Responses to questions received for RFP JUV-27-CM-07-004 Credible Messengers

Agency:	Iowa Judicial Branch
State:	Iowa
Type of Government:	State & Local
NAICS Category:	492210 - Local Messengers and Local Delivery
Posted Date:	May 28, 2026
Due Date:	Jun 15, 2026
Original Source:	Please Login to View Page
Contact information:	Please Login to View Page
Bid Documents:	Please Login to View Page

Attachment Preview

State of Iowa

Juvenile Court Services

May 28, 2026

Responses to Questions received regarding Credible Messengers RFP JUV-27-CM-07-004:

1. What is the total funding allocation available through this grant, and how is it

structured (e.g., fixed award, reimbursement-based, performance-based)?

Q1 Answer: JCS D7 is seeking proposals for a service contract. JCS anticipates that first-year

costs may be higher due to implementation-related expenses such as training and start-up

activities. As such, the contract will include a first-year estimated maximum possible

compensation is $250,000. For subsequent years, the estimated annual maximum possible

compensation is $200,000. Final award amounts remain subject to negotiation, availability of

funds, and contract performance. Respondents are required to submit cost proposals for

reimbursement for either a set monthly unit rate, or a unit rate for direct client contact time in

15 minute increments. Respondents may also propose alternate payment methodologies,

please see Attachment 4 – Cost Proposal Form – Required in Amendment 1 of the RFP for

details.

2. How is a “unit” defined within the scope of this grant, including any parameters,

service components, or eligibility criteria? Based on this definition, what are

the projected volumes by unit (monthly and annually), and what assumptions or

data inform these forecasts??

Q2 Answer: JCS D7 is seeking proposals for a service contract. A unit is defined in terms of the

cost proposal as either an inclusive monthly rate, or 15 minutes of direct client contact time;

please see Attachment 4 – Cost Proposal Form – Required in Amendment 1 of the RFP for

details.

3. Pg 6-7 – Background Information

The RFP notes that Credible Messenger services began in April 2025 and expanded in December

2025. Can JCS provide the current number of active youth being served, average monthly

referral volume, and anticipated annual referral projections for FY27?

Q3 Answer: The average monthly referral volume is approximately 2 to 3 referrals per month

with anticipated yearly referrals between 25 and 40. The anticipated number of active youths

being served should fall within the recommended range of 8 to 10 youth per Credible

Messenger.

4. Pg 7 - Program Approach and Values

The RFP indicates providers will not be penalized for irregular attendance if active outreach and

re-engagement efforts occur. Can JCS clarify how attendance expectations will factor into

overall contract performance evaluation?

Q4 Answer: If re-engagement efforts are attempted and documented and the youth still fails to

attend, the provider will not be penalized.

RFP JUV-JUV-27-CM-07-004

pg. 1

State of Iowa

Juvenile Court Services

5. Pg 25-27 – Training and ATC Consultation

Can JCS provide additional clarification regarding anticipated frequency, duration, and estimated

annual time commitment associated with ATC consultation and technical assistance

requirements?

Q5 Answer: ATC offers virtual Monthly Coaching and Technical Assistance Sessions anticipated

to last for nine months.

6. Pg 27 - Prosocial Activities

Are costs associated with Prosocial Activities, including meals, event fees, transportation,

supplies, incentives, and community-based activities, considered allowable expenses under the

contract?

Q6 Answer: Yes. Costs related to prosocial activities are considered allowable expenses

provided they are reasonable, necessary, and directly related to program objectives, and are

included within the calculations of the proposed unit rate as indicated in Attachment 4 – Cost

Proposal Form – Required in Amendment 1 of the RFP. All such costs must be detailed and

included in the proposed budget within the Cost Proposal and are subject to review and

approval by JCS.

7. Pg 27 – Services, Supports and Resources

Can JCS further define the performance measure stating that “90% of youth obtain and maintain

needed services”? Specifically, how will “maintain” be operationally defined and measured?

