RAFTELIS COST PROPOSAL
RAFTELIS 1
Fee Schedule/Cost Proposal
The following table provides a breakdown of our proposed fee for this project. This table includes the estimated level of effort required for completing each task and the hourly billing rates for our project team members. Expenses include costs associated with travel and a $10 per hour technology charge covering computers, networks, telephones, postage, etc.
Optional Task 5.4: Full Cost of Service Study for Alternative Rate Structures Hours
Project
Director
Project
Manager CIP SME
Staff
Consultant CORP Total
Optional Task 5.4: Full Cost of Service Study for Alternative Rate Structures 2 16 28 46 $10,970
Total Meetings/Hours 2 16 0 28 0 0 0 46
Hourly Consulting Rate $275 $275 $275 $215 $80
Total Cost $550 $4,400 $0 $6,020 $0 $10,970
Total Fees $10,970
Technology and Communications Charge ($/Hour) $460
Travel Expenses for On-Site Meetings $0
Total Fees & Expenses $11,430
PD - Project Director, Steve Gagnon PE (AZ)
PM - Project Manager, John Wright, CPA
CIP SME - Capital Improvement Plan Subject Matter
Expert, Seth Garrison
SC - Staff Consultants, Charlie Diamond and Arisha Ashraf CORP - Corporate Functions
Tasks
Number of
On-Site
Meetings
Total Hourly
Consulting
Fee
FEE SCHEDULE/COST PROPOSAL
Hours
Project
Director
Project
Manager CIP SME
Staff
Consultant CORP Total
Task 1: Project Initiation and Management 4 8 4 1 17 $4,240 Task 2: Information Review 2 4 3 9 $2,295
Task 3: Financial Planning and Revenue Requirement
Projection 2 10 8 24 44 $10,660
Task 4: Benchmarking to Comparable Utilities 2 4 6 $1,650 Task 5: Cost Recovery Methodology 4 10 20 34 $8,150
Task 6: Proposed Sewer Service Charges and Rates Under
Alternative Structures 4 8 10 22 $5,450
Task 7: Evaluation of the City's Connection Fees 4 10 24 38 $9,010 Task 8: Customer Service/Billing Fees and Other
Miscellaneous Fees 8 16 24 $5,640
Task 9: Financial Model 3 18 21 $4,695
Task 10: Reports and Presentations 6 8 40 50 2 100 $24,110 Total Meetings/Hours 6 28 103 12 169 3 0 0 315
Hourly Consulting Rate $275 $275 $275 $215 $80
Total Cost $7,700 $28,325 $3,300 $36,335 $240 $75,900
Total Fees $75,900
Technology and Communications Charge ($/Hour) $3,150
Travel Expenses for On-Site Meetings $491
Total Fees & Expenses $79,541
Total Hourly
Consulting
FeeTasks
Number of
On-Site
Meetings
PD - Project Director, Steve Gagnon PE (AZ)
PM - Project Manager, John Wright, CPA
CIP SME - Capital Improvement Plan Subject Matter Expert, Seth Garrison SC - Staff Consultants, Charles Diamond and Arisha Ashraf CORP - Corporate Functions
RAFTELIS 2
Hourly Billing Rates
Project team hours and expenses will be billed on the same invoice. Travel expense will be billed at cost. Additional services outside the agreed upon scope of work will be billed on a time and materials basis. Raftelis’ billing rates can be found below.
POSITION HOURLY BILLING RATE**
Senior Managers: Steve Gagnon, John
Wright, and Seth Garrison $275
Senior Consultant: Charles Diamond $215
Consultant: Arisha Ashraf $185
Corporate Functions $80
Technology Charge* $10
*Technology/Communications
Charge: This is an hourly fee
charged monthly for each hour
worked on the project to recover
telephone, facsimile, computer,
postage/overnight delivery,
conference calls,
electronic/computer webinars,
photocopies, etc.
**For services related to the
preparation for and participation
in deposition and
trials/hearings, the standard
billing rates listed above will be
increased by an amount up to 50
percent.
ATTACHMENT 3
RFP FOR THE SEWER RATE STUDY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR
SEWER RATE STUDY
AUGUST 2021
IMPORTANT DATES
RFP ISSUED AUGUST 11, 2021
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION DEADLINE: 12:00 PM AUGUST 23, 2021 RELEASE OF INFORMATION REQUESTED AUGUST 25, 2021
PROPOSAL DUE DATE/SUBMISSION DEADLINE: 4:30 PM SEPTEMBER 10, 2021 AWARD DATE OCTOBER 5, 2021
APPROXIMATE START DATE OCTOBER 17, 2021
2 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR
SEWER RATE STUDY
1. Overview
The City of El Monte (City) is comprised of an area of approximately 10 square miles in Los Angel es County (County), California. It is a major metropolis located in the hub of San Gabriel Valley with a racially and ethnically diverse population. The City is located west of the interchange of Interstate 605 and 10, approxima tely 12 miles east of Downtown Los Angeles. It is a residential, industrial, and commercial city in the heart of the Sa n Gabriel Valley within the Los Angeles County of Californ ia. The wastewater collection facilities that serve the City are owned, maintai ned, and operated by the City Sewer Division under the City’s Public Works Department.
The City’s Public Works Department owns, operates, and maintains the City’s wastewater collection system with approximately 130 miles of sewer main lines and 7 active lift stations. The City is a member city of one of the seventeen jurisdictions that are signatory to Joint Outfall Agreement that provides for a shared regional interconnected s ewer conveyance and treatment system, also referred to as the Joint Outfall System (JOS).
The system includes the main Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) and six satellite Water Reclamation Plants (WRPs), and over 1,2 30 miles of trunk sewers and 5 0 pumping plants that collect wastewater from the local sewers that are owned, operated, and maintained by its member cities and the County. The City’s collection system conveys wastewater generated within the Ci ty to connections to the County sewer lines, and the collected wastewater flows are ultimately treated by the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant (WRP).
The City is requesting proposal s from qualified firms to prepare a comprehensive wastewater (sewer) rate study. The purpose of this study is to prepare a cost of service study, validate the appropriate rate structure, and recommend rates for the City that generate adequate revenue to cover:
Current and future operations and maintenance costs based on establis hed and anticipated regulations and industry best management practices; Rate stabilization;
Capital repair and replacement costs based on age and condition of infrastructure and systems;
Major Capital Improvement project costs;
An adequate reserve fund;
Required debt coverage; and
Necessary studies to maintain an efficient and resilient utility.
The study will analyze a 20 -year period and develop a 5 -Year Rate Structure that is in compliance with the California Proposition 218 requirements.
3 2. Scope of Services
The following Scope of Services, as well as the enti re RFP, will become part of the Agreement. The Scope of Services includes, but is not limited to, the tasks below, and any other tasks necessary to prepare a comprehensive Sewer Rate Study. The completeness of the consultant’s propo sed scope of services will be a consideration in selecting the firm to prepare the Cit y’s rate study. The proposer is encouraged to a djust the list of tasks below as necessary to provide the City with a complete rate study.
