COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Human Services Agency

DATE:

March 31, 2003

BOARD MEETING DATE:

April 22, 2003

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Maureen D. Borland, Director, Human Services Agency

Yvonne Frazier, Administrator, Alcohol and Other Drug Services

SUBJECT:

Agreement With Horizon Services Inc., and First and Second Amendments to the Existing Fee-For-Service Agreements for Alcohol and Drug Treatment Services

Recommendation

Adopt a Resolution authorizing execution of the:

1.

Agreement with Horizon Services, Inc.;

2.

First Amendments to the FY 2002-03 fee-for-service Agreements with: 1) Daytop Village, Inc.; 2) Family And Community Enrichment Services, Inc. and 3) Youth and Family Assistance; and

3.

4.

Second Amendments to the fee-for-service Agreements with: 1) Asian American Recovery Services; 2) Avalon Counseling Services; 3) El Centro de Libertad; 4) Free At Last; 5) The Latino Commission; 6) Project Ninety, Inc.; 7) Pyramid Alternatives; 8) Service League of San Mateo County; 9) Sitike Counseling Center; 10) Walden House, Inc.; and 11) Women's Recovery Association for the period January 1, 2003 through June 30, 2003.

Background

On October 22, 2002, the Board adopted a Resolution authorizing the execution of fourteen fee-for-service Agreements with various alcohol and drug treatment providers. Under these Agreements the agencies provide alcohol and drug treatment services funded by state and federal drug court grants and/or Substance Abuse Crime Prevention Act (SACPA)/ Proposition 36.

On February 4, 2003, the Board executed First Amendments to eleven fee-for-service Agreements containing drug court services funded through the state Comprehensive Drug Court Implementation (CDCI) grant. The First Amendments decreased the CDCI aggregate contract amount and added state Drug Court Partnership Act (DCPA) funds and services.

Discussion

On October 1, 2002, Alcohol and Other Drug Services released a Request For Proposals for SACPA/Proposition 36 alcohol and drug aftercare and treatment for individuals with co-occurring disorders. The notice of recommendations was released on December 11, 2002. Seven agencies were recommended to provide alcohol and drug aftercare and/or treatment services for individuals with co-occurring disorders. The total aggregate contract obligation for Proposition 36 services will be increased from $1,301,414 to $2,401,414 for FY 2002-03.

Also, during this time, the Health Services AIDS Program received a five-year federal Center For Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) HIV "Door-to-Treatment" grant to provide HIV outreach, linkages, and recovery services. These services include collaborative efforts with Free At Last to provide outreach, case management and referral to the Alcohol and Other Drug Services (AOD) social workers. AOD will provide assessment, screening, pre-treatment counseling, matching to appropriate treatment and referrals to one of the AOD network's substance abuse treatment providers. The total aggregate contract obligation for the CSAT HIV treatment services is $37,500 for the period January 1, 2003 through June 30, 2003. Processing of these items was delayed pending completion of contract negotiations for enhanced Proposition 36 services, and the new CSAT HIV services

The Resolution, Agreement and Amendments have been reviewed and approved by County Counsel as to form.

Vision Alignment

The fee-for-service Agreements keep the commitment of realizing the potential of our County's vulnerable population and goal number 8: Help vulnerable people achieve a better quality of life. These Agreements contribute to this commitment and goal by providing alcohol and drug treatment services to SACPA probationers and parolees and individuals at-risk of HIV who are referred for alcohol and drug treatment services by County Alcohol and Other Drug Services.

Fiscal Impact

These First and Second Amendments include a total aggregate contract obligation of $2,401,414 consisting of state SACPA/Proposition 36 allocation of $1,999,279 and $402,135 in unexpended trust funds. The Agreement and selected amendments contain a total aggregate contract obligation of $37,500 from federal CSAT HIV grant funds. Funds are allocated in these fourteen Amendments and one Agreement, on a fee-for-service basis. There are no new Net County Costs associated with the Agreement or Amendments.

Because current SACPA/Proposition 36 expenditures for FY 2002-03 are exceeding the allocation, unexpended trust funds will be used to bridge the gap. Future plans for FY 2003-04 may include an analysis of the program modalities and priorities as they relate to available funding.

Exhibit A

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROCESS MATRIX (RFP)

1. General Description of RFP

The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (SACPA), better known as "Proposition 36", was passed by the voters of the State of California in November 2000. It created a new emphasis on drug/alcohol treatment for individuals involved in the criminal justice system. This legislation is expected to significantly increase the number of clients referred to treatment as an alternative to incarceration, and provides new funding to support such services.

This Request for Proposal (RFP) process will result in contracts for a diverse continuum of alcohol and drug treatment services for Proposition 36 clients. At this time, San Mateo County wishes to secure capacity to serve clients throughout a variety of modalities including early intervention and psycho-education, treatment readiness services, nonresidential (including both outpatient and day treatment), aftercare, residential, detoxification, and narcotic replacement therapy. San Mateo County wishes to expand its pool of service providers and accept proposals on an ongoing basis, instead of releasing two identical RFP's. However, due to the structure of the review process, there was a need to establish two timelines with firm due dates. Proposals will be accepted on a continuing basis, anytime after the release of this RFP. Proposals not received for the first deadline, November 19, 2002, will be accepted for the second deadline, February 21, 2003.

