Responses to questions received for RFP JUV-27-CB-05-002 Problematic Sexualized Behavior Community Based Treatment Services

State of Iowa
Juvenile Court Services
April 17, 2026
Responses to Questions, Requests for Clarification, and Suggested Changes received regarding
Problematic Sexualized Behavior Community-Based Treatment Services RFP JUV-27-CB-05-002
1. Specification 1: Accept all referrals from Fifth Judicial District JCS, for PSB Community-Based
Treatment
1. Concern
a. Not all referrals are appropriate for outpatient treatment services.
2. Recommendation:
a. Change language to: Respondent will consult with Juvenile Court Services on 100% of
referrals from Fifth Judicial District JC and will provide Community-Based PSB services
to all referrals that are appropriate for this level of care.
Q1 Answer: Respondent is expected to accept all JCS referrals for PSB Community Based
Treatment Program. Respondent may request an exception in writing from JCS if, during the
psychosexual evaluation, Respondent deems a referral not appropriate for PSB Community
Based Treatment.
2. Specification 1a: Response time once referral is received from JCS
1. Concern: Three business days to contact client/family is not conducive to treatment process,
given that client may not be scheduled for up to 30 days.
2. Recommendation change language to from "make contact with youth, youth's family and
referring JCO within three business days," to make contact with youth, youth's family
and/or referring JCO within three business days." Provider will contact JCO to verify receipt
of referral and consult on the case.
Q2 Answer: Respondent is expected to make contact with referred youth, referred youth's
family and referring JCO within 3 business days of receipt of referral.
3. Specification 2c: Staff Qualifications
1. Concern
a. Staff providing services must have ATSA, IBTSA, and/or SOTP certifications
2. Question:
a. Can a Bachelor's level individual working towards their SOTP under the supervision of
a SOTP provide services?
Q3.a. Answer: Yes, please see the updated language added to Specification 2c, via
Amendment 1 to this RFP.
b. If an individual has experience working with the PSB population (i.e. former SOTP
provider) are they able to provide services under the supervision of the SOTP?
1
RFP JUV-27-CB-05-002

State of Iowa
Juvenile Court Services
Q3.b. Answer: Yes, please see the updated language added to Specification 2c, via
Amendment 1 to this RFP.
4. Specification 2e: Safety Plans
1. Concern: Individualized Safety Plans within 14 days
2. Question: Is this a PSB specific safety plan that is created by and/or with the collaboration of
JCO?
Q4 Answer: Yes, the Successful Respondent will develop a safety plan as soon as possible,
(within 14 days), in collaboration with the referring JCO. Please see the updated language
added to Specification 2e, via Amendment 1 to this RFP.
5. Specification 3: Qualified Staff provide Psychosexual Evaluations and risk assessments
1. Concern:
a. Specification 2b states that a Master's Level Counselor/psychologist certified by
ATSA/IBTSA/SOTP can provide the psychosexual evaluation
2. Question:
a. Can a master's level counselor under the supervision of an SOTP complete the
assessments/evaluations if they have completed pre-service trainings through ATSA or
IBSTA and are working towards those certifications?
Q5 Answer: Yes, please see the updated language added to Specification 2.b, via Amendment
1 to this RFP.
6. Specification 3a: Deadline for psychosexual evaluation submission; flexibility in timelines
1. Concern:
a. Timelines (e.g., 2 weeks for safety plans, 30 days for assessments) do not account for
delays in engagement, family availability, or client resistance
2. Recommendation:
a. Adjust language to "within 45-60 days of successful engagement" when clinically
appropriate
Q6 Answer: The Successful Respondent is expected to submit a psychosexual evaluation to the
referring JCO within 30 days of the completion of the psychosexual interview. These deadlines
are crucial in order for the court process to move forward. An established timeline also helps
JCS with keeping the court informed of recommendations in a case and helps prevent the
likelihood of court hearings needing to be continued/postponed due to waiting for
evaluations to be completed. Please see the updated language added to Specification 3.a, via
Amendment 1 to this RFP.
2
RFP JUV-27-CB-05-002

State of Iowa
Juvenile Court Services
7. Specification 3b: Psychological testing
1. Concern:
a. there is not a psychologist on staff that can provide this service
2. Question:
a. Would a referral to outside provider be an appropriate/viable option?
Q7 Answer: Please see the updated language added to Specification 3.b, via Amendment 1 to
this RFP.
8. Specification 4: Transferring youth entering PSB treatment from another provider
1. Concern:
a. Need clarification
2. Questions:
a. Is this reentry from residential placement to community-based setting?
Q8.a. Answer: At times outpatient PSB treatment may be used as an aftercare component to
inpatient PSB treatment.
b. If the client is in services with another provider, then collaboration so as to not disrupt
services for the youth.
Q8.b. Answer: There are times when a youth may transfer providers for PSB treatment.
Successful Respondent will coordinate this transfer with the referring JCO and previous
provider(s) to ensure there is no lapse in service.
9. Specification 12: Polygraph administration
1. Concern: Polygraph utilization
2. Recommendation/Questions:
a. Considering WCBS has not done a polygraph for the program in over 5 years, what is the
treatment goal for doing polygraphs at this time?
Q9.a. Answer: Please see the updated language added to Specification 12, via Amendment 1
to this RFP.
b. Would JCS be open to removing this requirement after reviewing research showing
polygraphs can detrimental in youth and is also considered unethical in some cases?
Q9.b. Answer: Please see the updated language added to Specification 12, via Amendment 1
to this RFP.
3
RFP JUV-27-CB-05-002