1. Review requirements, bond covenants, and other contractual requirements and operations of the sewer system.
2. Provide a comparison of current sewer system costs (operations, capital improvements, bonded debt) against appropriate industry benchmarks, and comparable municipal entities in Southern California.
3. Evaluate the existing sewer rate structures for conformance with existing statutory regulations and make recommendations for any changes that are necessary to achieve compliance that is equitable amongst all categories.
4. Identify the various direct costs included in the City’s budget including billing and collection and make recommendations for any changes necessary to ensure those direct operational costs are properly aligned with the appropriate ent erprise fund.
5. Evaluate the existing sewer connection fee and make recommendations for any changes for “buy -in” and new capacity or development fee to offset demand for future new service locations.
6. Recommend a baseline rate structure required to fund sewer system improvements and maintenance and consider annual inflationary, indexed adjustments to rates needed to maintain utility.
7. Any recommendations made must consider or make provision for the following factors:
a. Current and future cost of providing sewer services in conformance with established or anticipated changes to standards and regulations. b. Age and condition of sewer systems and the need to fund long -term capital replacements.
c. Changes in various systems as proposed in the 2018 Wastewater Collections System Management Plan.
8. Develop an understanding of the 2018 Wastewater Collections System Management Plan and the 5 -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) impacts of those plans on future rates.
9. Develop an understanding of the costs and both the tangible and intangible benefits realized by operating the existing sewer systems and quantify the expected changes that will occur with implementation of the City’s 5 -year CIP plan.
10. Develop an understanding of the existing rate structure and the assumptions underlying the cost distribution to the various rate categories. 4 11. Develop an understanding of the City’s reserve policy and other financial policies, and ensure any recommendations for changes in rates meet the cash flow objectives of those policies.
12. Comment as to the extent to which the projected revenues meet projected operating and capital needs satisfy bond covenants and required and/or recommended reserve levels.
13. Assess existing customer service fee structure and identify other potential areas for service and s ystem charges (plan reviews, sewer service shut -offs, etc.) and recommend changes, if appropriate. Assessment is to note any resulting increase in liability the City may incur as a result of assessing the fees.
14. Propose a methodology for annual inflati onary adjustments in compliance with Proposition 218.
a. Include a reserve analysis in the financial models.
15. Demonstrate that costs from any proposed modifications are equitably distributed in proportion to the benefit received by the various classifications.
16. Provide justifications for any special classes of customers under the recommended rate structure.
17. Demonstrate that any alternative rate structure is easy to understand and administer and can be accommodated within the existing City’s billing system.
18. Demonstrate that any proposed rate structure is in compliance with the rate covenants of the City’s outstanding utility bonds.
19. Demonstrate that any proposed modifications to the rates and fees are in conformance with the City’s other policy documents.
20. Modify the existing rate model or deliver a new spreadsheet model that reflects any changes to the rate structure accepted by the Council and provide training to staff in running “scenarios” that will allow staff to fully understand how the model operates and how t he results of various future recommendations that may be proposed can be illustrated.
21. Provide a model that has a user friendly dash board with interactive graphics that automatically produces a suite of reports and graphs as inputs are changed. The model will be the property of the City and may be used by the City for any purpose.
22. Conduct analyses as required to address the scope of services.
23. Conduct a d etailed review of the existing sewer rates and status of the sewer funds, and develop a general familiarity with the City’s billing system.
24. Meet or confer weekly with staff by zoom or similar platform.
25. Attend up to two (2) meetings with the City Council at a Council Meeting to present the study result if needed and obtain their input.
26. Coordinate up to two (2) community meetings to discuss proposed sewer rates.
Consultant shall be prepared to present the study to the residents in a public format. Due to unavoidable, the community meetings may need to be conducted via web and/or telecom based.
27. Attend up to two (2) public hearings on the proposed sewer rates.
28. Supply a time schedule for developing the draft reports, draft final reports and final reports.
5 29. Preliminary Report
a. Provide preliminary financial model and proposed 5 -Year Rate Structure with three (3) alternative options on the sewer rate structures.
30. Report: City shall confer with Consultant on content of the Final Report to meet Prop 2018 requirements. Consultant shall prepare a Draft and a Final Report which shall include but not limited to the following:
a. Executive Summary- A narrative to summarize the scope of the study, consultant’s findings and recommendations. The narrative should also include proposed sewer rates for the next five years starting with July 1, 2022;
b. Introduction - A brief description of the organizational structure, population, service area, sewer system, including facilities, capacity, etc.; c. Methodology Used- A description of the methodology used for analyzing the sewer rates and how the study complies with Proposition 218 and other applicable laws;
d. Overview of financial operations over the last 5 years and Current Financial Condition, including factors attributable to any rate covenant shortfall and corrective recommendations;
e. A description of the capital improvement program, including State and Federal regulatory requirements, a 5 year summary of proposed capital expenditures, and a statement regarding the sufficiency of improvements to meet operating needs and regulatory requirements and reasonableness of the cost estimates.
f. Ten Year Financial Plan- Comprehensive revenue and expense projection for the next 10 years and the basis for the growth projection. g. Proposed new rate structure that provides adequate revenues generated from rates, that is defensible and equitable across customer classes, and complies with Proposition 218 rate setting. The report shall describe the methodology for the determination of cost responsibility, which may be identified by reference to appropriate industry rate making principles, including guidance associated with designing and developing water rates and charges issued by industry principles recognized by public agencies providing public utility service.
h. Proposed adjustment schedule using an inflationary formula that is clearly defined and does not exceed the cost of providing the service. i. Proposed rate schedule and rate projection that forecasts rates to 10 years and proposed typical bill if proposed rates are adopted. j. Provide comparison of proposed and current rates of other communities with similar systems.
k. Assessment of the current rate structure’s suitability for sustaining cost recovery based on customer demands.
l. Discussion on the revenue sources and requirements as well as projections. m. Describe customer classes, describe historical and projected usage. n. Describe allocation of revenue requirements to various customer classifications, by system function, unity cost of service and cost components.
o. Discuss adequacy of current rates and need for rate increase. p. Discuss proposed rates.
q. Discuss the equity of recommended sewer rates for all types of property ownership.
6 r. The study shall include an assessment of the revenue stream generated by the recommended rates and their ability to continue to fully fund sewer system costs and statutory regulations and standards.
s. Assess existing customer service fee structure and identify other potential areas for service and system charges (plan reviews, sewer service shut- offs, etc.) and recommend changes, if appropriate. Assessment is to note any resulting increase in liability the City may incur as a result of assessing the fees.
t. Provide an easy-to-use electronic rate model for the City to use in future rate setting.
u. Submit electronic copy of the Draft and Final Report. v. If needed, provide hard copy of the Draft Final Report prior to adoption. w. Provide word as well as PDF format of the Draft and Final Report.
31. The consultant will provide guidance and advice to City staff to assure compliance with the Proposition 218 process as it applies to water and wastewater services.
