Golden Gate Community Center is celebrating the 75th anniversary of its founding in 1936. Local community members joined Golden Gate staff and supporters on Saturday, August 6 at the agency’s semi-annual health fair to honor those who have contributed to our success over the past 75 years and a commemorative plaque was presented to mark the occasion.

With a mission ‘to provide programs and services that improve the quality of life for children and families in west central Phoenix neighborhoods’, Golden Gate has always been a beacon of hope to those surrounded by poverty, gangs and much crime. Golden Gate has a tradition of working with the community and provides an excellent example of how to build and sustain community.

Golden Gate Community Center was founded in 1936 by the Episcopal Church as the East Madison Street Settlement. Incorporated in 1952 as a settlement house, Golden Gate was a true community center offering a well-baby clinic, sports activities, a home training course, and a kindergarten.

Displaced by the construction of Sky Harbor Airport in 1986, many residents of the old neighborhood were dispersed, but a significant number came with Golden Gate to rebuild their community near its new and current location at McDowell Road and 39th Ave. Sadly, most tight-knit communities, once disrupted, fail to hold together. The fact that Golden Gate has been able to do that and continues to prosper so many years later is a testament to its importance to the community.

In 2004, a merger with Arizona’s Children Association allowed Golden Gate to develop significant partnerships with organizations across the city and county, to bring unique and innovative programs to the center. In 2005, Congressman Ed Pastor, Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon and Councilman Tom Simplot hosted a Tardeada celebration of Golden Gate’s service to the community and Governor Janet Napolitano proclaimed October 23, 2005: “Golden Gate Community Center Day.”

Golden Gate currently serves over 10,000 children, youth, adults, and seniors annually through a wide variety of minimal or no-fee programs and services for tots to seniors for the surrounding largely Hispanic neighborhoods. "We work with our community residents, of all ages, to determine the kinds of programs that are needed for our neighbors and then we go to work to make them happen," said Phyllis Habib, director of Golden Gate Community Center, “Golden Gate is a part of Phoenix’s legacy and a significant part of the state’s history.”

A brief outline of Golden Gate’s history including photos throughout the agency’s history can be found at www.goldengatecenter.org/aboutus.htm.

For more information about the programs and services at Golden Gate Community Center, visit www.goldengatecenter.org or call 602.233.0017.

Title:Sky Harbor Passenger Numbers up more than Five Percent in 2011
Release Date: 8/8/11 11:30 AM
Author: City of Phoenix, Arizona
Category: phoenix.gov local news
Description: Sky Harbor Passenger Numbers up more than Five Percent in 2011
Web Location

Title:New Ad Campaign Promotes "Personal Cool" to Transit Users
Release Date: 8/8/11 9:13 AM
Author: City of Phoenix, Arizona
Category: phoenix.gov local news
Description: New Ad Campaign Promotes "Personal Cool" to Transit Users
Web Location

Title:New Ad Campaign Promotes "Personal Cool" to Transit Users
Release Date: 8/8/11 9:13 AM
Author: City of Phoenix, Arizona
Category: phoenix.gov local news
Description: New Ad Campaign Promotes "Personal Cool" to Transit Users
Web Location

Updated 8/5/2011: Questions and Answers have been added to this post.

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) is soliciting proposals from organizations, groups, or individuals to enter into a cooperative agreement for a 12-month period to begin no later than September 1, 2011. Work under this cooperative agreement will involve organizing two hearings of the NIC Advisory Board. The hearings will assist the Board in providing directions to NIC and the corrections field on the subject of organizational culture (hearing #1) and cost containment (hearing #2). The first hearing will be held on November 2-3, 2011 in San Diego, California. The second hearing will be held in April or May 2012 in Aurora, Colorado (note that the site for hearing #2 will be the National Correctional Academy in Aurora, Colorado).

Deliverables: By the end of the project, the recipient of this award will deliver the following products:

• detailed notes of the proceedings of each hearing delivered within 30 days of the event
• each of the white papers produced for the meetings, edited to be suitable for distribution to corrections practitioners and delivered in NIC’s standard format
• summary report providing an overview of the meetings, their major themes, and any recommendations for the field

Required Expertise: Successful applicants should have the organizational capacity to complete all the tasks listed above, including demonstrated experience in organizing meetings of the size and type described, working closely with the media, and facilitating hearing coverage. Preference will also be given to applicants with a record of working with similar subject matter expert groups in government or criminal justice.

