HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgreement A-25-074 Amendment II to Agreement with RDA Consulting SPC.pdf Agreement No. 25-074
1 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SERVICE AGREEMENT
2 This Amendment No. 2 to Service Agreement ("Amendment No. 2") is dated
3 February 25, 2025 and is between RDA Consulting, SPC, a California corporation
4 ("Contractor"), and the County of Fresno, a political subdivision of the State of California
5 ("County").
6 Recitals
7 A. On December 12, 2023, the County and the Contractor entered into Agreement number
8 A-23-669 ("Agreement"), for implementation of program evaluations for programs funded by the
9 Public Safety Realignment Act (AB 109).
10 B. On July 9, 2024, the County and the Contractor amended the Agreement through
11 Amendment No. 1 to include a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA)
12 Business Associate Agreement, incorporate the previously omitted Data Security Exhibit, and
13 modify Exhibit B (Compensation) to allow for adjustments in staff compensation while
14 maintaining the established annual budget.
15 C. On December 9, 2024, during the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) meeting,
16 the Contractor presented their evaluations of two AB 109-funded programs as part of their year
17 one scope of work. The presentation highlighted challenges, including limited data availability
18 for both programs. Furthermore, misalignments were observed between process and outcome
19 evaluation timeframes. The Contractor also noted that program expirations would disrupt the
20 planned scope for years 2 and 3, requiring adjustments to ensure meaningful evaluation efforts
21 continue within the contracted period.
22 D. Therefore, the County and the Contractor would like to make adjustments to the Scope
23 of Work for years 2 and 3. These revisions aim to ensure that the remaining evaluations
24 activities are meaningful and actionable, enhance the program's data collection and utilization
25 capabilities, and align evaluation efforts with practical program operations and evidence-based
26 practices. These changes will not affect the compensation amount.
27 E. The County and the Contractor now desire to amend the Scope of Work to ensure its
28 effective utilization and to lay the groundwork for successful future evaluation efforts.
1
1 The parties therefore agree as follows:
2 1. Exhibit A, Scope of Services is deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Revised
3 Exhibit A.
4 2. All prior references to Exhibit A in the Agreement and Amendment No. 1 shall now refer
5 to Revised Exhibit A.
6 3. When both parties have signed this Amendment No. 2, the Agreement, Amendment No.
7 1, and this Amendment No. 2 together constitute the Agreement.
8 4. The Contractor represents and warrants to the County that:
9 a. The Contractor is duly authorized and empowered to sign and perform its obligations
10 under this Amendment No. 2.
11 b. The individual signing this Amendment No. 2 on behalf of the Contractor is duly
12 authorized to do so and his or her signature on this Amendment No.2 legally binds
13 the Contractor to the terms of this Amendment.
14 5. The parties agree that this Amendment No. 2 may be executed by electronic signature
15 as provided in this section.
16 a. An "electronic signature" means any symbol or process intended by an individual
17 signing this Amendment to represent their signature, including but not limited to (1) a
18 digital signature; (2) a faxed version of an original handwritten signature; or (3) an
19 electronically scanned and transmitted (for example by PDF document) version of an
20 original handwritten signature.
21 b. Each electronic signature affixed or attached to this Amendment No. 2 (1) is deemed
22 equivalent to a valid original handwritten signature of the person signing this
23 Amendment for all purposes, including but not limited to evidentiary proof in any
24 administrative or judicial proceeding, and (2) has the same force and effect as the
25 valid original handwritten signature of that person.
26 c. The provisions of this section satisfy the requirements of Civil Code section 1633.5,
27 subdivision (b), in the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act (Civil Code, Division 3, Part
28 2, Title 2.5, beginning with section 1633.1).
2
1 d. Each party using a digital signature represents that it has undertaken and satisfied
2 the requirements of Government Code section 16.5, subdivision (a), paragraphs (1)
3 through (5), and agrees that each other party may rely upon that representation.
4 e. This Amendment No. 2 is not conditioned upon the parties conducting the
5 transactions under it by electronic means and either party may sign this Amendment
6 with an original handwritten signature.
7 6. This Amendment No. 2 may be signed in counterparts, each of which is an original, and
8 all of which together constitute this Amendment.
9 7. The Agreement as amended by this Amendment No. 2 is ratified and continued. All
10 provisions of the Agreement and not amended by this Amendment No. 2 remain in full force and
11 effect.
12 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1 The parties are signing this Amendment No. 2 on the date stated in the introductory
2 clause.
3
RDA Consulting, SPC COUNTY OF FRESNO
4
5
6 Amalia Egri Frebdman, Chief Executive Ernest Buddy Mend , Chairman of the
Officer Board of Supervisors of the County of Fresno
7
330 Franklin Street, Suite 40 Attest:
8 Oakland, CA 94607 Bernice E. Seidel
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
9 County of Fresno, State of California
10
By: _
11 Deputy
12 For accounting use only:
13 Org No.: 34300390
Account No.:7295
14 Fund No.: 0001
Subclass No.: 10000
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Revised Exhibit A
Scope of Services
This Scope of Services reflects adjustments to the original contract to address challenges
encountered during the first year of the evaluation. These revisions aim to ensure that the
remaining evaluation activities are meaningful and actionable, enhance program data readiness,
and align evaluation efforts with practical program operations and evidence-based practices
(EBPs). The adjustments are designed to remain within the original funding allocation.