Provide the City with a written notice to the record owner on the proposed rate adjustment. Provide the City with a public outreach material that can be released in the City’s newsletter. It is the intent of the City to complete and adopt, if at all, the Water and Sewer rates together at the conclusion of the Proposition 218 process at a public hearing.
32. Provide an easy-to-use electronic rate model for the City to use in future rate setting.
3. Services To Be Provided By The City
The services to be provided by the City include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:
1. Furnish all reasonably available records and information, including financial reports, budget, and past sewer rate assessments.
2. Provide a copy of the 2018 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan and current SSMP.
3. Provide information on the most recent Capital Improvement Project lists.
3. Project Duration
The anticipated duration to complete the projects outlined in this work plan is through June 30, 2022.
The City has budgeted approximately 20 hours per week adjusting staff’s schedule, as needed, to accommodate project needs and to facilitate the ability to meet the Utilities goals.
4. Proposal Format
All proposals shall include the following information:
1. Cover Letter- A signature by a principal or officer having the authority to negotiate and contractually bind and extend the terms of the written proposals is required. 7 2. Executive Summary – In a brief narrative, provide a description of your consulting firm. The contents of this narrative are to demonstrate to the City that the Consultant understands the Scope of Services. Include information on the following. Also include responses to the following:
a. Statement affirming the firm’s ability and willingness to execute the City’s Professional Services Agreement (Attachment A). Identify any conditions or terms of the Agreement with which the firm does not agree, including terms which the firm wishes to negotiate. Provide any proposed substitute language.
b. Legal Issues – Provide details of any past or pending litigation, or claims filed, against your firm, principals of the firm, or each of your key consultants, related to services performed for public agencies, or in actions that may affect its performance under a contract with the City. c. Disclosures - Provide information on whether your firm or any principal of the firm has been, or currently is, the subject of any investigation by the County, State, and/or Federal agencies within the past five years. If so, identify the agency, contact person, the nature of the investigation, and any determination over the outcome of said investigation. Failure to provide the information may result in disqualification.
3. Approach to the Project: Describe your approach to this project and any special ideas, techniques or suggestions that you think might make the project proceed smoothly.
4. Experience: Describe the experience of the firm, and of the individuals assigned, with related projects of a similar nature. The team’s experience with creating various rate structures, including potable, non-potable, recycled and sewer rate structures will be considered during the review process.
5. Qualifications: Describe your staff’s unique qualifications and training for this type of work. If using sub consultants, provide the company profile and define the responsibilities and services to be provided by the sub consultants.
6. References: References should place an emphasis on past projects in which the personnel to be used by proposer for this project were deployed. The references should include the name, title and contact information of the public agency officer or employee responsible for overseeing the proposer’s work. a. List at least three (3) references, including name, address, and contact person, email and phone number.
7. Project Schedule: Describe your plan/schedule for completing the work. It is the City’s objective to hold a Public Hearing and count protest votes by March 30, 2022 on the proposed sewer rates. If meeting this public hearing date is not achievable, explain why you believe it cannot be met with a proposed alternative public hearing date.
8. Fee Schedule/Cost Proposal: Provide a not to exceed and all-inclusive Cost Proposal for the study.
a. The cost proposal shall include an estimate of the number of hours and clearly identify an hourly rate schedule for the proposed staff. b. The proposal shall also include all costs and supplemental expenses related to photocopying, postage, travel, etc. (i.e. Reimbursement expenses). To the extent that a proposal contemplates the use of sub consultants to 8 perform any one or more of the above described tasks on the proposer’s behalf, the proposal shall include a List of Sub consultants identifying all sub consultants and state the fee for each sub consultant in the Fee Schedule.
9. Copy of A Rate Study – Include a copy of a rate study performed by the Consultant that most closely fit the Study Objectives, Study Requirements, Study Elements, and Services to be provided by the Consultant.
5. Evaluation Criteria
Each proposal shall be evaluated on the basis of the proposer’s expertise, experience and train ing and the expertise of its key personnel along with prior contracting history, approach to the Project, cost, proposed schedule and compliance with the RFP requirements including the terms of the attached PSA. Each such factor shall be weighted by the City as follows:
a) Expertise, Experience & Training Plus Prior Contracting History ( 35%) – The expertise, experience and training of the proposer and its key personnel and previous experience with similar work in similar fields and qualifications and depth of the staff that will perform the work on this project. This factor includes evaluation of the proposer’s prior contracting history, including the review of the proposer’s certifications relating to false claims, debarment and civil litigation. b) Project Appro ach ( 35%) – The proposer’s responsiveness in developing a comprehensive plan while meeting regulatory requirements and the City’s specific needs.
c) Schedule Control (10%) – Proposal for completing the project in a timely manner, inclusive of the proposer’s a bility to identify critical paths for the timely and competent completion of all work contemplated by the Project. d) Compliance with RFP (10%) – The ability of the proposer to comply with all instructions set forth under this RFP as well as the proposer’s ab ility to agree to all of the terms and conditions of the attached PSA without modification, particularly as relates to indemnification, insurance requirements and standards of care. e) Cost Schedule ( 10%) – The cost will be considered in performing an integra ted assessment of the proposal leading to selection of the best value.
Consultants should thoroughly address the above selection criteria to receive the maximum possible points.
6. Selection Process
A selection committee, comprised of City staff will revi ew the proposals. Proposals will be ranked on qualifications and the selection committee may choose to interview several of the top ranked proposers. However, at its sole discretion the selection committee may dispense with interviews and select a proposer to perform the work.
7. Proposal Requirements
The Consultant’s proposal must be comprehensive, concise and to the point. Current company brochures and resumes of key personnel should be included as well as examples of previous work. However, a proposal is a voluntary response on the part of a Consultant, and this RFP does not commit the City to pay any costs incurred in its 9 preparation. The City reserves the right to accept or reject optional elements of this proposal, or the proposal in part, or its entirety.
This RFP is a solicitation for proposals o nly, and is neither intended, not to be construed as an offer to enter into an agreement or engage in any formal rule competitive bidding or negotiation pursuant to any statue, ordinance or regulation.
All data, documents, and other products used or developed during the project will become the property of the City.
The deadline to submit a proposal is September 10, 2021 at 4:30 p.m. Proposals received after the deadline will not be considered. Proposer is required to submit an “ebid” through PlanetBids online platform. See link below:
https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=43375 A copy of the Request for Proposal (RFP) and subsequent addenda to the RFP are available on the PlanetBids online platform on the link listed above.
It is the proposer ’s responsibility to ensure that the most complete and current version of the solicitation, including addenda, has been downloaded. Submission of a proposal shall constitute acknowledgement and acceptance of all terms and conditions contained in this RFP and all exhibits and attachments hereto.