DEADLINE: Applications must be received by 4:00 p.m. EDT, Wednesday, August 10, 2011.

Learn more about NIC’s Cooperative Agreements

Questions & Answers (August 5, 2011)

Q: Given the short time frame for the first hearing in November, is there a possibility that the venue for the meeting might not be in San Diego if that site is not feasible?

A: Yes, it is possible the November hearing may be moved if San Diego proves to be impractical, but NIC does intend to hold the hearings in the state of California.

Q: We are preparing our budget and travel costs for witnesses, and are wondering if you have an idea at this time where the witnesses will be traveling from.  As the meetings are in San Diego and Aurora we want to ensure sufficient funding for flights, and were unsure if most of the witnesses would be from the DC area or all over the country.

A: It is unknown from what location the participants will be traveling and it is best to assume they will come from all over the US and possible Canada.

 

Course Description:

Offender workforce development programs should target offenders at high risk for recidivism, address the dynamic influences that predict crime, and provide intervention specific to the needs of the offender. The Employment Retention Initiative supports the development of strength-based programs administered by qualified and well-trained staffs to assess offenders at high risk for job loss, identify specific job loss indicators, and provide support to break the chain of events and/or behaviors that result in termination.

A major component of this initiative is the provision of a competency-based Offender Employment Retention Specialist (OERS) training for individuals involved in offender workforce development. The training, delivered using a combination of both classroom-based and distance learning instruction, is the third course in a series specific to offender workforce development (with Offender Employment Specialist training and Offender Workforce Development Specialist training being the first two courses, respectively). This training builds on the relationship between the principles of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and motivational interviewing (MI) techniques. Combining these two research-based methods helps the offender create a solid foundation for self-exploration, one that helps resolve any ambivalence to change.

In addition, this training provides instruction in the administration of an Employment Retention Inventory (ERI) that identifies an offender’s precursors to job loss while creating a process to connect the offender to specialized services that successfully address recidivism and risk for job loss.

Audience:

Certified Offender Workforce Development Specialists working with offenders to address the multiple barriers/obstacles affecting their ability to retain gainful employment. Certified Global Career Development Facilitators and Community Corrections Professionals are encouraged to apply.

Applicants must submit the following (in PDF format):

1. Statement of interest (500 words or less) describing:

a. Activities as an offender workforce development specialist.

b. Motivation for OERS training.

2. Proof of OWDS certification

3. Proof of GCDF certification (if applicable)

Training Dates:  January 9-13, 2012

Apply By:  October 14, 2011

To Apply:  Offender Employment Retention Specialist (OERS) Training

Title:Meetings and Events for Aug. 8 - 14, 2011
Release Date: 8/5/11 9:47 AM
Author: City of Phoenix, Arizona
Category: phoenix.gov local news
Description: City Meetings and Events for the Coming Week
Web Location

UPDATE 8/4/2011: Questions and answers for this solicitation have been posted at the end of this announcement.

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Administration Division is seeking applications for the development, implementation, and evaluation of a project to assess the effects of access to Medicaid at the time of release from incarceration on reentry outcomes, including health care utilization, employment success, and recidivism. The recipient of the award will work in a partnership with the selected state’s prisons, jails, and Medicaid agency to implement and evaluate the project. This project will be conducted over a 36-month period. This cooperative agreement is a collaborative project between the National Institute of Corrections and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), U.S. Department of Health of Human Services (HHS).

To be considered, applicants must demonstrate at a minimum:

1. in-depth knowledge of the criminal justice and healthcare fields
2. experience working with local jails, state prisons, and state Medicaid agencies
3. the capacity to engage local jails, state prisons, and state Medicaid agencies participation in this project
4. the experience and organizational capacity to carry out the goals of this project

DEADLINE: Applications must be received by 4:00p.m. EDT, Thursday, August 11, 2011.

• Download the Full Solicitation
• Learn more about NIC’s Cooperative Agreements

Questions & Answers (added July 22, 20011)

Question #1: We are writing to request clarification pertaining to appropriate evaluation sites.

