training and targeted support to providers around inclusive early education practices, we plan to create the San Francisco Center for Inclusive Early Education. The Center will create a Transdisciplinary Team to implement services; plan and implement citywide training and capacity building efforts to advance inclusive early education practices; provide short-term technical assistance and coaching to targeted sites; and support 2-3 PFA early education demonstration sites.

Transdisciplinary Team: The Center will maintain a core Transdisciplinary Team that at a minimum includes: Early childhood development specialists (early interventionist or person with special education

knowledge and experience) Early Childhood Mental Health Consultants (should be the consultant already assigned to targeted site) Speech Therapist(s) Occupational therapist(s) Other Trainers and Technical Assistance Providers/Coaches Other Specialists (i.e. legal)

62/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Citywide Training and Capacity Building: This component includes developing and conducting training citywide for PFA sites, Family Resource Centers, and Family Childcare Networks on developmental screening and topics related to inclusive practice. In addition, it will coordinate with other groups providing training, such as West Ed to ensure the target audience is aware of all of the other opportunities and enable them to plan their professional development accordingly.

Short-term Coaching and Technical Assistance: The Center will also make available to a targeted number of sites technical assistance, consultation, and coaching from the members of the multi-disciplinary team based upon staffing availability. This will enable dissemination of best practices for inclusion beyond the demonstration sites.

Demonstration Sites: The multi-disciplinary team will use a consultation model to work directly with 2-3 early childhood inclusion demonstration sites, offering tools and practical strategies to support children with special needs or at risk of disabilities in their programs. The early childhood development specialist will be designated as the team leader and be responsible for coordinating consultation services with the demonstration site program coordinators and the mental health consultants on site. Family engagement at each site will be a top priority of the team.

While providers are the primary recipients for the above services, The Center is part of a larger framework for ensuring inclusive practices. As such, The Center is also responsible for collaborating with the other entities within the larger system including the Inclusion Access/ Family Support Program, San Francisco Unified School District, and other citywide technical assistance and coaching efforts.

Goals Providers have the capacity and skills to implement evidence-based practices that ensure the healthy

social-emotional, cognitive and physical development of all children Children with special needs are identified and linked to high quality preschool sites and other services as

needed By supporting the development of inclusionary practices within early care and education programs all

children are school ready as they enter kindergarten

Services Requested1. Vision- Develop a philosophy and model for training, technical assistance, coaching and on-site services

and a maintain a unified vision of inclusive practices through training, learning circles, and team meetings o Ensure inclusion capacity building efforts are aligned with the city’s ECE joint funders’ vision,

standards, program improvement strategies, and policies.

2. Citywide Training and Technical Assistance - Develop and provide citywide training to PFA sites, Families and Family Resource Centers and Family Childcare Networks on developmental screening and topics related to inclusive practice in coordination with SFUSD, with PFA and with other citywide training entities.

o Collaborate with other citywide technical assistance and coaching efforts aimed at early education programs.

o Ensure that training includes overview of developmental screening tools, family engagement in screening activity, communicating with families about screening results, establishing protocols regarding screening and referrals for services, and introduction of other practices that support inclusion and healthy social/emotional development such as the Teaching Pyramid.

o Development of training module(s) for staff regarding child development and developmentally appropriate activities for children and families.

3. Transdisciplinary Team - Develop and maintain a Transdisciplinary Team that at a minimum includes: Early childhood development specialists (early interventionist or person with special education knowledge and experience); Early Childhood Mental Health Consultants; Speech Therapist(s);

63/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Occupational therapist(s); Other Trainers and Technical Assistance Providers/Coaches; and Other Specialists (i.e. legal).

o Develop collaboration and MOU with the mental health consultant assigned to the demonstration site to be part of the Transdisciplinary Team and to ensure they understand and can implement inclusive practices.

o Coordinate regular communication among team members.o Coordinate roles, responsibilities, and consultation services of team members at demonstration

sites and sites targeted for short-term coaching and technical assistance.o Ensure quality administration of clinical service provision, including but not limited to

verification of licensing, service planning, charting, supervision, and maintenance of professional liability insurance.

4. Short-term Coaching and Technical Assistance - Ensure that targeted short term technical assistance and on-site coaching is available to non-demonstration sites and assist them in the design and develop of their practices for developmental screening, referral, and providing inclusive services.

o Coordinate training that supports inclusive practice at targeted sites, such as the ASQ-3, Teaching Pyramid, and training on sensory environments.

o Advise sites on policies and procedures to ensure inclusive practice is embedded in the site (i.e. screening and referral, enrollment procedures, toileting policies, and positive behavior support).

5. Demonstration Sites - Provide technical assistance, coaching, and consultation to up to three demonstration sites, offering tools and practical strategies to support children with special needs or at risk of disabilities in their programs.

o Work with joint funders to determine criteria and processes to select these demonstration sites.o Provide training, consultation and coaching to teachers, and site directors to build their capacity

with regard to inclusive practices.o Coordinate training that supports inclusive practice at targeted sites, such as the ASQ-3, Teaching

Pyramid, and training on sensory environments;o Advise sites on policies and procedures to ensure inclusive practice is embedded in the site (i.e.

screening and referral, enrollment procedures, toileting policies, and positive behavior support).o Provide on-site consultation and direct speech and language and occupational therapy services to

the demonstration sites.o Work directly with the site program director to ensure that all of the professionals working at the

site are familiar with the services of each discipline (including the early intervention specialists as well as the enrichment programs such as art, music, science, etc).

o Have a consistent presence at each of the demonstration sites (i.e. 1 to 2 days a week).o Use a family-centered approach to ensure families are engaged in the development of the

inclusive demonstration site.o Collaborate with the Inclusion Access/ Family Support Program to implement a coordinated,

system-wide approach to inclusive practice.o Ensure families are connected to the Inclusion Access/ Family Support Program.

6. Collaboration and Coordination: Ensure overall work of The Center is in alignment with other partner agencies working toward inclusionary practice.

o Participate on the Multi-disciplinary Roundtable problem solving team and Interagency Council.o Provide training in conjunction with needs and priorities outlined at Roundtable and Interagency

Council meetings.o Partner with SFUSD to ensure a unified approach to inclusive practices (identifying and referring

children for assessment, aligning standards, professional development curriculum, etc.) and partnering with them to provide services at the demonstration sites.

7. Data collection and tracking: Program will participate in performance measurement and evaluation activities as required. These may include:

64/87 RFP 513, 2/12

o Use of a standardized contract monitoring and data tracking system to capture fiscal information, implementation progress, participant demographics, and participant attendance in core services;

o Data collection and summary of ASQ results for demonstration sites and sites receiving short-term coaching and technical assistance;

o Use of pre and post survey instruments relevant to the desired outcomes; ando Participation in training as required and ongoing support and oversight of staff to ensure effective

administration of above data collection tools.