Proposers shall be bound to the terms of their proposal following the Submission Deadline, however, the City, in its sole and absolute discretion, reserves the right to accept post deadline modifications if it is determined that such modifications are in the best interests of the City. The City also reserves the right to waive minor non -substantive informalities or allow the proposer to correct them.
a) Proposers shall be solely and exclusively responsible for all co sts incurred in connection with the preparation and submission of the proposals; demonstrations; interviews; preparation of responses to questions and requests for additional information; for contract discussions; or for anything in any way related to this RFP.
The City is not liable for any costs incurred by a proposer in response to this RFP.
Whether or not a proposer is awarded a contract pursuant to this RFP, no proposer shall be entitled to reimbursement for any costs or expenses associated with the proposer’s participation in this RFP process.
b) Late proposals will not be considered.
c) The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals received as a result of this RFP. The City’s potential award of a contract will not be based on any single factor nor will it be based on the lowest cost proposal. If a contract is awarded, it will be awarded to the proposer who in the judgment of the City has presented an optimal balance of relevant experience, technical expertise, quality of service, work history a nd other factors which the City may consider relevant and important in determining which proposal is best for the City.
d) The City reserves the right to cancel or modify this RFP. There is no guarantee that the City will award a contract.
e) The City reserves t he right to investigate the qualifications of any proposer under consideration including proposed subcontractors and parties otherwise related to 10 the proposer and require confirmation of information furnished by a proposer, or require additional evidence of experience and qualifications to provide the services or otherwise discharge the obligations required by this RFP. f) Following the Submission Deadline, the City, pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250 et seq.) reserves the r ight to make copies of all submitted proposals available for inspection and copying by any interested member of the public, except to the limited extent the City determines that any information contained in a proposal is legally privileged under the Califo rnia Public Records Act. By submission of a proposal, proposers acknowledge and agree that their proposal and any information contained therein may be disclosed by the City to interested members of the public, including other proposers. g) The City reserves t he right to approve or disapprove of particular subcontractors, joint venture partners, or other proposed team members. h) The City reserves the right to evaluate responses in terms of the best interests of the City, applying criteria provided in this RFP and any other criteria the City, in its sole discretion, deems pertinent.
i) By the submission of a proposal, each proposer accepts and agrees to execute a written Professional Services Agreement (PSA) in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1. By submission of a proposal, each proposer agrees to execute a PSA with the City in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1, inclusive of all stated terms and conditions relating to indemnification, required insurance and standard of care requirements. If a proposer is unable to agree to any of the terms or conditions of the PSA in the form attached hereto, the proposer must identify the provision(s) in question and provide an explanation as to why the proposer cannot comply with such provisions. If a proposers objection to a certain provision of the PSA is merely a question of added cost, the proposer shall indicate in the proposal the difference in cost associated with complying with the provision(s) versus the cost associated with the City’s waiver or modification of the provision(s). The City shall be under no obligation to make modifications to the PSA after a contract has been awarded and proposers shall be deemed to have incorporated all costs associated with compliance with the PSA into their proposal. A proposer’s inabi lity to comply with one or more provisions of the PSA shall be a factor that will be considered by the City in determining which proposal will serve the best interest of the City when all other factors are taken into account.
j) All proposals must remain vali d for a minimum period of ninety (90) calendar days after the Submission Deadline. Responses may not be modified or withdrawn by the proposer during this period of time except in accordance with this RFP and with written permission granted by the City.
k) All questions or requests for clarification shall be submitted via email to George Cambero at [email protected] by the REQUEST FOR INFORMATION DEADLINE. All questions received by this deadline will be addressed and posted on the City’s PlanetBids portal by the RELEASE OF INFORMATION REQUESTED DATE.
l) If it becomes necessary to revise any part of this RFP, written addenda will be posted on the City’s PlanetBids portal . It shall be the sole responsibility of the proposer to check for any addenda to the RFP that may be issued by the City. 11 m) It is presumed that each proposer has read and is thoroughly familiar with the scope of services to be performed under this RFP.
n) The proposer agrees that, if a contract is awarded to a proposer, the proposer shall make no cla im against the City or any of the funding agencies because of any estimate or statement made by any employees, agents, or consultants of the City which may prove to be erroneous in any respect.
o) Proposers may withdraw their proposal prior to the Submission Deadline.
8. Insurance Requirements
The selected consultant shall provide the following at the time of contract execution.
Insurance coverage must include naming the City of El Monte as additional insured (Form CG2010 or Equivalent), policy number, expirat ion date, and amounts (limits). GENERAL LIABILITY CARRIER MUST HAVE A CURRENT A.M. BEST RATING OF “A VI” OR HIGHER. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER MUST HAVE A CURRENT A.M.
BEST RATING OF “A -VII” OR HIGHER. CARRIERS MUST BE ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA. MINIMUM AC CEPTABLE LIMITS: GENERAL LIABILITY; GENERAL AGGREGATE $2,000,000 AND PRODUCTS -COMP/OP AGG $2,000,000. WORKER’S COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY: E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $1,000,000 AND E.L. DISEASE -EA EMPLOYEE $1,000,000 AND E.L. DISEASE – POLICY LIMIT $1,000,000. Sample is available upon request
- END OF SECTION -
ATTACHMENT 4
PSA RAFTELIS
Contract No. 22PW01006
1 2022
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
(Engagement: Sewer Rate Study)
(Parties: Raftelis and City of El Monte)
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (hereinafter, "Agreement") is made and entered into this _______ day of _________ 2022 (hereinafter, the "Effective Date") by and between the CITY OF EL MONTE, a municipal corporation (hereinafter, "CITY") and RAFTELIS (hereinafter, "CONSULTANT"). For the purposes of this Agreement, CITY and CONSULTANT may be referred to collectively by the capitalized term "Parties." The capitalized term "Party" may refer to CITY or CONSULTANT interchangeably, as appropriate.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY requires professional engineering services to conduct a sewer rate study; and
WHEREAS, CITY staff has determined that CONSULTANT possesses the experience, skills and training necessary to competently provide such services to CITY; and
WHEREAS, the execution of this Agreement was approved by the City of El Monte City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2022 under Agenda Item No. _____.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, CITY and CONSULTANT agree as follows:
I.
ENGAGEMENT TERMS
1.1 TERM: The term of this Agreement ("Term") shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall expire automatically upon the first anniversary of the Effective Date.
Nothing in this Section shall operate to prohibit or otherwise restrict the CITY's ability to terminate this Agreement at any time for convenience or for cause.
1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES:
A. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, CONSULTANT agrees to provide financial planning and conduct rate-setting services. The specific tasks that CONSULTANT shall perform are set forth and more
Contract No. 22PW01006
2 particularly described in the “Project Approach” section of CONSULTANT’S September 10, 2021 proposal, which is attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit “A” (hereinafter the “Scope of Services”). CONS ULTANT shall perform tasks 1 through 10. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, in the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of the City Baseline Scope and the provisions of the Consultant Proposal, the terms of the City Baseline Scope shall govern and control but only to the extent of the conflict or inconsistency and no further.