Specifically, page 14 of the solicitation states: A schedule of activities for this project shall include, at a minimum, the following: 1) Identification of an appropriate evaluation site(s) among states that either (a) currently have a Section 1115 Medicaid demonstration waiver to cover childless adults; (b) are early adopters of the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act; or, (c) use state-only funding to extend public health insurance coverage to childless adults. (See appendix A for a list of likely states.)

Appendix A on page 28 states: The states listed below are likely to be appropriate evaluation sites… Section 1115 Medicaid Waivers: Wisconsin, Maine, Indiana (expires end of 2012), New York, Vermont, California; Early Medicaid Expansion Adopters: Connecticut, District of Columbia, Minnesota; State-only Coverage of Childless Adults: District of Columbia, Washington, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts.

In relation to this language, we have three questions:

a. Are states that do not fall under a, b, or c ineligible for this solicitation?

Answer: States not listed are not necessarily ineligible as sites. The criterion for site selection is that a state must provide Medicaid (through a Section 1115 Waiver or early adoption of the Affordable Care Act expansion) or state-funded Medicaid-like benefits for childless adults. There may be additional states not listed under categories a, b, or c that provide health care for childless adults. These states would also be eligible sites.

b. If they are not ineligible, will states that do not fall under a, b, or c receive lesser preference if all aspects of the proposal make a compelling case for merit as an evaluation site?

Answer: States listed in the solicitation would not receive preference in the site selection process over other states that are not listed but provide Medicaid or Medicaid-like benefits for childless adults. As indicated in the solicitation, the listed states are those likely to be appropriate, but may not be the only states appropriate to be selected as evaluation sites.

c. Are applicants permitted to identify two evaluation sites with whom they will work? For example, one site that falls under a, b, or c and one that does not?

Answer: Applicants may identify potential sites for consideration. However, the actual site selection will not take place until after the award is made and site alternatives are explored.

Question #2: On page 9, it says, “Adequate sample size is a fourth criterion. The sample of individuals must be such that rigorous statistical techniques can be employed to determine subgroup outcomes.”  Can you provide a ball park number for me? We are typically serving 100 men upon their release from prison, jail, or a workhouse at any given time. Is that a large enough sampling to be considered for this cooperative agreement?

Answer: The size of the sample will depend on many factors, including the time frame for enrolling individuals into the project, the anticipated effect size of the treatment, and the size of the control group. Generally it takes an enrollment of 200-300 individuals in the treatment group and 200-300 individuals in the control group to measure the difference in the outcomes between the two groups. The higher the number of individuals in the treatment and control groups, the easier it is to determine if the intervention was successful.

Question #3

a) Will cost sharing be required?

Answer: No

b) If so, what amount of cost sharing?

Answer: N/A, given answer to question 1.

c) Will for-profit organizations be allowed to include a fee in their budgets?

Answer: If the term “fee” is referring to overhead or operational costs, yes, this amount can be included in the proposed budget however the percentage must be approved by the Office of Justice Programs.

Question #4: It was not clear whether the $500,000 funding amount referred to the first year or to the entire 3-year project period. Could you clarify this for us?

Answer: The funding amount of $500,000 refers to the entire 3-year project period.

Question #5:

a)  Is $500,000 the total maximum award for the 36 month project period?

A: The funding amount of $500,000 refers to the entire 3-year project period

b) Will the grantee be required to reapply for continuation funds for years 2 and 3 of the award?

A: No

c) How many states does NIC expect the intervention to be implemented in?

A: The minimum requirement is one prison and one jail site. They could be in different states.

d) Does NIC require the intervention to be implemented in both prison and jail settings?

A: Yes.  The minimum requirement is one prison and one jail site.

Question # 6:

a) Regarding the NIC Solicitation for a Cooperative Agreement entitled "Evaluating Early Access to Medicaid as a Reentry Strategy," can you tell me whether evaluation of jails (in addition to prisons) is a programmatic requirement?

A: The minimum requirement is one prison and one jail site.

b) Additionally, is the $500,000 in available funding inclusive of indirect costs?