Performance MeasuresRequired Performance Measures: Targets Determined

Create one Transdisciplinary team to support demonstration sites Identify and serve a minimum of 2 demonstration sites to support inclusive practice Ensure presence of Transdisciplinary team members a minimum of 1 day a week at each demonstration

site for the duration of the program year A minimum of 75% of providers receiving coaching and on-site technical assistance will demonstrate

increased knowledge and skills around evidence-based inclusionary practices

Required Performance Measures: Applicant to Specify Targets Provide (applicant to specify target) trainings citywide for parents and professionals on inclusive

practices, developmental screening, and child development Reach a minimum of (applicant to specify target) parents and (applicant to specify target) professionals

with citywide training on inclusive practices, developmental screening, and child development Provide (applicant to specify target) non-demonstration sites with on-site capacity building and coaching

to enhance inclusive practices around screening, referral, and instruction Provide (applicant to specify target) hours, per site, of capacity building and coaching to enhance

inclusive practices around screening, referral, and instruction to non-demonstration sites Provide (applicant to specify target) hours, per site, of capacity building and coaching to demonstration

sites

Example of Additional Outcome Performance Measure Ensure 90% of identified service needs are met for children at demonstration sites

Guidelines for Applicant Narrative Minimum Qualifications - Provide a description and supporting information demonstrating how your

agency meets the minimum qualifications for administering the Supporting Inclusion/Family Access and Support, numbering and titling your response to match the Minimum Qualifications described below.

Program Description - (Please correlate descriptions with each of the “Services Requested” described above): Provide a description of the proposed program activities which meet the specifications of each of the services requested. Include the time-frame for achieving activities, expected deliverables, and evaluation approaches. Include how providers, children, and/or families will be identified and enrolled into project activities, the number of children and families expected to be reached through the project’s efforts, and the units of service to be provided. Describe how active ongoing engagement will be achieved for all participants. Also include relevant past activities and a rationale for the approach proposed/adopted (if available, describe achieved evaluation outcomes of past activities). If the project requires a specific planning phase (as opposed to a typical project start-up period), provide the rationale for this, and describe the major activities that will occur in the planning phase.

Staffing Qualifications and roles/Org Chart - Identify key staff your organization will assign to fulfill the contract requirements.

o Provide resumes (or position descriptions) for the people you envision will oversee and implement the project. Link individuals/positions to their specific role in implementing the Services Requested and describe their appropriateness for their role(s).

65/87 RFP 513, 2/12

o Subcontractors: Identify the subcontracting agencies staff that will work on this project. Describe the role each will play and state the estimated percentage of time they will spend on the project. Describe the capacities and experience the subcontractor will bring to the project. Provide examples of a past accomplishment or a current project that relates to the organization’s role.

System Positioning - Leveraging, Effectiveness, and Efficiency -Explain how your agency’s proposal provides the most effective and efficient approach to achieve the program goals including other programs you operate or partner with which leverage or otherwise support efficacy and efficiency.

Minimum Qualifications1. Minimum of three years of experience providing training, coaching and technical assistance to early

childhood teachers and families with demonstrated positive outcomes.2. Demonstrated ability to provide training and support which addresses the cultural, linguistic, and

programmatic needs of the ECE workforce in San Francisco beyond translation of materials and trainings.

3. Demonstrated ability to tailor the provision of technical assistance to diverse types of ECE settings (e.g., center-based, family child care homes).

4. Minimum of three years working in the field of special education or related fields.5. Proven knowledge of inclusion practices.6. Well-trained, highly qualified staff (including cadre of technical assistance specialists), experienced and

able to deliver the technical assistance as described in the services requested.7. Demonstrated effectiveness in community partnerships and collaboration with other

agencies/organizations.8. Demonstrated knowledge of the broad array of citywide resources available to support inclusive practice

in ECE/child care settings

Evaluation Criteria

Organizational Capacity (30 points)1. Agency experience and capacity in designing, implementing, and administering activities similar to those

requested in this RFP. Agency demonstrates it has organizational resources and identifies developed or ongoing activities that will be dedicated or leveraged to support the activities requested in this RFP. (10)

2. Agency experience working with the population targeted by this RFP. Agency should have demonstrated knowledge of the intended target population and capacity to meet their target population's identified needs. (5)

3. Demonstrated appropriate experience, professional qualifications and education of staff assigned to the project, a realistic description of the tasks to be performed by each staff person, reasonable workload demonstrating an ability to achieve the objectives, staff availability and accessibility. The staff, based on resumes or job descriptions and qualifications provided, are adequately trained or skilled to provide the services described. (10)

4. Agency experience developing and/or working with collaborative partnerships. (5)

Program Design (50 Points) 1. Agency's overall approach demonstrates understanding of the target population and proposes strategies that

will appropriately address the needs of the target population. Overall approach and program design demonstrates sound practice with strong evidence base, shows clarity of purpose, and has a high likelihood of achieving intended goals. (10)

2. Applicant has clearly described significant activities to be accomplished for the successful implementation of the initiative/program and provided an anticipated timeframe. Agency has described activities in the context of the "Goals" and "Services Requested" sections and has sufficiently addressed the Guidelines for Applicant Narrative. (20)

66/87 RFP 513, 2/12

3. Applicant has identified challenges that will need to be addressed to assure the successful implementation of the project, if applicable, and has identified existing resources and partnerships in the community that can be utilized to achieve success for the project. (10)

4. Applicant has clearly described their commitment and capacity to implement and track required performance measures and has proposed targets for required performance measures, if applicable. Applicant has proposed additional measures and targets to support tracking of quality, outcomes and impact. Additional measures are specific, achievable, have readily available data sources, and tie back to goals intended for the project. Applicant has clearly described their approach to continuous quality improvement, including identification of evaluation strategies, previous experience implementing evaluation, and methods for ensuring that evaluation findings inform programmatic improvements. (10)

Fiscal Capacity (20 points)1. The budget provided for services is clear, easy to understand and in accordance with provided forms and

instructions. The budget reflects sound, adequate allocation of resources, matching the program components including staffing costs, operating costs. The budget supports the services proposed and is competitive with other proposals.  Costs are reasonable, justified, and competitive.  Cost Allocation Plan is reasonable. (10)

2. Applicant’s ability to leverage other resources for this program, either from in-kind, and/or external resources. The proposal reflects the effective use of organizational resources/external resources, including leveraged funds, designated exclusively for the success of this program. (10)

