Agency Health Department

Contractor REGENTS OF THE UNIV OF MINN

SWIFT Contract Number 188595

Project Name Minnesota Model Jails

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The overall purpose of the contract was to support the Minnesota Model Jails initiative. The contractor provided expert information and training to MDH and jail sites on model practices in jails and overall project development support. Some of the specific deliverables included developing two web-based online training modules, providing quarterly learning community trainings, compiling and reporting on evaluation data, evaluating jail websites, and contributing regularly to the grant reports, among other key contributions.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 01/01/2021 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 09/30/2023 - 00:00

Actual end date Sat, 09/30/2023 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $45663

Amendments $21537

Contract total $67200

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Federal grant Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
CFDA Name: Children of Incarcerated Parents
CFDA Number: 16.831
FAIN: 2020-IG-BX-0005

Is this a sole source contract? Yes

If this was a single source contract, explain why the agency determined there was only a single source for the services (if applicable) Dr. Shlafer is a leading national expert on children of incarcerated parents, parenting education for justice involved families, and had extensive relationships with Minnesota jails and the Minnesota Sheriffs Association. Dr. Shlafer, was included in the grant application as the co-director, which likely helped Minnesota be selected as a grant recipient.

Evaluator Name Anna Lynn

Evaluator Email Address anna.lynn@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness All of the work was completed in a timely manner, including the deliverables in the contract, regular consultation, and response to grant partners who frequently reached out to the contractor for support. The few instances of delays were related to other parties.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The quality of the deliverables, including the quarterly training, the online training manuals, parenting education status and outcome reports, and other materials were exceptional. The contractor frequently adjusted the content as needed for the jail partners to make it as accessible and usable as possible.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The cost was minimal compared to the quality of the deliverables, the time invested, and the additional supports and resources that were provided. For example, the contractor leveraged university resources and partnerships expand the scope of the project in several ways, including leveraging outside training for Family Home Visitors, securing multiple interns for the project, securing an expert evaluator to conduct qualitative systems mapping, and developing training with child protection leaders.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The contractor went above and beyond the expectations identified in the contract as noted above. The contractor completed all of the expected work and products identified in the contract, consistently provided up to date information about new research, connected us with new partners, and highlighted the project with state leaders across the enterprise.

Would you engage the contractor's services again? Yes

Describe any negative action taken during the duration of this contract (i.e., termination, pursuit of suspension, etc.): Not applicable.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 5 - very satisfied