Q7 Answer: The youth will continue to participate in services, meet with the Credible

Messenger, attend groups etc. This can be measured by in person contacts, participation of the

youth, and progress towards goals on the referral.

8. Pg 27-28 – Direct Services to Youth

Can JCS clarify whether virtual contacts may supplement required weekly in-person engagement

in circumstances involving illness, transportation barriers, safety concerns, or severe weather?

Q8 Answer: Preference is for the service to be provided in-person with virtual contacts

approved for emergency situations as agreed upon by JCS and Successful Respondent on a case-

by-case basis.

9. Pg 27 - Direct Services to Youth

Can JCS clarify expectations regarding mentoring visits for youth placed in out-of-home settings

outside of Scott County? Are virtual visits allowed?

Q9 Answer: Please see the response to Q8 above.

RFP JUV-JUV-27-CM-07-004

pg. 2

State of Iowa

Juvenile Court Services

10. Pg 28 - Caseload Expectations

Is the stated caseload expectation of 8–10 active youth per full-time Credible Messenger

intended as a strict maximum standard or a recommended target subject to referral

fluctuations?

Q10 Answer: 8 to 10 active youth per Credible Messenger is the recommended target.

11. Pg 28 – Youth Retention and Re-Engagement

Can JCS provide additional clarification regarding how “80% re-engagement success after

attendance lapses” will be measured and documented for contract performance purposes?

Q11 Answer: The Respondent will describe the non-punitive re-engagement strategies to be

utilized to gain success in getting youth to participate in services again after attendance lapses.

Participation tracking would demonstrate that the re-engagement strategies utilized result in

youth re-engaging after attendance lapses.

12. Pg 21-22 – Cost Proposal

Is there an anticipated annual funding cap or estimated available allocation for this procurement

that Respondents should consider when developing staffing and program models?

Q12 Answer: Please see the response to Q1 above.

13. Pg 24 B - Staffing and Qualifications

The RFP states that there needs to be a full-time Project Coordinator, a full-time Lead Credible

Messenger and a full-time Credible Messenger. The RFP further states that the Project

Coordinator supervises mentors (i.e. Credible Messengers) and the Lead Credible Messenger

supervises “other” Credible Messengers. That seems to indicate that the Project Coordinator

supervises a team of 2 full-time Credible Messengers (among other duties) and the Lead

Credible Messenger supervises a team of 1 Credible Messenger who is also being supervised by

the Project Coordinator. Will the Agency provide clarity and reasoning for the expected

supervisory structure for the program?

Q13 Answer: The Lead Credible Messenger will be the direct supervisor for the Credible

Messenger team overseeing day-to-day operations. Amendment 2 of the RFP has been updated

to remove the supervisory duties from the Project Coordinator position.

14. Does the Agency recognize that if stated supervisory structure referenced above is

implemented, proposal budgets from respondents will likely reflect higher starting salaries for

the Lead Credible Messenger and the Project Coordinator respective to their supervisory duties?

Q14 Answer: Yes. The Agency understands the positions have different responsibilities and

would be compensated accordingly. The supervisory duties have been removed from the

description of the Project Coordinator, as indicated in Amendment 2 of this RFP.

RFP JUV-JUV-27-CM-07-004

pg. 3

State of Iowa

Juvenile Court Services

15. The RFP states (Pg 24 #5) “If significant increase in referrals necessitates the hiring of an

additional Credible Messenger, the JCS CJCO and the Respondent will convene to discuss the

applicable need and budgetary consideration. In the interim, should referrals exceed the service

capacity, the Respondent shall implement and maintain a structured waitlist process…”

Additionally, with regard to Credible Messenger responsibilities, the RFP states (pg 28 #11)

“Adhering to a case load of 8-10 active youth per full-time Credible Messenger position.” Is this

to say that if both full-time staff have a caseload of 10 youth (i.e. service capacity) that it would

be appropriate for a structured waiting list to be implemented?

Q15 Answer: Yes. If the Credible Messengers are at capacity, JCS would request that the waitlist

process be implemented.