67/87 RFP 513, 2/12

10.Inclusion Access / Family Support Program Lead Contracting Agency : First 5 SF Children and Families Commission

Funds Available by City Departments for Fiscal Year 2012-2013

First 5 SF DCYF HSA Total Funds Available FY 2012-2013

$236,750 $74,000 $109,500 $420,250

IntroductionThe city’s early care and educational funders - First 5 San Francisco, Department of Children Youth and Their Families (DCYF) and Human Services Agency (HSA) - have focused much of their work on ensuring all children enter kindergarten ready to learn. We underscore all, as we know that children with special needs require additional focus and attention to ensure early intervention services are provided in a timely and coordinated manner. We believe this can happen by offering young children with special needs opportunities to learn and play alongside children who are typically developing in high quality early education programs. To be inclusive, we believe early education environments are those where children with special needs are not only present, but have a feeling of truly belonging. Research shows that inclusion can benefit children with and without disabilities, particularly with respect to their social development. (National Professional Development Center on Inclusion, Frank Porter Graham Center, www . fpg . unc . edu /~ npdci ).

Special Needs Defined: Various definitions are used to identify children with special health care needs. For purposes of this RFP, we are using the following: The Maternal and Child Health Bureau defines children with special health care needs as those who have or are at increased risk for chronic physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional conditions and who also require health and related services of a type or amount beyond that required by children generally.

Inclusion Defined: The following definition of inclusion will be used for the RFP. It was adopted by the Childcare Planning and Advisory Committee (CPAC) Citywide Early Education and Out of School Time Childcare Plan. It is based on the definition developed by the Division of Early Childhood and the National Association for the Education of Young Children: Inclusion embodies the values, policies, and practices that support the right of every child and his or her family, regardless of ability, to participate in a broad range of activities and contexts as full members of families, communities, and society. The desired results of inclusive experiences for children with and without disabilities and their families include a sense of belonging and membership, positive social relationships and friendships, and development and learning to reach their full potential.

Access, Participation, and Supports Defined: The fundamental aspects of inclusion that can be used to identify high quality childcare and educational programs and services are access, participation, and supports.

Access – means providing a wide range of activities and environments for every child by removing physical barriers and offering multiple ways to promote learning and development.

Participation – means using a range of instructional approaches to promote engagement in play and learning activities, and a sense of belonging for every child.

Supports – refers to broader aspects of the system such as professional development, incentives for inclusion, and opportunities for communication and collaboration among families and professionals to assure high quality inclusion.

The Need for Inclusive Care: San Francisco’s school age child population has declined significantly over the past several decades, while the general city population has increased. However, the city’s population of young children has grown with approximately 40,150 young children birth to 5 in the city, an 11% increase since the year 2000.68/87 RFP 513, 2/12

There is no comprehensive data collection system in San Francisco for identifying, tracking, and monitoring children with special needs, or their use of and need for child care. Determining the exact number of children with special health care needs is virtually impossible. Kidsdata.org reports that in California, 7% of the children from birth to 2-years-old have special health care needs. First 5 San Francisco’s Kindergarten Readiness Survey found that 8% of the families surveyed had children with special needs entering kindergarten. Based on that data, we estimate that between 2,811 and 3,212 children have special health care needs.

During the past three years, the CPAC Inclusion Committee and First 5 San Francisco jointly convened the Inclusion Roundtable in order to assess the state of inclusive practices in the city. Participants in the Inclusion Roundtable represented the school district, specialized service providers, child care providers, San Francisco City agencies, technical assistance providers and consultants, university faculty, and family resource centers, among others. Key Stakeholder interviews were also conducted for the inclusive practices system design in the fall of 2011. Similar challenges emerged across all discussions; these were also reflected in the CPAC Inclusion Committee Strategic Plan: Inadequate training and ongoing support of child care and therapeutic providers -Professional development

emerged as the main area to focus upon in order to create inclusive programs. Stakeholders were clear about the meaning of staff development: it should not be just training, but training accompanied by coaching/consultation and modeling in the classroom so teachers can practice the strategies they recently learned. Research supports their beliefs: training tied with coaching is more effective than training alone. (Preparing Teachers for the Early Childhood Classroom: Proven Models and Key Principles, Paul Brooks, Inc. 2010)

Insufficient or inconsistent information available to parents and providers – Families expect service providers to be able to inform them of the array of available services and supports. Parents wish to connect with parents who have similar situations and are in their neighborhoods. Family Resource Centers, childcare providers and other professionals in the service delivery network need to be educated about existing programs and services and provide appropriate information and referral to support families through the process.

System fragmentation – While there were many specialized services available to young children throughout San Francisco, the service delivery system is fragmented and services are not always delivered in locations accessible to children and families.

Access to quality programs - Families who are seeking services for their young children with special needs find it difficult to get their children into the programs and services that can help. Cultural and language barriers and complicated systems add to the difficulties families face.

In response to the needs expressed by the community for more clear and consistent information and support available to parents as well as concerns around system fragmentation, we plan to create the Inclusion Access/ Family Support Program. This program will be housed in a Family Resource Center serving families with children who have special needs; provide information, education, referral, and case management for families who have had difficulty linking to service; provide and link families to educational opportunities and peer supports; facilitate a Roundtable problem solving team that supports access to services; and coordinate an Interagency Council to address and improve system issues.

While families of children with special needs are the primary recipients for the above services, the Inclusion Access/Family Support Program is part of a larger framework for ensuring inclusive practices. As such, this agency is also responsible for collaborating with the other entities within the larger system including The Center for Inclusive Early Education, other Family Resource Centers, San Francisco Unified School District, Golden Gate Regional Center, California Children’s Services, the Multi-Disciplinary Assessment Center, and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultants.

Goals A broad continuum of family support services are available and accessible to San Francisco families Parents/caregivers have the knowledge, skills, and support parent effectively, cope in times of stress, and

build strong families69/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Provide information, education, support and referrals to families of children with special needs targeting families that are low income, are participating in HSA services and, for those families that need assistance, accessing high quality early care and education programs

Services Requested1. Information Referral and Case Management: The program will support families to link with services that

support their child’s development and school readiness. In response to a request for assistance families are connected to the services they need. This includes services offered internally by the FRC or externally by another organization/service

provider. A focus of case management will be to engage the family in services that address their child’s developmental needs. Families may also be referred to other resources of support (e.g. links to mental health services and other family issues e.g. adult mental health, basic needs assistance, etc.) as needed.

The program must keep updated and informed on available resources and service providers. The program establishes mechanisms for formal intakes, needs assessments, and facilitated planning

processes to assist families in developing a plan of action that address concerns impacting child development and/or family functioning.