State of Iowa
Juvenile Court Services
10. Specification 13: In-home and community contact
1. Concern:
a. The RFP references "community-based services" but does not define whether in-home
services are required or the frequency or scope of these services.
2. Recommendation:
a. Clarify whether in-home services are required, for which clients (all vs. high-risk), and at
what frequency.
Q10.a. Answer: Please see the updated language added to Specification 13, via Amendment 1
to this RFP. In-home services are required when tracking and monitoring is requested as well
as in any high-risk cases when safety plans need additional monitoring.
b. Does this fall under the "tracking and monitoring" duties as noted in Specification 11?
Q10.b. Answer: Yes, "tracking and monitoring" activities may include electronic monitoring
and/or in-home and community contact. Specifics will be outlined within each individual
referral.
11. Specification 16: 1-17: Adjust "100% Compliance" Expectations
1. Concern:
a. Multiple expectations require 100% compliance (e.g., polygraphs, timelines, trainings)
b. Real-world barriers such as family engagement, scheduling, and case coordination
(including court timelines) make this difficult
2. Recommendation:
o Shift to 90-95% benchmarks or include language such as: "reasonable efforts made" or
"when feasible"
Q11. Answer: Performance Measures listed are goals for the program. The Successful
Respondent will be expected to communicate with JCS if there are barriers to meeting any
expectation on a case-by-case basis, in which case exceptions may be granted.
12. Specifications 16:16c
1. Adjust Outcome Expectations for Client Complexity
a. Concern:
i. Outcome benchmarks (e.g., re-offense rates: 90% will not be rearrested for a
sexual offense within 2 years) do not account for differences in risk level,
trauma history, and/or cognitive and family factors
b. Recommendation:
i. Consider stratifying outcomes based on client risk level or complexity
Q12. Answer: Please see the Q11 Response above.
4
RFP JUV-27-CB-05-002

State of Iowa
Juvenile Court Services
13. Specifications 5, 5a, & 16:6b: Clarification regarding Group Programming
1. Concern:
a. The RFP outlines expectations for group programming but lacks clarity and flexibility
regarding structure, including:
1. Group size,
2. Session frequency
3. Session length
4. Risk-level grouping
5. Balance of group versus individual services
6. Clinical readiness for participation
7. Attendance expectations
8. Curriculum requirements
9. Definitions of pro-social activities
10. Staffing ratios
11. Safety protocols
12. How to manage low enrollment or rural service limitations.
2. Recommendation:
c. Provide clear group programming guidelines (e.g., size, frequency, staffing,
safety) while allowing clinical flexibility, including grouping by risk level when
feasible, basing participation on readiness, focusing on reasonable engagement
efforts, and permitting alternative service options when group delivery is not
feasible.
Q13. Answer: Please see the updated language added to Specification 5, via Amendment 1 to
this RFP.
5
RFP JUV-27-CB-05-002

State of Iowa
Juvenile Court Services
General Questions
14. Provider versus System Responsibilities
a. Concern:
i. Clarify provider versus system responsibilities
ii. Language suggests providers often coordinate these processes but do not control
them (e.g. logistics, scheduling
iii. Expectations around polygraphs, GPS monitoring, and court involvement are not
clearly divided between JCS/legal parties and treatment provider
b. Recommendation:
i. Define what providers are responsible for completing and what providers are
responsible for coordinating.
Q14. Answer: Please see the updated language added to Specification 12, via Amendment 1 to
this RFP. The court may order services, such as a polygraph, or GPS monitoring, and JCS would
ensure the ordered service is provided. The Successful Respondent will work with JCS to
ensure court ordered services are provided to youth.
15. Reframe Family Engagement Expectations
a. Concern:
i. The RFP assumes consistent family participation. In practice, families may be
disengaged, overwhelmed, or inconsistent.
b. Recommendation:
i. Revise expectations to emphasize efforts to engage families and use of alternative
supports when families are not available
Q15. Answer: Please see the updated language added to Specification 9.b, via Amendment 1
to this RFP. Family participation is important so that the family/parent knows where the
youth is in treatment- this can be a staffing or documented contact with the parent/guardian.
16. Review Reporting Requirement
a. Concern:
i. Monthly and quarterly reporting requirements may be time intensive.
ii. Excessive documentation can reduce time available for direct clinical work.
b. Recommendation:
i. Streamline reporting where possible
ii. Clarify which data points are essential
iii. Can we create a form that is easy to fill out that captures key points.
Q16. Answer: Please see the updated language added to Specification 2.h, as well as
Specification 15.a and 15.b, via Amendment 1 to this RFP.
6
RFP JUV-27-CB-05-002

State of Iowa
Juvenile Court Services
17. Clarify Caseload Expectation
a. Concern:
i. The RFP does not specify expected caseload size or service intensity
ii. PSB cases require high levels of time, coordination, and risk management
b. Recommendation:
i. Provide guidance on caseload expectations and acuity-based workload
considerations
Q17. Answer: Unfortunately, JCS does not have an estimated caseload expectation.
18. Consider Workforce Realities
a. Concern:
i. Requirements for highly specialized, certified staff may be difficult to meet or hire
(SOTP certified, master's level)
ii. Provider shortages in states with poor mental health funding impact Iowa clinicians
iii. PSB work is taboo in nature and is a small clinical niche
b. Recommendation:
i. Allow flexibility such as supervision models and provisionally trained staff working
under qualified clinicians (including bachelor's level counselors)
Q18. Answer: Please see the updated language added to Specification 2.b and 2.c, via
Amendment 1 to this RFP.
7
RFP JUV-27-CB-05-002