B. CONSULTANT further agrees to furnish to CITY all labor, materials, tools, supplies, equipment, services, tasks and incidental and customary work necessary to competently perform and timely complete the services and tasks set forth in the Scope of Services. For the purposes of this Agreement the aforementioned services and tasks set forth in the Scope of Services shall hereinafter be referred to generally by the capitalized term "Work."
C. CONSULTANT shall not commence with the performance of the Work until such time as CITY issues a written Notice to Proceed. Following CITY’s issuance of the Notice to Proceed, CONSULTANT shall commence performance of Tasks 1 through 10 as set forth in the Scope of Services and in accordance with the schedule to be established by the Parties.
1.3. COMPENSATION:
A. CONSULTANT shall perform all Work in accordance with the schedules of hourly rates and charges set forth in CONSULTANT’S Scope of Services on pages 164-165 under the heading “Fee Schedule/Cost Proposal ” (hereinafter, the "Approved Compensation Schedule") , which is attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit “B”.
B. Paragraph 1.3(A) notwithstanding, in no event shall CONSULTANT’S total compensation for all Work performed under this Agreement exceed the total budgeted aggregate sum o f NINETY THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY-ONE DOLLARS ($90,971) (hereinafter, the "Not -to-Exceed Sum") during the Term of this Agreement.
C. In the event CONSULTANT's charges are anticipated to exceed the Not-to- Exceed Sum prior to the expiration of this Agreement, the City Council for the CITY hereby delegates to the City Manager the authority to authorize the Not-to-Exceed Sum by an amount not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the Not-to-Exceed Sum, provided that any authorization shall be made in writing signed by the City Manager and expressly referencing the City Manager’s delegated authority under this paragraph. Any anticipated changes in excess of those excess sums the City Manager is authorized to approve under this paragraph must be approved by the City Council before they are incurred, and such City Council approval must be memorialized in the form of a written amendment to this Agreement. The CITY Representative, as designated in paragraph 2.1 below, reserves the right to suspend all or any portion of CONSULTANT’S performance under this Contract No. 22PW01006
3 Agreement unless and until charges in excess of the Not -to-Exceed Sum are first approved by either the City Manager or the City Council, whichever is the appropriate authorizing authority, as provided under this paragraph, above. CITY shall be under no obligation to pay sums in excess of the Not- to-Exceed Sum which have not first been authorized by the Ci ty Manager or City Council as appropriate.
1.4 PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION : The Not -to-Exceed Sum will be paid to CONSULTANT in monthly increments as the Work is completed. Following the conclusion of each calendar month, CONSULTANT will submit to CITY an itemized invoice indicating the services performed and tasks completed during the recently concluded calendar month, including services and tasks performed and the reimbursable out-of-pocket expenses incurred. If the amount of CONSULTANT's monthly compensation is a function of hours worked by CONSULTANT's personnel, the invoice should indicate the number of hours worked in the recently concluded calendar month, the persons responsible for performing the Work, the rate of compensation at which such services and tasks were performed, the subtotal for each task and service performed and a grand total for all services performed. Within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of each invoice, CITY will notify CONSULTANT in writing of any disputed amounts included in the invoice.
Within forty-five (45) calendar days of receipt of each invoice, CITY will pay all undisputed amounts included on the invoice. CITY will not withhold applicable taxes or other authorized deductions from payments made to CONSULTANT.
1.5 ACCOUNTING RECORDS: CONSULTANT will maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all matters covered under this Agreement for a period of three (3) years after the expiration or termination of this Agreement. CITY will have the right to access and exa mine such records, without charge, during normal business hours. CITY will further have the right to audit such records, to make transcripts therefrom and to inspect all program data, documents, proceedings, and activities during normal business hours.
1.6 ABANDONMENT BY CONSULTANT : In the event CONSULTANT ceases to perform the Work agreed to under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the undertaking contemplated herein prior to the expiration of this Agreement or prior to completion of any or all tasks set forth in the Scope of Work, CONSULTANT will deliver to CITY immediately and without delay, all materials, records and other work product prepared or obtained by CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. Furthermore, CONSULTANT will only be compensated for the reasonable value of the services, tasks and other Work performed up to the time of cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any damages, costs or additional expenses which CITY may incur as a result of CONSULTANT's cessation or abandonment.
II.
PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT
2.1 CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE: The CITY hereby designates Sal Mendez, Public Works and Utilities Director (hereinafter, the "CITY Representative") to act as its Contract No. 22PW01006
4 representative for the performance of this Agreement. The CITY Representative or his successor or designee will act on behalf of the CITY for all purposes under this Agreement. CONSULTANT will not accept directions or orders from any person other than the CITY Representative or his successor or designee.
2.2 CONSULTANT REPRESENTATIVE: CONSULTANT hereby designates Steve Gagnon to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement (hereinafter, "CONSULTANT Representative"). CONSULTANT Represent ative will have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the CONSULTANT for all purposes under this Agreement. CONSULTANT Representative or his designee will supervise and direct the performance of the Work, using his best skill and attention, and will be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Work under this Agreement. Notice to the CONSULTANT Representative will constitute notice to CONSULTANT.
2.3 COORDINATION OF SERVICE; CONFORMANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS :
CONSULTANT agrees to work closely with CITY staff in the performance of the Work and this Agreement and will be available to CITY staff and the CITY Representative at all reasonable times. All work pr epared by CONSULTANT will be subject to inspection and approval by CITY Representative or his or her designees.
2.4 STANDARD OF CARE; PERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYEES: CONSULTANT represents, acknowledges and agrees to the following:
A. CONSULTANT will perform all Work skillfully, competently and to the highest standards of CONSULTANT's profession at the time and place the Work is performed;
B. CONSULTANT will perform all Work in a manner reasonably satisfactory to the CITY;
C. CONSULTANT will comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, including the conflict of interest provisions of Government Code Section 1090 and the Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000 et seq.);
D. CONSULTANT unders tands the nature and scope of the Work to be performed under this Agreement as well as any and all schedules of performance;
E. All of CONSULTANT's employees and agents possess sufficient skill, knowledge, training and experience to perform those services an d tasks assigned to them by CONSULTANT; and
F. All of CONSULTANT's employees and agents (including, but not limited to, subcontractors and subconsultants) possess all licenses, permits, certificates, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally Contract No. 22PW01006
5 required to perform the tasks and services contemplated under this Agreement and all such licenses, permits, certificates, qualifications and approvals will be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement and made available to CITY for copying and inspection.
The Parties acknowledge and agree that CONSULTANT will perform, at CONSULTANT's own cost and expense and without any reimbursement from CITY, any services necessary to correct any errors or omissions caused by CONSULTANT's failure to comply with the standard of care set forth under this Section or by any like failure on the part of CONSULTANT's employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors and subconsultants. Such effort by CONSULTANT to correct any errors or omissions will be commenced imm ediately upon their discovery by either Party and will be completed within seven (7) calendars days from the date of written notice to CONSULTANT after discovery or such other extended period of time authorized by the CITY Representative in writing and in her sole and absolute discretion. The Parties acknowledge and agree that CITY's acceptance of any work performed by CONSULTANT or on CONSULTANT's behalf will not constitute a release of any deficiency or delay in performance. The Parties further acknowledge, understand and agree that CITY has relied upon the foregoing representations of CONSULTANT, including but not limited to the representation that CONSULTANT possesses the skills, training, knowledge and experience necessary to perform the Work skillfully, competently and to the highest standards of CONSULTANT's profession.