Case manager should coordinate efforts with other service providers working with families.2. Educational Opportunities and Peer Supports: The program will plan and implement educational

workshops and skill building opportunities for families. Structured, stand-alone sessions or short class series should provide information on a variety of topics

related to child development, assessment, -atypical development, early learning, inclusion and how to access the resources and services that support child development.

These education efforts should be coordinated, compliment, enhance and not duplicate other efforts.3. Roundtable Facilitation: The program will convene an interagency team of service providers to review

referrals of children with special health care needs, their families expressed needs, and needs suggested by developmental screening in order to develop recommendations and a referral plan. The referral plan’s recommendation should be informed by appropriate clinical expertise, knowledge of

provider eligibility criteria, and family input. Families will be connected to services by a lead case manager, unless client and family choose to stay

under the care of an existing agency’s case management. The project must facilitate and ensure appropriate access to SFUSD, GGRC and CCS , early education

and other needed services4. Interagency Council Coordination: The program will sponsor provider and other stakeholder meetings to

facilitate an ongoing process to identify and resolve gaps in screening, assessment and access to services for children 0 – 5 years old with suspected or identified special health needs. The participants in the stakeholder meetings should include representation by mandated service providers,

community providers serving families and to the extent possible direct participation by families. The meetings should be results oriented – identifying specific issues/challenges to be addressed with a

focused problem solving results based orientation. This activity will prioritize system level gaps and coordination.

5. Collaborate with The Center for Inclusive Early Education and other entities to ensure a unified approach to inclusive practices: The program must collaborate and coordinate its efforts with the Center for Inclusive Early Education, Resource and Referral Agency, San Francisco Unified School District and other service providers working with families of children with identified or suspected special health needs. These efforts will enhance coordination, collaboration and enhancement of the service offerings of all providers and seek to reduce duplication and inefficiency.

6. Data collection and tracking: Program will participate in performance measurement and evaluation activities similar to other Family Resource Center contracts. These may include: Use of a standardized contract monitoring and data tracking system to capture fiscal information,

implementation progress, participant demographics, and participant attendance in core services; Use of a standardized program quality assessment tools (may be participant assessments of program

and/or program self-assessments) to ensure compliance with minimum standards of quality (i.e. San Francisco Family Support Standards);

Use of pre and post survey instruments relevant to the desired outcomes; and70/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Participation in training as required and ongoing support and oversight of staff to ensure effective administration of above data collection tools.

Performance MeasuresRequired Performance Measures: Applicant to Specify Targets

(applicant to specify target) Number of unduplicated parents/caregivers served through case management services

(applicant to specify target) Number of workshops and/or classes to provide educational and skill building opportunities for families

(applicant to specify target) Number of unduplicated parents/caregivers served through workshops and/or classes

(applicant to specify target) Number of Roundtable meetings per year (applicant to specify target) Number of unduplicated children served by Roundtable multi-disciplinary

team (applicant to specify target) Number of cases reviewed per year by Roundtable multi-disciplinary team (applicant to specify target) Number of General Council meetings per year (applicant to specify target) Number of agencies recruited for General Council participation

Examples of Additional Outcome Performance Measures 70% of Roundtable cases closed and linked (i.e. service plan goals met to family and caseworker

satisfaction) 80% of participating families report increased social supports as a result of services

Guidelines for Applicant Narrative Minimum Qualifications - Provide a description and supporting information demonstrating how your agency

meets the required qualifications for administering the Inclusion Access/ Family Support Program, numbering and titling your response to match the Minimum Qualifications described below.

Program Description - (Please correlate descriptions with each of the “Services Requested” described above): Provide a description of the proposed program activities which meet the specifications of each of the services requested. Include the time-frame for achieving activities, expected deliverables, and evaluation approaches. Include how families will be identified and enrolled into project activities, the number of children and families expected to be reached through the project’s efforts, and the units of service to be provided. If applicable, describe how system service providers will be identified and enrolled into project activities, number of provider participants expected, and how active ongoing engagement will be achieved. Also include relevant past activities and a rationale for the approach proposed/adopted (if available, describe achieved evaluation outcomes of past activities).

o Please describe how this project will be integrated into the agency’s overall service structure; specifically address how families engaged in funded services will be connected and assisted in accessing other family support services within the larger agency to provide a seamless service experience and maximize their opportunities for social connections.

o If the project requires a specific planning phase (as opposed to a typical project start-up period), provide the rationale for this, and describe the major activities that will occur in the planning phase.

Staffing Qualifications and roles/Org Chart - Identify key staff your organization will assign to fulfill the contract requirements.

o Provide resumes (or position descriptions) for the people you envision will oversee and implement the project. Link individuals/positions to their specific role in implementing the Services Requested and describe their appropriateness for their role(s).

o Subcontractors: Identify the subcontracting agencies staff that will work on this project. Describe the role each will play and state the estimated percentage of time they will spend on the project. Describe the capacities and experience the subcontractor will bring to the project. Provide examples of a past accomplishment or a current project that relates to the organization’s role.

71/87 RFP 513, 2/12

System Positioning - Leveraging, Effectiveness, and Efficiency - Explain how your agency’s proposal provides the most effective and efficient approach to achieve the program goals including other programs you operate or partner with which leverage or otherwise support efficacy and efficiency.

Minimum Qualifications1. Minimum three years experience providing case management to families with children 0 – 5 years olds with

special health care needs. Case managers should be licensed clinical social workers, licensed eligible, and/or masters level in a related field.

2. Demonstrated ability to serve culturally and linguistically diverse families and adjust service approach to be sensitive to the impact of their perceptions of children’s special health needs.

3. Demonstrated established partnerships and linkages with mandated providers and other community providers/stakeholders needed to link children to needed services.

4. Demonstrated established partnerships and linkages with mandated providers and other community providers/stakeholders to create improvements and enhancements in the systems of care that serves children with special health needs.

5. Demonstrated achievement in working with stakeholders to enhance and improve systems of care for children with special health needs and their families.

6. Demonstrated experience delivering services to families in alignment with Family Support America’s nine Principles of Family Support. Specific service delivery experience should include the following activities: parenting education, support groups, parent workshops, and parent/child interactive groups.