Substance abuse treatment services under Proposition 36 will be contracted through a combination of the previous RFP process conducted in winter 2002, and the current RFP. The current RFP allows new applicants and existing substance abuse treatment providers to apply for new and enhanced services, such as aftercare and specialized services to individuals with co-occurring disorders. This RFP seeks applicants to enhance the pool of services available to Proposition 36 eligible clients and is open to agencies funded under the previous RFP who would like to include new modalities and services

A "Request for Proposals" (RFP) process in winter 2002 secured services for the 17-month period from February 2002 through June 2003. Contracts awarded through that process were for services through June 2003, however, contracts may also be extended after that date, at the discretion of the County, pending ongoing receipt of funds, continuing needs, and satisfactory contractor performance. Current providers who are satisfied with their current contract are not required to reapply under this RFP. However, if aftercare services were provided under the previous proposal process, then current providers must submit an application for aftercare services and provide an aftercare rate structure.

During the past year of Proposition 36 implementation, San Mateo County data has shown an influx of clients with co-occurring and other issues. The purpose of this RFP is to increase the effectiveness of treating only clients with co-occurring disorders, within existing agencies by providing specialized co-occurring services. Contracts will be developed on a fee for service basis, with no guarantee of referrals to contracts developed through this RFP.

Treatment providers must have current California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) residential licensing and/or outpatient certification. Proposals must offer new capacity for treatment services for San Mateo County clients.

All Proposition 36 clients will be on either County Probation or State Parole. Treatment providers must report Proposition 36-client progress to Probation, Parole, and Alcohol and Other Drug Services Department on a periodic basis and as requested by probation, parole, and AOD agencies. Mandatory training regarding requirements of client compliance reporting will be provided at training sessions provided jointly by County Alcohol and Drug Services, County Probation, and State Parole. All treatment providers funded under this RFP process will be expected to attend the required training sessions.

The Applicant Conference for this RFP will cover a number of issues specifically related to implementation of the Proposition 36 program. This may include reporting requirements, required training, coordination with County Probation and State Parole, and community service requirements for participants.

2.

List of key evaluation criteria

All proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

1.

Submission of documentation showing current license or certification. Unlicensed and uncertified programs will not be considered under this RFP. (Pending license or certification may be provided, but award notification, if any delayed until awarded license or certification is provided by State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs).

2.

Collective and individual staff qualifications and experience of each collaborating agency in providing the proposed treatment modalities. In addition, there will be an evaluation of plans to enhance staff ability to serve diverse clients through hiring, training, internships, and collaborations

3.

The ratio of staff directly involved in treatment to clients.

4.

Ability to identify the special needs of the target population(s) and how the proposed services will meet this special needs. The staff's qualifications and experience in serving this population will be evaluated.

5.

Quality of program design and proposed service delivery objectives

6.

Policy/Procedures and ability to deal with clients with a diagnosis of mental illness and substance abuse.

7.

Costs associated with the delivery of services.

3.

Where was it advertised ?

A funding alert was sent out Via Fax to all current Treatment and Prevention Contractors, Treatment and Prevention Provider Meetings, Community Meetings The Drug and Alcohol Advisory Board, and Proposition 36 Implementation Committee. Documentation can be found in Proposition 36 RFP binder.

4.

In addition to any advertisement, list others to whom RFP was sent

Jeanne Orbet-Matrix Institute on Addiction

Angie Chiappa- The Camp Recovery Center

Ron Kemper- Mills Peninsula Health Services

Karen Mason- Clara Mateo Alliance

Steve Sruggle- Camp Recovery Center

Lanie Hayes- Family Recovery Issues Education Dropping

Susan DeCom

Vicki Alcorn-Beyond Charity

Jason Kletter-BAART/CDP

Esther Munoz- Children's Protective Service

Grant Davis- Recovery Concepts

5.

Total number sent to prospective proposers

38

6.

Number of proposals received

20

7.

Who evaluated the proposals

Bernice Straub

Laurie Spencer, MD

Larry Levi-Daly City Parole

Ken Pesso-Probation

Jonathan S. Mesinger, Ph.D - Community Health Clinics

Fred Koehler

Cheryl Walker-Mental Health Program Office

Cliff Rubenstein-Probation

8.

In alphabetical order, names of porposers (or finalists, if applicable) and location

1.

Asian American Recovery Services-Daly City

2.

El Centro de Libertad-Redwood City

3.

FACES Inc.-San Carlos

4.

Project 90-San Mateo

5.

Pyramid Alternatives-Pacifica

6.

Women's Recovery Association -Burlingame

7.

Youth and Family Assistance_Redwood City