16. The RFP states (pg 27 K #6) with regard to direct service requirements, “Weekly in-person visits

to support and monitor youth progress in accessing both formal and informal supports and

services.” Is there a minimum length of time that these visits need to be? Would a scheduled

visit where the youth or parent cancel or does not show up be counted as the requirement or

would that meeting need to be rescheduled that same week?

Q16 Answer: There is not a set length of time each visit needs to be, so long as the expectation

is that the visit focuses on setting or working on goals identified, building social capital,

providing support for school or work or other Prosocial activities, with measurable success over

time. There is an expectation to reschedule any missed visits for the same week when possible.

17. The RFP states (pg. 27 K #6) “Community-based mentoring is preferred; in state facility-based

(detention/ STS/ QRTPs) mentoring visits may begin and take place monthly for youth in out of-

home placement to support reentry planning.” Can the in-state facility-based visits be

conducted virtually if those facilities are out of Scott County?

Q17 Answer: Please see the response to Q8 above.

18. The RFP states (pg 27 K #7) with regard to direct service requirements, “Weekly neighborhood-

based group meetings to build peer support…” Will the Agency provide further clarification on

the definition of and expectation of “neighborhood-based group meetings”? Who are the

participants? Is it the expectation of the Agency that such a meeting take place in the

neighborhood of each youth involved in services?

Q18 Answer: “Neighborhood based meetings” refers to a community location such as a

recreation center, a community center, or other similar location. The “participants” are the

youth referred to the Credible Messengers service. Multiple locations within each individual

referral’s (youth’s) neighborhood are not required.

RFP JUV-JUV-27-CM-07-004

pg. 4

State of Iowa

Juvenile Court Services

19. (pg 30 Q #3) For the quarterly reports, does the number of contacts with the youth and

families/caregivers per quarter include any type of contact such as phone, in-person etc.?

Q19 Answer: Only in-person contacts should be reported for quarterly reports.

20. (pg 30 Q #5 b) Performance measures: How will we track the re-offend after program

completion outcome if the family relocates out of the service area?

Q20 Answer: JCS has the ability to check recidivism data within the State of Iowa. If a family

relocates outside the State of Iowa, recidivism data would not be available, and the Successful

Respondent would not be expected to report in that case.

21. Is participation in these services voluntary on the part of parent/guardians and/or youth or are

they required by JCS? Is any incentive provided by JCS to the family/youth for participation?

Likewise, is there any penalty from JCS if they don’t participate?

Q21 Answer: Participation is expected and will be encouraged by the referring JCO. The

Respondent should utilize engagement strategies to ensure participation and should notify the

JCO if there are issues with participation to facilitate a ‘warm hand off’ if needed. The

Respondent can include incentives in their proposal if they choose. JCS does not penalize youth

referred to the program for non-participation. For youth that choose not to take advantage of

community resources, additional dispositional options may be utilized.

22. Based on past experience with the Credible Messenger program, can the Agency provide

guidance relative to the appropriate number of contacts the provider should make with a

parent/guardian to initiate services if there continues to be no response on the part of said

parent/guardian?

Q22 Answer: The Respondent shall develop and propose methods to engage the family to

initiate services. JCOs will assist if necessary and should be contacted if attempts to engage the

family are unsuccessful.

23. (pg 38 6.2 Contract Terms) “The Contract shall have an initial term of one (1) year, beginning on

the later date of Contract execution or the anticipated start date for the initial term specified on

the RFP Cover Page. At the end of the Contract’s initial term, the IJB shall have the option, in its

sole discretion, to renew the Contract on the same terms and conditions for up to a total of five

(5) additional one-year terms.” Is there a process for evaluating cost of living and inflationary

costs relative to service delivery prior to contract renewals?

RFP JUV-JUV-27-CM-07-004

pg. 5

This page summarizes the opportunity, including an overview and a preview of the attached documents.

Responses to questions received for RFP JUV-27-CM-07-004 Credible Messengers

Attachment Preview

Sign-up for a Free Trial, Government Bid Alerts

See Also