Evaluation CriteriaOrganizational Capacity (30 points)1. Agency experience and capacity in designing, implementing, and administering activities similar to those

requested in this RFP. Agency demonstrates it has organizational resources and identifies developed or ongoing activities that will be dedicated or leveraged to support the activities requested in this RFP. (10)

2. Agency experience working with the population targeted by this RFP. Agency should have demonstrated knowledge of the intended target population and capacity to meet their target population's identified needs. (5)

3. Demonstrated appropriate experience, professional qualifications and education of staff assigned to the project, a realistic description of the tasks to be performed by each staff person, reasonable workload demonstrating an ability to achieve the objectives, staff availability and accessibility. The staff, based on resumes or job descriptions and qualifications provided, are adequately trained or skilled to provide the services described. (10)

4. Agency experience developing and/or working with collaborative partnerships. (5)

Program Design (50 Points) 1. Agency's overall approach demonstrates understanding of the target population and proposes strategies that

will appropriately address the needs of the target population. Overall approach and program design demonstrates sound practice with strong evidence base, shows clarity of purpose, and has a high likelihood of achieving intended goals. (10)

2. Applicant has clearly described significant activities to be accomplished for the successful implementation of the initiative/program and provided an anticipated timeframe. Agency has described activities in the context of the "Goals" and "Services Requested" sections and has sufficiently addressed the Guidelines for Applicant Narrative. (20)

3. Applicant has identified challenges that will need to be addressed to assure the successful implementation of the project, if applicable, and has identified existing resources and partnerships in the community that can be utilized to achieve success for the project. (10)

72/87 RFP 513, 2/12

4. Applicant has clearly described their commitment and capacity to implement and track required performance measures and has proposed targets for required performance measures, if applicable. Applicant has proposed additional measures and targets to support tracking of quality, outcomes and impact. Additional measures are specific, achievable, have readily available data sources, and tie back to goals intended for the project. Applicant has clearly described their approach to continuous quality improvement, including identification of evaluation strategies, previous experience implementing evaluation, and methods for ensuring that evaluation findings inform programmatic improvements. (10)

Fiscal Capacity (20 points)1. The budget provided for services is clear, easy to understand and in accordance with provided forms and

instructions. The budget reflects sound, adequate allocation of resources, matching the program components including staffing costs, operating costs. The budget supports the services proposed and is competitive with other proposals.  Costs are reasonable, justified, and competitive.  Cost Allocation Plan is reasonable. (10)

2. Applicant’s ability to leverage other resources for this program, either from in-kind, and/or external resources. The proposal reflects the effective use of organizational resources/external resources, including leveraged funds, designated exclusively for  the success of this program. (10)

73/87 RFP 513, 2/12

III. Request for Proposal (RFP) - Components and General Instructions

Submission Components and General Instructions for Each Section:All submissions must include the following components in this order: Form A: Part I and Part II Cover Sheet -

o Form A - Cover Sheet, Part I: Fill in all boxes. o Form A - Cover Sheet, Part II: Tell us about the participants you will serve.

The ethnicity categories used on Form A represent a grouping of the detailed categories DCYF normally asks funded organizations to collect. For purposes of projecting the number of children with special needs that will be served by your program, please use the following definition: Children with special needs are children with learning, emotional and/or physical disabilities.

If your agency is applying for more than one grant through this RFP, you should fill out more than one complete set of forms (e.g., Form A should include demographics for only one initiative). If demographic formation is not applicable for the initiative/program for which you are responding, indicate by using N/A.

Form B: Check List - All applicants must check off each item listed and submit this form with their application. Not to exceed one (1) page.

Form C: Page Number Forms - This form is to assist the review panel in finding the information in the Proposal that corresponds to the evaluation criteria. Each of the 10 initiatives has a separate Page Number Form. Please see the attached Excel file FORM C-Page Number Forms.xls and use the Page Number Form that applies to the initiative to which you are responding. For each item listed on the form, please list the page number(s) where the reviewer may find the answer(s) to the criteria.

Form D: Collaborative Partners - Provide the requested information indicated on the form. Not to exceed two (2) pages.

Program Narrative (20 pages maximum)Instructions: Please provide the following information in narrative format. Your response will be read and scored by outside reviewers, so please be clear and concise in your answers. Be sure to stay within the page limits listed for each section. Note that some sections are not required by all respondents.

Organizational Capacity (up to 6 pages)Please provide detailed qualitative and quantitative information about your organization’s past experience and achievements be sure to address the minimum qualifications identified in the RFP. You may describe additional resources, experience, or qualifications that are relevant to achievement of the requested service.a) Organization Description – briefly describe your organization. b) Organizational Capacity – briefly describe the organization’s capacity to provide the services proposed.

Please indicate the following: Number of staff available to provide proposed services to the target population. Familiarity with providing proposed services to the target population.

c) Business name of the agency and the legal entity for which a proposal will be submitted such as: Corporation, Co-partnership, and Combination etc.

d) Number of years the agency has been in business under the current business name, as well as prior business names, if any.

e) Description of a maximum of three grants or contracts, if any, completed during the last three years showing: Year, Type of services, Dollar amount of services provided, Targeted geographic area, Granting agency, size of the project and the nature of services provided.

f) Details of any failure or refusal to complete a contract/grant. Details of any fiscal or programmatic corrective actions within past three years. Include copy of last three years’ programmatic, fiscal, and

74/87 RFP 513, 2/12

compliance evaluation/monitoring reports and/or compliance letter from granting agencies. g) Disclosure of controlling interest in any other organizations providing equivalent or similar services. h) Disclosure of financial interest in any other lines of business. i) Names of persons and corporations with whom the Respondent has been associated in business as

partners in each of the last three years. Governmental agencies are exempt from this requirement. j) Disclosure of any litigation including Respondent, subcontracts, or any principal officers thereof in

connection with any contract or grant.

Program Design (up to 10 pages)For the initiative/program your agency proposes to perform, provide information on the proposed program design and address the Guidelines for Applicant Narrative

Performance Measures (up to 3 pages) For the initiative/program your agency proposes to perform, provide information on the proposed performance measures

Form E: Budget Form, Narrative, &InstructionsBudget template available on request or on City’s website as a separate document. Identify any external resources committed to this program, including in-kind resources designated solely for this program.

Form F: Budget Form, Narrative, & Instructions –– USE FOR QUALITY RATING SERVICES ONLY Budget template available on request or on City’s website as a separate document. Identify any external resources committed to this program, including in-kind resources designated solely for this program.

Standard FormsBefore the City can award any contract to a contractor, that contractor must file three standard City forms (items 1-3 on the chart). Because many contractors have already completed these forms, and because some informational forms are rarely revised, the City has not included them in the RFP package. Instead, forms can be downloaded from the City’s Office of Contract Administration webpage www.sfgov.org/oca/ click on “Required Vendor Forms” under the “information for Vendors and Contractors” banner. Forms can also be obtained by contacting Purchasing at (415) 554-6248 or purchasing@sfgov.org.