A: Yes

Question #7: Are correctional facilities eligible to apply for the grant?

A: Yes

Question #8:

a) As a state agency, are we an eligible applicant?

A: Yes

b) How is "Employment" defined for the purposes of this solicitation? What type of measures are you seeking (e.g. employment retained at 6 months, 9 months)?

A: Employment has not been defined but the likely source of the administrative data to measure employment outcomes is referenced in the solicitation on page 9, item 3.c.

Question #9: This is for one ()1 recipient to research several sites across the US.  Is that correct?

A: One recipient with research in one prison and one jail site.

Question #10:

a) Is it appropriate for the applicant to submit letters of cooperation with the application from the state Corrections and Medicaid agency, or other partners?

A: Yes, but not required.

b) Does the DOJ intend for this grant application to only apply to one state, or can an applicant propose to work with two states (a state with some pre-application process and another state with no process in place).

A: The minimum requirement is one prison and one jail site. Applicants can propose additional sites.

Question #11:

a) First, are only states listed in the Appendix eligible as potential sites?

A: States not listed are not necessarily ineligible as a site.  The criteria for site selection is that a state must provide Medicaid or state funded Medicaid-like benefits for childless adults.  There may be additional states, not listed under categories a, b, or c in the appendix,  which provide health care for childless adults. These states also would be eligible to be a site.

b) Second, would an application built around a large jail with a very diverse population be eligible for consideration, or is the state correctional authority a mandatory part of any application?

A:  The minimum requirement is one prison and one jail site.

Questions & Answers (August 3, 2011)

1. Page 8 of the proposal there is a bullet addressing scale. How are you defining “take up rates”? Does that mean recidivism rates, numbers in the treatment group etc? Do you have some threshold number in mind?

A: In this context, take-up rate describes the rate at which individuals in the sample population, who are being released from incarceration, have applied for Medicaid prior to release. More broadly, but still pertaining to this project, we define the take-up rate as the proportion of those who are eligible to apply for Medicaid through this project who actually apply.

2. Page 9, bullet 2 - "states' willingness to and ability to conduct statistical data matching for the evaluation is a third criterion." We are looking for clarification on this criterion. Is this related to matching an individual's data amongst various data systems (e.g., workforce exchange, criminal history and Medicaid data) by using identification numbers such as a social security number and/or date of birth, race and gender? Or does this refer to the capacity to create a comparison group using statistical techniques such as propensity scores (e.g., comparing individuals in a cohort of released prisoners using criminal history and demographic measures and creating a control group by matching on these factors)? Or are you referring to something else entirely?

A: The criterion refers to matching an individual’s data among various data systems.

3. “Subgroups” are referenced several times throughout the grant. Have you identified any subgroups that must be included in the submission?

A: No, because the subgroup analysis will be dependent on the sites selected.

4. Can you clarify how you are defining “recidivism”?

A: Recidivism is not yet defined. The awardee and NIC/ASPE will work together to define recidivism for purposes of this project.

5. Is it appropriate for the applicant to submit letters of cooperation from state agencies or other partners as addenda to the proposal?

A: Applicants may submit letters of cooperation as addenda to the proposals.

6. Does the DOJ intend for the grantee to work with prisons and jails in a single state, or more than one state?

A: The minimum requirement is one prison and one jail site. They can be in different states.

7. Would NIC consider a proposal that differs from the specified timeline and deliverables, but provides the desired project deliverables more quickly and provides additional deliverables? Would such a proposal be considered in compliance with the proposal requirements?

A: It is expected that applicants will respond to the requirements as specified in the solicitation but alternatives may also be proposed.

8. What type of health care utilization data does NIC envision could be collected on a group of ex-offenders who are not enrolled in Medicaid?

A: It is the responsibility of the applicant in conjunction with NIC/ASPE to explore options for collection of health care utilization data for ex-offenders who are not enrolled in Medicaid.

9. A Randomized Control Trial is the gold standard in research, but prisons and jails may have ethical or other concerns about using this methodology. How heavily would NIC negatively weight an alternative methodology for comparison of Medicaid and non-Medicaid populations?