2.5 ASSIGNMENT: The skills, training, knowledge and experience of CONSULTANT are material to CITY's willingness to enter into this Agreement. Accordingly, CITY has an interest in the qualifications and capabilities of the person(s) who will perform the services and tasks to be undertaken by CONSULTANT or on behalf of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. In recognition of this interest, CONSULTANT agrees that it will not assign or transfer, either directly or indirectly or by operation of law, this Agreement or the performance of any of CONSULTANT's duties or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the CITY. In the absence of CITY's prior wri tten consent, any attempted assignment or transfer will be ineffective, null and void and will constitute a material breach of this Agreement.
2.6 CONTROL AND PAYMENT OF SUBORDINATES; INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR: The Work will be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's strict supervision. CONSULTANT will determine the means, methods and details of performing the Work subject to the requirements of this Agreement. CITY retains CONSULTANT on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee. CONSULTANT reserves the right to perform similar or different services for other principals during the term of this Agreement, provided such work does not unduly interfere with CONSULTANT's competent and timely performance of the Work c ontemplated under this Agreement and provided the performance of such services does not result in the unauthorized disclosure of CITY's confidential or proprietary information. Any additional personnel performing the Work under this Agreement on behalf of CONSULTANT are not employees of CITY and will at all times be under CONSULTANT's exclusive direction and Contract No. 22PW01006
6 control. CONSULTANT will pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel and will assume responsibility for all benefits, payroll taxes, S ocial Security and Medicare payments and the like. CONSULTANT will be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: Social Security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, workers' compensation insurance and the like.
2.7 REMOVAL OF EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS: If any of CONSULTANT's officers, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors or subconsultants is determined by the CITY Representative to be uncooper ative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely performance of the tasks assigned to CONSULTANT, a threat to persons or property, or if any of CONSULTANT's officers, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors or subconsultants fail or refuse to perform the Work in a manner acceptable to the CITY, such officer, employee, agent, contractor, subcontractor or subconsultant will be promptly removed by CONSULTANT and will not be reassigned to perform any of the Work.
2.8 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS : CONSULTA NT will keep itself informed of and in compliance with all applicable federal, state or local laws to the extent such laws control or otherwise govern the performance of the Work. CONSULTANT's compliance with applicable laws will include, without limitation, compliance with all applicable Cal/OSHA requirements and applicable regulations of the Federal Department of Housing and Urbanization.
2.9 NON-DISCRIMINATION: In the performance of this Agreement, CONSULTANT will not discriminate against any employee, subcontractor, subconsultant, or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental disability or medical condition.
2.10 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS: The Parties acknowledge, understand and agree that CONSULTANT and all persons retained or employed by CONSULTANT are, and will at all times remain, wholly independent contractors and are not officials, officers, employees, departments or subdivisions of CITY.
CONSULTANT will be solely responsible for the negligent acts and/or omissions of its employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors and subconsultants.
CONSULTANT and all persons retained or employed by CONSULTANT will have no authority, express or implied, to bind CITY in any manner, nor to incur any obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of, or against, CITY, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred to CONSULTANT under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred by CITY in writing.
III.
INSURANCE
3.1 DUTY TO PROCURE AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE: Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, CONSULTANT will procure and maintain policies of insurance that meet the requirements and specifications set forth under Contract No. 22PW01006
7 this Article. CONSULTANT will procure and maintain the following insurance coverage, at its own expense:
A. Commercial General Liability Insurance: CONSULTANT will procure and maintain Commercial General Liability Insurance ("CGL Coverage") as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence Form CG 0001) or its equivalent. Such CGL Coverage will have minimum limits of no less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) in the general aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, property damage, operations, products and completed operations, and contractual liability.
B. Automobile Liability Insurance: CONSULTANT will procure and maintain Automobile Liability Insurance as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 (any auto). Such Automobile Liability Insurance will have minimum limits of no less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
C. Workers' Compensation Insurance/ Employer's Liability Insurance: A policy of workers' compensation insurance in such amount as will fully comply with the laws of the State of California and which will indemnify, insure and provide legal defense for both CONSULTANT and CITY against any loss, claim or damage arising from any injuries or oc cupational diseases occurring to any worker employed by or any persons retained by CONSULTANT in the course of carrying out the Work contemplated in this Agreement.
D. Errors & Omissions Insurance: For the full term of this Agreement and for a period of three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT will procure and maintain Errors and Omissions Liability Insurance appropriate to CONSULTANT's profession. Such coverage will have minimum limits of no less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence and will be endorsed to include contractual liability.
3.2 ADDITIONAL INSURED REQUIREMENTS : The CGL Coverage and the Automobile Liability Insurance will contain an endorsement naming the CITY and CITY's elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers as additional insureds.
3.3 REQUIRED CARRIER RATING : All varieties of insurance required under this Agreement will be procured from insurers admitted in the State of California and authorized to issue policies directly to California insureds. Except as otherwise provided elsewhere under this Article, all required insurance will be procured from insurers who, according to the latest edition of the Best's Insurance Guide, have an A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII. CITY may also accept policies procured by insurance carriers with a Standard & Poor's rating of no less than BBB according to the latest published edition the Standard & Poor's rating guide. As to Workers' Compensation Insurance/ Employer's Liability Insurance, the CITY Contract No. 22PW01006
8 Representative is authorized to authorize lower ratings than those set forth in this Section.
3.4 PRIMACY OF CONSULTANT'S INSURANCE : All policies of insurance provided by CONSULTANT will be primary to any coverage available to CITY or CITY's elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers. Any insurance or self -insurance maintained by CITY or CITY's elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers will be in excess of CONSULTANT's insurance and will not contribute with it.
3.5 WAIVER OF SUBROGATION : All insurance coverage provided pursuant to this Agreement will not prohibit CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT's officers, employees, agents, subcontractors or subconsultants from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. CONSULTANT hereby waives all rights of subrogation against CITY.
3.6 VERIFICATION OF COVERAGE : CONSULTANT acknowledges, understands and agrees, that CITY's ability to verify the procurement and maintenance of the insurance required under this Article is critical to safeguarding CITY's financial well-being and, indirectly, the collective well -being of the residents of the CITY.