If a respondent has already filled out items 1-3 (see note under item 3) on the chart, the respondent should not do so again unless the contractor’s answers have changed. To find out whether these forms have been submitted, the contractor should call Vendor File Support in the Controller’s Office at (415) 554-6702.

If a respondent would like to apply to be certified as a local business enterprise, it must submit item 4. To find out about item 4 and certification, the contractor should call Human Rights Commission at (415) 252-2500.

Office of Contract AdministrationHomepage: www.sfgov.org/oca/Purchasing forms: Click on “Required Vendor Forms” under the “Information for Vendors and Contractors” banner.

Human Rights Commission

HRC’s homepage: www.sfhrc.org Equal Benefits forms: Click on “Forms” under the “Equal Benefits” banner near the bottom. LBE

certification form: Click on “Forms” under the “LBE” banner near the bottom

75/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Form name and Internet location m Description

Return the form to;For more info

Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification

www.sfgov.org/oca/purchasing/forms.htm

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-fill/fw9.pdf

W-9 The City needs the contractor’s taxpayer ID number on this form. If a contractor has already done business with the City, this form is not necessary because the City already has the number.

Controller’s OfficeVendor File SupportCity Hall, Room 484San Francisco, CA 94102

(415) 554-6702

Business Tax Declaration

www.sfgov.org/oca/purchasing/forms.htm

P-25All contractors must sign this form to determine if they must register with the Tax Collector, even if not located in San Francisco. All businesses that qualify as “conducting business in San Francisco” must register with the Tax Collector.

Controller’s OfficeVendor File SupportCity Hall, Room 484San Francisco, CA 94102

(415) 554-6702S.F. Administrative Code Chapters 12B & 12C Declaration: Nondiscrimination in Contracts and Benefits

www.sfgov.org/oca/purchasing/forms.htm –

In Vendor Profile Application

HRC-12B-

Contractors tell the City if their personnel policies meet the City’s requirements for nondiscrimination against protected classes of people, and in the provision of benefits between employees with spouses and employees with domestic partners. Form submission is not complete if it does not include the additional documentation asked for on the form. Other forms may be required, depending on the answers on this form. Contract-by-Contract Compliance status vendors must fill out an additional form for each contract.

Human Rights Comm.25 Van Ness, #800San Francisco, CA 94102-6059(415) 252-2500

HRC LBE Certification Application

www.sfgov.org/oca/purchasing/forms.htm –

In Vendor Profile Application

Local businesses complete this form to be certified by HRC as LBEs. Certified LBEs receive a bid discount pursuant to Chapter 14B when bidding on City contracts. To receive the bid discount, you must be certified by HRC by the response due date.

Human Rights Comm.25 Van Ness, #800San Francisco, CA 94102-6059(415) 252-2500

76/87 RFP 513, 2/12

FORM A – RFP COVER SHEET, Part I

All Applicants must complete a separate Proposal Coversheet and Summary for each distinct proposal being submitted by their organization. This form may be downloaded and completed electronically:

Indicate (mark with “X”) the initiative this submission is for: San Francisco Child Care Connections - (SF3C) - Centralized Eligibility List

Child Care Facilities Fund

Fiscal Intermediary - ECE Workforce Compensation and Wage Augmentation Grants for Economic Support

(C-WAGES)

QRIS - Quality Rating Services

QRIS - Quality Improvement Services

Professional Development for Early Care and Education (ECE) Workforce

Family Child Care Quality Network

Field Building and Peer Support

Center for Inclusive Early Education

Inclusion Access/Family Support Program

AGENCY CONTACT: FISCAL SPONSOR CONTACT (if applicable)

Organization Name: Fiscal Agency Name:

Contact Name: Contact Name:

Title: Title:

Address: Address:

City: City:

Zip code: Zip code:

Telephone: Telephone:

Fax: Fax:

E-Mail: E-Mail:

Federal Employer ID# Federal Employer ID#

Amount Requested: Amount Requested:

If applicable, list the address(es) where program services will be provided, including street name and number, ZIP code and supervisorial district:

77/87 RFP 513, 2/12

By my signature above, I certify that I am an official authorized to bind the Respondent to this Request for Proposals. I understand that the Human Services Agency (HSA) reserves the right to modify the specifics of this application at the time of funding and/or during the contract negotiation; that no officer, employee or agent of the City of San Francisco, exercising any function or responsibility in connection with the proposed services contract or with planning or carrying out any agreement relative to this proposal HSA any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in the operation of the Respondent; that a contract may be negotiated for a portion of the amount requested; and that there is no contract until a written contract HSA been signed by both parties and approved by all applicable City Agencies. This proposal is a firm offer for a specified period of not less than one hundred sixty (160) days.

Signature of authorized representative(s):

Name: ________________________ Title:__________________________

Signature:________________________ Date:__________________________

Name: ________________________ Title:__________________________

Signature:________________________ Date:__________________________

Submit one (1) original and eight (8) copies to:

San Francisco Department of Human ServicesOffice of Contract Management, G310c/o Christina Iwasaki, Senior Contract Manager1650 Mission Street, Suite 300San Francisco, CA 94103

78/87 RFP 513, 2/12

FORM A – RFP COVER SHEET, Part II

1) AGES Projected Number of Participants to be Served by Age Group0-23-5

Caregivers/Parents over 18

2) GENDER Projected Number of Participants to be Served by GenderMale Female Transgender

3) RACE/ETHNICITY

Projected Number of Participants to be Served by Ethnicity

AsianBlack/African-AmericanLatinoNative American/Native AlaskanPacific IslanderWhiteMultiethnic

4) OTHER DEMOGRAPHICS

Projected Number of Participants to be Served by Category

Self-identified Lesbian/Gay/ Bisexual/Transgender/QuestioningChildren with Special NeedsHomeless/Transitional HousingEnglish Language Learners (ELL)Homeless children and youthChildren from low-income familiesResidents of Subsidized or Public HousingForeign bornChildren & youth at risk of entering the Juvenile Justice, Child Welfare, or Mental Health System

5) ZIP CODES Projected Number of Participants to be Served by ZIP Code94102 94111 94122 9413394103 94112 94123 9413494104 94114 9412494105 94115 9412794107 94116 9412994108 94117 9413094109 94118 9413194110 94121 94132

79/87 RFP 513, 2/12

FORM B – RFP CHECK LISTPlease refer also to III. Request for Proposal (RFP) - Components and General Instructions. This is a tool for the respondents to ensure they addressed all sections of the RFP

______ Form A: Cover Sheet, Parts I and II

______ Form B: Check List

______ Form C Page Number form

______ RFP Program Narrative

______ Form D: Collaborative Partners

______ Form E: Budget Form, Narrative, & Instructions

______ Form F: Budget Form, Narrative, & Instructions – USE FOR QUALITY RATING SERVICES ONLY

80/87 RFP 513, 2/12

FORM C – PAGE NUMBER FORM SAMPLEPlease see Excel workbook FORM C-Page Number Forms.xls and use the appropriate Page Number Form for your submission.