Program Evaluation Schedule
Year 1 (Completed)
• Turning Point Belgravia Center (Transitional Housing)
• Fresno Economic Commission (Construction Apprenticeship)
Year 2 (Process Evaluations & Data Readiness TA)
• Process Evaluations: Turning Point First Street Center/Full-Service Partnership,
North Star Wellness Center (Counseling Services), GEO Vocational Training
(Employment Readiness), and TBD (replacing Parenting Program)
• Data Readiness TA: Turning Point Belgravia Center (Transitional Housing), Fresno
Economic Commission (Construction Apprenticeship), Turning Point First Street
Center/Full-Service Partnership, North Star Wellness Center (Counseling Services),
and GEO Vocational Training (Employment Readiness), and TBD (replacing
Parenting Program)
Year 3 (Preliminary Outcome Evaluations & Capacity Building)
• Targeted outcome evaluations of programs with enhanced data infrastructure from
Year 2.
• Collection and analysis of available outcome data to support long-term evaluation
efforts.
• *The Program Evaluation schedule may be changed as needed.
Year 2: Process Evaluations & Data Readiness Technical Assistance
1. Conduct Process Evaluations for Remaining Programs:
• Conduct process evaluations of the AB 109-funded programs to assess
implementation fidelity and alignment with their contract and respective program
models.
• Evaluate the extent to which these programs incorporate and align with EBPs.
2. Enhance Data Infrastructure & Provide Technical Assistance:
• Review all AB 109 contracted programs' data collection and reporting systems to
identify strengths, gaps, and inefficiencies.
• Offer tailored technical assistance (TA) to address identified gaps, improve fidelity
monitoring capabilities, and troubleshoot real-time challenges.
3. Standardize & Strengthen Data Collection Systems:
• Assist with integrating existing data collection processes or develop standardized
tools and protocols to ensure consistent tracking of critical data necessary for future
outcome evaluations.
• Develop standardized data collection tools and protocols to ensure consistent
tracking of critical data necessary for outcome evaluations.
• Conduct brief training sessions for program staff, focusing on risk-need-responsivity
principles, fidelity monitoring, and standardized data practices as needed on a
program-by-program basis.
Process Evaluation Questions & Technical Assistance Objectives (Year 2)
Process Evaluation Questions
• Are the AB109-funded programs implemented in accordance with their contracts and
intended program models?
• How well do these programs adhere to EBPs, and what adjustments could enhance
their fidelity?
Technical Assistance Objectives
• Based on the process evaluation results, provide tailored recommendations for
improvement for each program concerning their adherence to contracts, intended
program models, and adherence to EBPs.
• Identify existing strengths and gaps in data collection and reporting systems to
ensure successful future outcome evaluations.
• Improve the collection and reporting of program-specific data systems to ensure
standardization and improvement to support future evaluations.
• Provide TA to enhance staff capacity for data collection and reporting.
Year 3: Preliminary Outcome Evaluation & Capacity Building
1. Results-Based Accountability Framework:
• Implement a results-based accountability framework (RBA) to establish consistent
metrics and benchmarks across programs to measure performance.'
• Analyze available outcome data to provide actionable insights into program
performance and ensure data completeness for future evaluations.
2. Prepare for Comprehensive Outcome Evaluations:
1 The RBA framework is a disciplined, data-driven approach to decision-making and performance management. It focuses on
achieving measurable outcomes by identifying specific goals,developing strategies to achieve them,and using performance data
to monitor progress and inform improvements. RBA emphasizes accountability at both the population level (e.g., improving
community well-being)and the performance level(e.g.,enhancing the effectiveness of programs and services).
• Collaborate with the Probation Department to ensure alignment of future evaluation
needs with EBPs.
• Use the enhanced data systems from Year 2 to conduct targeted outcome
evaluations for selected programs while recognizing the need for longer follow-up
periods for comprehensive evaluations in the future.
3. Build Capacity for Future Evaluations:
• Collect and analyze all available outcome data from AB109-funded programs,
emphasizing improvements made in Year 2.
• Develop recommendations for long-term evaluation efforts to explore sustained
participant outcomes, including time at risk in the community.
Revised Preliminary Outcome Evaluation Questions & Capacity Building Objectives
(Year 3)
Preliminary Outcome Evaluation Questions
• What initial insights can be gathered about program performance from the available
outcome data?
• What consistent metrics and benchmarks can be applied to measure program
outcomes effectively?
Capacity Building Objectives
• Ensure the metrics identified align with long-term program goals and EBPs.
• Provide recommendations for future evaluation efforts, particularly for long-term
participant outcomes.
• How well do the Year 2 enhancements support collecting and analyzing outcome
data?