Accordingly, CONSULTANT warrants, represents and agrees that it will furnish CITY with original certificates of insurance and endorsements evidencing the coverage required under this Article on forms satisfactory to CITY in its sole and absolute discretion. The certificates of insurance and endorsements for each insurance policy will be signed by a person authori zed by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf and will be on forms provided by the CITY if requested. All certificates of insurance and endorsements will be received and approved by CITY as a condition precedent to CONSULTANT's commencement of any Wor k or any of the Work. Upon CITY's written request, CONSULTANT will also provide CITY with certified copies of all required insurance policies and endorsements.
3.7 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN COVERAGE: In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced immediately so as to avoid a lapse in the required coverage, CITY has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary, and any premium paid by CITY wi ll be promptly reimbursed by CONSULTANT or CITY will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from CONSULTANT payments. In the alternative, CITY may cancel this Agreement effective upon notice.
3.8 SPECIAL RISKS OR CIRCUMSTANCES: CITY reserves the right to modify these requirements, including lim its, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.
IV.
INDEMNIFICATION
4.1 The Parties agree that CITY and CITY's elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers (hereinafter, the "CITY Indemnitees") should, Contract No. 22PW01006
9 to the fullest extent permitted by law, be protected from any and all loss, injury, damage, claim, lawsuit, cost, expense, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, or any other cost caused by the failure t o perform or negligent performance of the Work .
Accordingly, the provisions of this indemnity provision are intended by the Parties to be interpreted and construed to provide the CITY Indemnitees with the fullest protection possible under the law. CONSULTANT acknowledges that CITY would not enter into this Agreement in the absence of CONSULTANT's commitment to indemnify, defend and protect CITY as set forth herein.
4.2 To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the CITY Indemnitees from and against all third party liability, loss, damage, expense, cost (including without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation) the negligent acts, errors or omissions, gross negligence or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT's officers, employees, agents, servants, contractors, subcontractors or subconsultants . The duty to indemni fy, defend and hold harmless under this subsection shall not encompass a duty to indemnity, defend or hold harmless for liability, loss, suit, damage, expense, or cost caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of any or all of the City Indemnitees. The duty to indemnify, defend and hold harmless as set forth under this subsection is intended to encompass liabilities, losses, damages, expense and costs.
4.3 CITY shall have the right to offset against the amount of any compensation due CONSULTANT under this Agreement any amount due CITY from CONSULTANT as a result of CONSULTANT's failure to pay CITY promptly any indemnification arising under this Article and related to CONSULTANT's failure to either (i) pay taxes on amounts received purs uant to this Agreement or (ii) comply with applicable workers' compensation laws.
4.4 The obligations of CONSULTANT under this Article will not be limited by the provisions of any workers' compensation act or similar act. CONSULTANT expressly waives its statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to CITY and CITY's elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents and authorized volunteers.
4.5 CONSULTANT agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this Article from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. In the event CONSULTANT fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required herein, CONSULTANT agrees to be fully responsible and indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY and CITY's elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents and authorized volunteers from and against any and all claims and losses, costs or expenses for any damage due to death or injury to any person and injury to any property resulting from any alleged intentional, reckless, negligent, or otherwise wrongful acts, errors or omissions of CONSULTANT's subcontractors or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by counsel of CITY's choice.
Contract No. 22PW01006
10 4.6 CITY does not, and shall not, waive any rights t hat it may possess against CONSULTANT because of the acceptance by CITY, or the deposit with CITY, of any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. This hold harmless and indemnification provision shall apply regardless of whether or not any insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the claim, demand, damage, liability, loss, cost or expense.
4.7 This Article and all provisions contained herein in, including but not limited to the duties to indemnify, defend and hold harmless, shall survive the early termination or normal expiration of this Agreement for a period of three (3) years and shall be in addition to any other rights or remedies which the CITY may have at law or in equity.
V.
TERMINATION
5.1 TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE : CITY may immediately terminate this Agreement at any time for convenience and without cause by giving prior written notice of CITY's intent to terminate this Agreement which notice shall specify the effective date of such termination. Upon such termination for convenience, CONSULTANT will be compensated only for those services and tasks which have been performed by CONSULTANT up to the effective date of the termination.
CONSULTANT may not terminate this Agreement except for cause as provided under Section 5.2, below. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, CITY may require CONSULTANT to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data, as defined in section 6.1 below, and other information of any kind prepared by CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of the Work. CONSULTANT will be required to provide such Documents and Data within fifteen (15) calendar days of CITY's written request upon payment of all sums due to CONSULTANT as provided herein above. No actual or asserted breach of this Agreement on the part of CITY pursuant to Section 5.2, below, will operate to prohibit or otherwise restrict CITY's ability to terminate this Agreement for convenience as provided under this Section.
5.2 EVENTS OF DEFAULT; BREACH OF AGREEMENT:
A. In the event either Party fails to perform any duty, obligation, service or task set forth under this Agreement (or fails to timely perform or properly perform any such duty, obligation, service or task set forth under this Agreement), an event of default (hereinafter, "Event of Default") will occur. For all Events of Default, the Party alleging an Event of Default will give written notice to the defaulting Party (hereinafter referred to as a "Default Notice") which will specify: (i) the nature of the Event of Default; (ii) the action required to cure the Event of Default; (iii) a date by which the Event of Default will be cured, which will not be less than the applicable cure period set forth under Sections 5.2B and 5.2C below or if a cure is not reasonably possible within the applicable cure period, to begin such cure and diligently prosecute such cure to completion. The Event of Default will constitute a breach of this Contract No. 22PW01006
11 Agreement if the defaulting Party fails to cure the Event of Default within the applicable cure period or any extended cure period allowed under this Agreement.
B. CONSULTANT will cure the following Events of Defaults within the following time periods:
i. Within ten (10) business days of CITY's issuance of a Default Notice for any failure of CONSULTANT to timely provide CITY or CITY's employees or agents with any information and/or written reports, documentation or work product which CONSULTANT is obligated to provide to CITY or CITY's employees or agents under this Agreement.
Prior to the expiration of the 10- day cure period, CONSULTANT may submit a written request for additional time to cure the Event of Default upon a showing that CONSULTANT has commenced efforts to cure the Event of Default and that the Event of Default cannot be reasonably cured within the 10- day cure period. The foregoing notwithstanding, CITY will be under no obligation to grant additional time for the cure of an Event of Default under this Section 5.2B.i. that exceeds seven (7) calendar days from the end of the initial 10-day cure period; or
ii. Within fourteen (14) calendar days of CITY's issuance of a Default Notice for any other Event of Default under this Agreement. Prior to the expiration of the 14- day cure period, CONSULTANT may submit a written request for additional time to cure the Event of Default upon a showing that CONSULTANT has commenced efforts to cure the Event of Default and that the Event of Default cannot be reasonably cured within the 14-day cure period. The foregoing notwithstanding, CITY will be under no obligation to grant additional time for the cure of an Event of Default under this Section 5.2B.ii that exceeds thirty (30) calendar days from the end of the initial 14-day cure period.