Below is the sample form for SF3C.

1.     San Francisco Child Care Connections - (SF3C)Lead Contracting Agency : HSA

Page Number

Minimum QualificationsOrganization meets Minimum Eligibility Requirements for All Initiatives (p. 6 of RFP)A minimum of three years managing and maintaining a county-wide centralized child care subsidy eligibility databaseQualified applicant agency must provide a robust database. New development of a centralized eligibility database will be not be funded with SF3C fundsQualified case management staff with minimum of one year experience administering child care subsidy eligibility and/or centralized eligibility enrollment services A minimum of two years demonstrated experience working with the San Francisco Title 5 contractors.

Evaluation Criteria

Organization’s experience in providing proposed services to the target population. The respondent clearly demonstrates that it has the organizational infrastructure, including a developed database to manage the waiting list of eligible families and administrative capacity to deliver the program as proposed.

Respondent’s past performance under grant/contract for early care and education services similar to those proposed. This will include performance under previous grants/contracts with California Department of Education, SF First 5, and the City and County of San Francisco.

Demonstrated appropriate experience, professional qualifications and education of staff assigned to the project, a realistic description of the tasks to be performed by each staff person, reasonable workload demonstrating an ability to achieve the objectives, staff availability and accessibility. The staff, based on resumes or job descriptions and qualifications provided, are adequately trained or skilled to provide the services described. Adequate staffing with appropriately highly qualified staff with language capacity in minimally in Chinese, Spanish and English, sufficient to start on July 1, 2012 shall be awarded the maximum points in this area.

Overall Approach and Target Population: Description of Respondent’s specific program approach to deliver the services proposed and how this program approach or service model will appropriately address the needs of the target population of families applying and waiting for a subsidy and needing to predetermine preferences for subsidized providers The secondary target population served by SF3C is Title 5 contractors. Ability to serve this group will be equally rated with service to families.

Proposed Services: Respondent understanding of the services proposed, as well as the needs and issues involved in providing the services. Proposals shall be rated on the ability of the applicant to design a program that addresses the system needs including program goals as described in “Goals” and services as described in the “Services Requested” The funders are not locked into a specific design, but require a strong proposal which supports the success of the intiative in order to score the maximum number of points in the evaluation.

Description of the specific measures to be implemented by the Respondent to ensure performance outcomes and service objectives will be met. Clear measurable service utilization and performance

81/87 RFP 513, 2/12

outcomes and/or customer satisfaction data support a higher score. Performance measures should also include a discussion of specific methods for collection of data and clear evaluation criteria for numbers of families enrolled in SF3C and numbers of Title 5 contractors supported through prescreening and early eligibility determination. Score for performance measures will be commensurate with the ability of the applicant to propose ambitious but doable deliverables to support the success of the program.

The budget provided for services is clear and easy to understand. The budget reflects sound, adequate allocation of resources, matching the program components including staffing costs, operating costs. Adequate costs are assigned to staffing which will achieve the targets for maintaining a prescreened pool of families, ready for enrollment. The budget supports the services proposed and is competitive with other proposals. Costs are reasonable, justified, and competitive. Cost Allocation Plan is reasonable.

Respondent’s ability to leverage other resources for this program, either from in-kind, and/or external resources. The proposal reflects the effective use of organizational resources/external resources, including leveraged funds, designated exclusively for the success of this program.

82/87 RFP 513, 2/12

FORM D – RFP COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSIf you have subcontractors that will receive funds through this proposal, please list each subcontractor’s name and the respective contact person on the following chart. Please also answer Yes or No to the questions in the last column. The third column asks whether the lead organization currently has a signed memorandum of understanding (MOU) that sets forth the specific terms of the relationship with each subcontractor. Name of subcontractor Contact person Signed MOU with subcontractor?

If you have collaborative partners that provide in-kind (unpaid) services for participants that are integral to your program, please provide the requested information for each collaborative partner on the following chart.

Name of collaborative partner organization

Contact person

Signed MOU with partner?

Service to be provided

NOTE: You may continue on an additional page, but do not use more than two pages in all.

83/87 RFP 513, 2/12

FORM E – BUDGET FORM, NARRATIVE, & INSTRUCTIONS

Please include and attach a budget narrative to your Form E. In your narrative please give specific attention to any item in the budget whose purpose may not be obvious or immediately clear.

Please provide the amount being requested from the funding agencies in the amount requested column. If there is other funding being leveraged for a budget line, report that amount in the “Funding from other Sources – Cash” column. If there are other resources being leveraged for a budget line, report the value of those resources in the “Funding from other Sources – In-Kind” column. Provide a total of the resources committed to the project in the “Total” column.

This contract will be cost-reimbursable, meaning it is based on actual expenditures. Grantees are required to maintain documentation of all program expenses billed to the activities funded through this RFP, and you will be asked to produce receipts, cancelled checks and supporting documents during the fiscal site visit.

A. Personnel: List the position titles, percentage full-time equivalent (FTE, e.g., 100 for 1FTE, 50% for .5FTE) for the entire program personnel, and the hourly pay rate for all staff members. Listing the hourly pay rate is particularly important because all funded programs should be in compliance with San Francisco’s Minimum Compensation Ordinance. The text of the Minimum Compensation Ordinance can be found online at http://www.sfgov.org/oca/lwlh.htm.

B. Fringe Benefits/Taxes: While you are not required to show calculations for fringe benefits and taxes related to each employee on the budget form, you are required to show these calculations as part of the budget narrative.

C. Professionals/Consultants: This category should include payments made to individuals who provide special services in order to help you operate your program, but who are not employees, such as consultants, trainers or evaluators. Outside consultants that are paid to provide staff development services should also be included here. Please follow the instructions provided on Form F for this section and show all calculations.

D. Subcontractors: This refers to subcontractors who provide services to your target population to help enhance your program. Subcontractors are usually other nonprofit, community-based organizations. The total listed here should only reflect the subcontractor’s program expenses; the subcontractor’s administrative expenses should be listed on a separate line in the Administrative Expenses portion of the budget spreadsheet.

E. Program Materials and Supplies: List all materials and supplies used by your program. This includes paper and pencils, books, arts and crafts supplies and recreational equipment, for example. This category should also include reproduction costs for program materials. Please show all calculations.