A: NIC is aware of the potential concerns of prisons and jails. The level of statistical rigor allowed by the site is a selection criterion. Sites that allow random assignment to treatment and control groups of individuals within an institution or of facilities within a state are preferable to those that allow for only a comparison group.

10. Are there any font and margin requirements for the proposal?

A: Applications must be written concisely and typed double spaced. Any application that is received in any other format may be deemed non-responsive.

11. Is the budget and budget narrative considered in the 30 page limit?

A: The budget narrative is included in the 30-page limit. However, required budget forms and explanatory tables are not included in the 30-page limit.

12. Will non-audited overhead rates be accepted? If not, would it be acceptable to provide audited rates after the award of the contract?

A: Indirect cost rates must be approved and are only allowed if applicants have a federally approved indirect cost rate and attach a copy of the rate approval (a fully executed, negotiated agreement) to the application. Applicants may request an approved rate by contacting the relative federal agency, which reviews all documentation and approves a rate. Or, if the applicant’s accounting system permits, costs may be allocated in the direct costs categories.

Questions & Answers (August 4, 2011)

1. Regarding Appendix A. Maryland was not listed as a state with an 1115 Medicaid demonstration waiver for childless adults. Maryland has an 1115 waiver for our Health Choice MCO and our PAC (primary adult care) program is part of that waiver covering childless adults. Are you aware of any reason that MD would not be included in your list?

A: If Maryland has an 1115 waiver to serve childless adults it would be eligible. Appendix A lists states that are likely sites; it is not a complete list. The criterion for site selection is that a state must provide Medicaid (through a Section 1115 Waiver or early adoption of the Affordable Care Act expansion) or state-funded Medicaid-like benefits for childless adults. There may be additional states not listed under categories a, b, or c that provide health care for childless adults. These states would also be eligible sites.

2a. Is it an expectation that we will already have the jail site or sites selected and identified in the proposal, or can we describe our candidate sites and the process and criteria we will be using to finalize site selection early in the grant period?

A: Applicants are not required to have identified specific jail and prison sites in the proposal. Describing potential candidate sites and the process and criteria is acceptable. The awardee and NIC/ASPE will decide jointly on the sites based on the site selection criteria outlined in the solicitation

2b. A related question concerns randomization. It would seem that randomization at the client level could be construed to be unethical, while randomization at the site level would be almost impossible to accomplish given the funding level. As was indicated, other statistically rigorous strategies can be developed. How much emphasis is NIC placing on randomization at this point in our efforts?

A: NIC/ASPE is aware of the potential concerns and challenges of randomization. However, the level of statistical rigor allowed by the site is a selection criterion. Sites that allow random assignment to treatment and control groups of individuals within an institution or of facilities within a state are preferable to those that allow for only a comparison group.

3. Regarding the list of potentially eligible states in the Solicitation Appendix.  Are potentially eligible states (esp. those in the "State Only Coverage of Childless Adults" group) only those that extend this coverage to NON-DISABLED childless adults (since the disabled are presumably eligible everywhere)?    For example, it has come to our attention that the new budget passed in Pennsylvania this month ended the Adult Basic program that provided such coverage to non-disabled childless adults, leaving no real options for inmates who are not disabled.   So, for the purposes of this solicitation, is Pennsylvania (which now offers coverage only to inmates who are disabled) still an eligible state?

A: The criterion for site selection is that a state must provide Medicaid (through a Section 1115 Waiver or early adoption of the Affordable Care Act expansion) or state-funded Medicaid-like benefits for childless adults. If Pennsylvania offers such coverage they would be eligible. If they no longer offer such coverage, they would not be eligible. A number of states are already working on promoting SSI and Medicaid eligibility for disabled inmates upon release. This project intends to expand on earlier research by examining the provision of Medicaid enrollment assistance and its effect on reentry outcomes for all (disabled and non-disabled) individuals reentering the community from jail or prison.

Title:Phoenix to Open Nine Pools for Weekend Swim through Labor Day
Release Date: 8/4/11 9:18 AM
Author: City of Phoenix, Arizona
Category: phoenix.gov local news
Description: Phoenix to Open Nine Pools for Weekend Swim through Labor Day
Web Location

Kids who have the most severe symptoms of ADHD tend to have the lowest quality of life, U.S. researchers suggest.