Responses to questions received for RFP JUV-27-CB-05-002 Problematic Sexualized Behavior...

Location:	Iowa
Posted:	Apr 17, 2026
Due:	May 4, 2026
Agency:	Iowa Judicial Branch
Type of Government:	State & Local
Category:	Q - Medical Services
Publication URL:	To access bid details, please log in.

Attachment Preview

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?

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.

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.

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:

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:

Consider stratifying outcomes based on client risk level or complexity

Q12. Answer: Please see the Q11 Response above.

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.

RFP JUV-27-CB-05-002

This is the opportunity summary page. It provides an overview of this opportunity and a preview of the attached documentation.

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

Attachment Preview

See also