F. Other Program Expenses: This category is for items that do not fit into any of the above categories. For example, costs for criminal screening and fingerprinting can be shown here. Other examples include youth stipends, field trips, special events, mileage, MUNI fast passes, bus rentals, graduation ceremonies and food for participants.

Please break out your program’s other expenses, and do not include a line item titled “Other Program Expenses” with a lump sum amount.

G. Administrative and Indirect Costs: Total Administrative and Indirect Costs must not exceed 15% of the total grant budget. The 15% cap also applies to all subcontractors. A lower threshold of 1 – 10% will apply to contracts with pass-through items such as stipends, reimbursements and subcontracts, with the percentage depending on the dollar amount of the pass-through.

Grantees must provide line-item detail for Administrative Costs in their grant budgets.

84/87 RFP 513, 2/12

Indirect CostsAllowed prorated indirect costs include audit, insurance, bookkeepers, accounting services, payroll, the executive director’s salary and other administrative support salaries. In addition, this category includes the prorated cost of administrative postage, rent, equipment lease, utilities, pagers, phone bills, cellular phone bills, janitorial services, insurance, Internet lines, etc.

Administrative CostsList the position titles, percentage full-time equivalent (FTE, e.g., 100 for 1FTE, 50% for .5FTE) for administrative personnel charged to this grant, and the hourly pay rate for all staff members. Listing the hourly pay rate is particularly important because all funded programs should be in compliance with San Francisco’s Minimum Compensation Ordinance. The text of the Minimum Compensation Ordinance can be found online at http://www.sfgov.org/oca/lwlh.htm.

85/87 RFP 513, 2/12

FORM F – RFP- USE FOR QUALITY RATING SERVICES ONLY – BUDGET FORM, NARRATIVE, & INSTRUCTIONS

Use Form F to create a line item budget for 1) an initial planning and ramp up period (maximum allowed for a ramp up period is $25,000) and 2) a full year of operation.

Please include and attach a budget narrative to your Form F. In your narrative please give specific attention to any item in the budget whose purpose may not be obvious or immediately clear.

Please provide the amount being requested from the funding agencies in the amount requested column. If there is other funding being leveraged for a budget line, report that amount in the “Funding from other Sources – Cash” column. If there are other resources being leveraged for a budget line, report the value of those resources in the “Funding from other Sources – In-Kind” column. Provide a total of the resources committed to the project in the “Total” column.

This contract will be cost-reimbursable, meaning it is based on actual expenditures. Grantees are required to maintain documentation of all program expenses billed to the activities funded through this RFP, and you will be asked to produce receipts, cancelled checks and supporting documents during the fiscal site visit.

ASSESSMENT EXPENSESA. Session Costs: A significant portion of this contract will be reimbursed on a fee-for-service basis. By listing the cost per session in this section you will identify the maximum reimbursement which may be requested for personnel salary, benefits or consultants directly performing assessment services. Consequently the Amount Requested for Assessment Personnel and Consultants may not exceed the Total Max Reimbursement for Assessments.

B. Assessment Personnel: Enter only direct personnel costs associated with the performance of assessment services here. Listing the hourly pay rate is particularly important because all funded programs should be in compliance with San Francisco’s Minimum Compensation Ordinance. The Minimum Compensation Ordinance information can be found online at http://sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=403. For all other support personnel please enter in the Program Expenses Section.

C. Assessment Fringe Benefits/Taxes: While you are not required to show calculations for fringe benefits and taxes related to each employee on the budget form, you are required to show these calculations as part of the budget narrative.

D. Assessment Consultants: This category should include payments made to individuals directly associated with the performance of assessment services, but who are not employees.

PROGRAM AND OPERATING EXPENSESA. Personnel: List the position titles, percentage full-time equivalent (FTE, e.g., 100 for 1FTE, 50% for .5FTE) for all other staff who are not performing assessment services. Identify program personnel and the hourly pay rate for all staff members. Listing the hourly pay rate is particularly important because all funded programs should be in compliance with San Francisco’s Minimum Compensation Ordinance. The Minimum Compensation Ordinance information can be found online at http://sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=403.

B. Fringe Benefits/Taxes: While you are not required to show calculations for fringe benefits and taxes related to each employee on the budget form, you are required to show these calculations as part of the budget narrative.

C. Professionals/Consultants: This category should include payments made to individuals who provide special services in order to help you operate your program, but who are not employees or

86/87 RFP 513, 2/12

consultants performing assessment services, such as trainers, media consultants, or evaluators. Outside consultants that are paid to provide staff development or anchor services should also be included here. Please follow the instructions provided on Form F for this section and show all calculations.

D. Subcontractors: This refers to subcontractors who provide services to your target population to help enhance your program. Subcontractors are usually other nonprofit, community-based organizations. The total listed here should only reflect the subcontractor’s program expenses; the subcontractor’s administrative expenses should be listed on a separate line in the Administrative Expenses portion of the budget spreadsheet.

E. Program Materials and Supplies: List all materials and supplies used by your program. This includes paper and pencils, books, arts and crafts supplies and recreational equipment, for example. This category should also include reproduction costs for program materials. Please show all calculations.

F. Other Program Expenses: This category is for items that do not fit into any of the above categories. For example, costs for criminal screening and fingerprinting can be shown here. Other examples include youth stipends, field trips, special events, mileage, MUNI fast passes, bus rentals, graduation ceremonies and food for participants.

Please break out your program’s other expenses, and do not include a line item titled “Other Program Expenses” with a lump sum amount.

G. Administrative Costs: Total Administrative and Indirect Costs must not exceed 15% of the total grant budget. The 15% cap also applies to all subcontractors. A lower threshold of 1 – 10% will apply to contracts with pass-through items such as stipends, reimbursements and subcontracts, with the percentage depending on the dollar amount of the pass-through.

Grantees must provide line-item detail for Administrative Costs in their grant budgets.

Administrative costs may include: audit, insurance, administrative postage and reproduction, copier lease, administrative rent and utilities, pagers, landline and cell phone bills, janitorial services, and a portion of salaries and benefits for administrative staff (e.g. executive director, bookkeeper, MIS staff and receptionist). List the position titles, percentage full-time equivalent (FTE, e.g., 100 for 1FTE, 50% for .5FTE), and hourly rate for each administrative staff. Listing the hourly pay rate is particularly important because all funded programs should be in compliance with San Francisco’s Minimum Compensation Ordinance. The text of the Minimum Compensation Ordinance can be found online at http://sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=403

87/87 RFP 513, 2/12