Read the Request for Proposals
Amendment I to Request for Proposal
Deadline for Submissions: Friday, December 12, 2025
Respondent Questions and DWI Court Answers
Question 1: Is the data for the DWI Court participants readily available to the evaluator?
Answer 1: Yes. Tyler Supervision data can be obtained from the DWI Court Coordinator at any time via Power BI reports. Data from other sources (Minnesota Judicial Branch, probation, jail, prison, treatment, etc., can be obtained via formal data requests made after the collaborative evaluation planning period. All agencies except local treatment and mental health providers have received advance notice that we will be making formal data requests in early 2026. Treatment and mental health providers will be notified by COB on 12/5/2025.
Question 2: Are the DWI Court team and all the necessary data sources aware of the timeline for this evaluation and prepared to be responsive to requests for information needed to complete the work?
Answer 2: Yes. The DWI Court team is aware that the evaluation will begin in January 2026 and end in September 2026, with a possible extension to September 2027 pending additional grant funding. Likewise, the DWI Court team is prepared to be responsive to requests to complete the work. All data sources except local treatment and mental health providers have received advance notice of our upcoming data requests as well as the potential need for meetings or questions. Treatment and mental health providers will be notified by COB on 12/5/2025.
Question 3: The RFP mentions a selected comparison group – is the comparison group already chosen for this evaluation? If so, is the data for the comparison group readily available?
Answer 3: The comparison groups have not been chosen for the evaluation. Comparison groups will be discussed and selected during the collaborative evaluation process. Data for any selected comparison groups can be obtained from the Minnesota Judicial Branch, Arrowhead Regional Corrections (Probation), the Minnesota Department of Corrections,
and the St. Louis County Jail, and these agencies have been notified of our upcoming data requests.
Question 4: What is the amount of funding available for these evaluation services?
Answer 4: $65,000 available through September 30, 2026. We intend to apply for additional evaluation funding through September 30, 2027, in July or August of 2026.
Question 5: Have you been working with anyone on evaluation activities for this court?
Answer 5: No.
Question 6: On what days/times does the program hold planning/staffing and court review sessions?
Answer 6: Staffing: Fridays from 12:00 – 1:15 p.m. CST. Women’s Court: Fridays from 1:15 – 2:00 p.m. CST. Men’s Court: Fridays from 2:00 – 3:00 p.m. CST.
Question 7: What is the availability of the following individuals during the project period?
* Program Coordinator
* Data Manager(s)
* Judge
Answer 7: Program coordinator. DWI Program Coordinator will make herself available as needed during the evaluation timeframe. Generally, the DWI Coordinator has the most flexibility on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays from 0800 – 1630 CST. She is generally available on Tuesday and Friday mornings (CST), and generally unavailable on Tuesday and Friday afternoons (CST.)
Data manger(s). Arrowhead Regional Corrections (Probation), Minnesota Judicial Branch (MJB) Data Requests, MJB’s Treatment Court Research & Evaluation Specialist, the St. Louis County Jail, and the Minnesota Department of Corrections have been advised re: our upcoming data requests and the potential need for meetings or questions. The DWI Coordinator will also reach out to local treatment and mental health providers regarding the potential need for data during the evaluation period. Although we cannot speak for these parties/agencies as to their availability, all have been or will be advised as to our upcoming data requests and the potential need for meetings or responses to questions.
Judge. Presiding DWI Court Judge available upon request with sufficient advance notice during the evaluation period.
Question 8: Based on the language in the solicitation the following is the project timeline:
* Evaluation planning – January 2026.
* Process evaluation – February - March 2026.
* Outcome evaluation – April – August 2026.
* Merging of process & outcome reports – September 2026.
Answer 8: The project timeline posted in the RFP is the expectation of the DWI court and grantor. However, the process evaluation may overlap with outcome evaluation, i.e., the process evaluation may extend through April 2026. Additionally, there may be some flexibility if additional grant funding is secured through September 2027, but that is unknown at this time. The successful bidder should plan to meet the specified timelines.
Question 9: Is there any flexibility on the time parameters between January – September?
Answer 9: Process evaluation time parameters are the most flexible and can be adjusted during collaborative evaluation planning. Outcome evaluation time parameters could be flexible, if and only if, additional grant funding is secured in Federal FY27 (10/01/2026 – 09/30/2027). If additional grant funding were secured, the evaluator’s contract would require a fully executed amendment with a revised end date of 09/30/2027 or sooner. If a contract amendment is desired, the amendment process would begin upon notification of additional grant funding, likely in August 2026. Additionally, deliverable(s) commensurate with the expenditure of evaluation grant funds available through 09/30/2026 would need to be received no later than 09/30/2026. If additional FFY27 grant funds are awarded, and if the timeline was subsequently extended through FFY27, an enhanced outcome evaluation and possible inclusion of a cost evaluation would be expected by the South St. Louis County DWI Court.
Question 10: Is there a possibility of extending the end date by approximately 3-6 months?
Answer 10: Extended end date could be possible pending receipt of additional grant funding in FFY27 (10/01/2026 – 09/30/2027). See also Answer 9.
Question 11: In what year was the program implemented? How many participants graduated and were unsuccessfully discharged from the program in the following years 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025?
Answer 11: The program was implemented in February 2008. In 2020, 16 participants graduated, and 5 participants were unsuccessfully discharged from the program. In 2021, 14 participants graduated, and 4 participants were unsuccessfully discharged from the program. In 2022, 15 participants graduated, and 2 participants were unsuccessfully discharged from the program. In 2023, 25 participants graduated, and 5 participants were unsuccessfully discharged from the program. In 2024, 25 participants graduated, and 7 participants were unsuccessfully discharged from the program. In 2025 (includes data from
01/01/2025 – 09/30/2025), 17 participants graduated, and 4 participants were unsuccessfully discharged from the program.
Question 12: In what management information system (MIS) is data stored for all program participants? How long has this data system been used by the program?
Answer 12: Data for program participants is stored in two MIS systems. The DWI Court Coordinator stores data in Tyler Supervision. Tyler Supervision has been used since April 2021. DWI Court probation agents store data in Corrections Services Technology Solutions (CSTS.) CSTS has been in use since at least 2015.
Question 13: Are data collected/housed outside of the MIS? For example, paper records, Excel files, other data systems, etc. If so, what data are housed in what format?
Answer 13: Prior to April 2021, data was collected and housed in Excel spreadsheets, Word documents, and Adobe PDF files by the DWI Court coordinator. All program data (referral dates, accepted dates, rejected dates, phase dates, commencement dates, unsuccessful discharge dates, assessment dates and types, incentives, sanctions, service adjustments, drug testing, treatment data, entry and exit statistics, and team staffing records) were housed in these formats.
Question 14: Are treatment data (i.e., treatment type, dosage) available by individual participant for the years 2020-2025?
Answer 14: Yes—although data quality is improved from 2021-2025.
Question 15: We’re assuming the comparison group will be individuals on probation for DWI that did not enroll in the program. Do you have a data use agreement and MOU in place with the probation department to provide these data for the purposes of this evaluation? If no MOU is in place, what is the process for obtaining comparison group data?
Answer 15: The court does not have a data use agreement and MOU in place with the probation department. We want to discuss data use agreements, MOUs, etc., with the evaluator during the collaborative evaluation process and intend to obtain any necessary agreements, MOUs, etc., during or shortly after collaborative evaluation planning is complete.
Question 16: What entity is responsible for providing recidivism data for the DWI court participants and comparison group members? Do you have a data use agreement and MOU already in place with this entity for providing these data?
Answer 16: The responsible entity would be the State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO) – Minnesota Judicial Branch Data Requests. We do not have a data use agreement and MOU in place with SCAO – MJB Data Requests. We want to discuss data use agreements, MOUs, etc., with the evaluator during the collaborative evaluation process and intend to obtain any necessary agreements, MOUs, etc., during or shortly after collaborative evaluation planning is complete.
Question 17: What is the process and timeline for obtaining recidivism data for the treatment and comparison group members?
Answer 17: The process would begin during collaborative evaluation planning when both the treatment court and the evaluator would decide what data points and timeframes to include in the evaluation. Once data elements and timeframes are chosen, the DWI Court Coordinator will obtain any necessary data use agreements and/or MOUs from SCAO – MJB Data Requests. When data use agreements and/or MOUs are in place, the DWI Coordinator will submit the formal data request. Typical turnaround times are 30 days from request to receipt, although the turnaround time can vary by 1-2 weeks depending on SCAO – MJB Data Requests’ current workload.
Question 18: Given that there is a desire for the evaluation team to obtain feedback from current and former (successful and unsuccessful) participants, do you have a mechanism in place at present for connecting with participants after they have separated from the program? If so, please describe the process.
Answer 18: No formal mechanism for obtaining feedback from current and former successful and unsuccessful participants; however, probation retains contact information for participants, and we could discuss and develop a workable plan to obtain this feedback during collaborative evaluation planning.