In addition to any other fai lure on the part of CONSULTANT to perform any duty, obligation, service or task set forth under this Agreement (or the failure to timely perform or properly perform any such duty, obligation, service or task), an Event of Default on the part of CONSULTANT will include, but will not be limited to the following: (i) CONSULTANT's refusal or failure to perform any of the services or tasks called for under the Scope of Work; (ii) CONSULTANT's failure to fulfill or perform its obligations under this Agreement within the specified time or if no time is specified, within a reasonable time; (iii) CONSULTANT's and/or its employees' disregard or violation of any federal, state, local law, rule, procedure or regulation; (iv) the initiation of proceedings under any bankr uptcy, insolvency, receivership, reorganization, or similar legislation as relates to CONSULTANT, whether voluntary of involuntary; (v) CONSULTANT's refusal or failure to perform or observe any covenant, condition, obligation or provision of this Agreement; and/or (vii) CITY's discovery that a statement representation or warranty by CONSULTANT relating to this Agreement is false, misleading or erroneous in any material respect.
Contract No. 22PW01006
12 C. CITY will cure any Event of Default asserted by CONSULTANT within forty- five (45) calendar days of CONSULTANT's issuance of a Default Notice, unless the Event of Default cannot reasonably be cured within the 45- day cure period. Prior to the expiration of the 45- day cure period, CITY may submit a written request for additional time to cure the Event of Default upon a showing that CITY has commenced its efforts to cure the Event of Default and that the Event of Default cannot be reasonably cured within the 45-day cure period. The foregoing notwithstanding, an Event of Default dealing with CITY's failure to timely pay any undisputed sums to CONSULTANT as provided under Section 1.3, above, will be cured by CITY within five (5) calendar days from the date of CONSULTANT's Default Notice to CITY.
D. CITY, in its sole and absolute discretion, may also immediately suspend CONSULTANT's performance under this Agreement pending
CONSULTANT's cure of any Event of Default by giving CONSULTANT written notice of CITY's intent to suspend CONSULTANT's performance (hereinafter, a "Suspension Notice"). CITY m ay issue the Suspension Notice at any time upon the occurrence of an Event of Default. Upon such suspension, CONSULTANT will be compensated only for those services and tasks which have been rendered by CONSULTANT to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY up to the effective date of the suspension. No actual or asserted breach of this Agreement on the part of CITY will operate to prohibit or otherwise restrict CITY's ability to suspend this Agreement as provided herein.
E. No waiver of any Event of Default or breach under this Agreement will constitute a waiver of any other or subsequent Event of Default or breach.
No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party will give the other Party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.
F. The duties and obligations imposed under this Agreement and the rights and remedies available hereunder will be in addition to and not a limitation of any duties, obligations, rights and remedies otherwise imposed or available by law. In addition to any other remedies available to CITY at law or under this Agreement in the event of any breach of this Agreement, CITY, in its sole and absolute discretion, may also pursue any one or more of the following remedies:
i. Upon written notice to CONSULTANT, the CITY may immediately terminate this Agreement in whole or in part;
ii. Upon written notice to CONSULTANT, the CITY may extend the time of performance;
iii. The CITY may proceed by appropriate court action to enforce the terms of the Agreement to recover damages for CONSULTANT's breach of the Agreement or to terminate the Agreement; or
Contract No. 22PW01006
13 iv. The CITY may exercise any other available and lawful right or remedy.
The prevailing party in any litigation under or pursuant to this Agreement shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees incurred.
G. Except as provided in Section 6.1 below, i n the event CITY is in breach of this Agreement, CONSULTANT's sole remedy will be the suspension or termination of this Agreement and/or the recovery of any unpaid sums lawfully owed to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for completed services and tasks.
5.3 SCOPE OF WAIVER : No waiver of any default or breach under this Agreement will constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant, warranty, agreement, term, condition, duty or requirement contained in this Agreement. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party will give the other Party any contractual rights by cust om, estoppel, or otherwise.
5.4 SURVIVING ARTICLES, SECTIONS AND PROVISIONS : The termination of this Agreement pursuant to any provision of this Article or by normal expiration of its term or any extension thereto will not operate to terminate any Article, Section or provision contained herein which provides that it will survive the termination or normal expiration of this Agreement.
VI.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
6.1 DOCUMENTS & DATA; LICENSING OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY : All Documents and Data will be and remain the property of CITY . For purposes of this Agreement, the term "Documents and Data" means and includes all reports, analyses, correspondence, plans, designs, notes, summaries, strategies, charts, schedules, spreadsheets, calculations, l ists, data compilations, documents or other materials developed and/or assembled by or on behalf of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement and fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to Documents and Data stored digit ally, magnetically and/or electronically. This Agreement creates, at no cost to CITY, a perpetual license for CITY to copy, use, reuse, disseminate and/or retain any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual property embodied in all Documents and Data. CONSULTANT will require all subcontractors and subconsultants working on behalf of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement to agree in writing that CITY will be granted the same right to copy, use, reuse, disseminate and retain Documents and Data prepared or assembled by any subcontractor or subconsultant as applies to Documents and Data prepared by CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. Any use by the CITY of the Documents and Data, other than as contemplated in his Agreement, or m odification of the Documents or Data, shall be at the sole risk of CITY, and CITY shall indemnify, defend and hold CONSULTANT harmless from all liabilities, loss, damage, expense, costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees and expert witness fees, from litigation arising from such use or modification.
Contract No. 22PW01006
14 6.2 CONFIDENTIALITY: Subject to the California Public Record Act or any other public record statue or regulation, or as required by law, a ll data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by CONSULTANT or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and will not be disclosed by CONSULTANT without prior written consent by CITY. CITY will grant such consent of disclosure as legally required. Upon request, all CITY data will be returned to CITY upon the termination or expiration of this Agreement.
CONSULTANT will not use CITY's name or insignia, photographs, or any publicity pertaining to the Work in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of CITY.
6.3 FALSE CLAIMS ACT : CONSULTANT warrants and represents that neither CONSULTANT nor any person who is an officer of, in a managing position with, or has an ownership interest in CONSULTANT has been determined by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to have violated the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C., Section 3789 et seq. and the California False Claims Act, Government Code Section 12650 et seq.
6.4 NOTICES: All notices permitted or required under this Agreement will be given to the respective Parties at the following addresses, or at such other address as the respective Parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
CONSULTANT: CITY:
Raftelis
445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1925
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Attn: Steve Gagnon, PE
Phone: 213-262-9308
City of El Monte
Department of Public Works
11333 Valley Boulevard
El Monte, CA 91731
Attn: Sal Mendez, Public Works &
Utilities Director
Phone: (626) 580-2058
Such notices will be deemed effective when personally delivered or successfully transmitted by facsimile as evidenced by a fax confirmation slip or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit with the United States Postal Service, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the Party at its applicable address.
6.5 COOPERATION; FURTHER ACTS : The Parties will fully cooperate with one another and will take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as are reasonably necessary, appropriate or convenient to achieve the purposes of this Agreement.
6.6 SUBCONTRACTING: CONSULTANT will not subcontract any portion of the Work required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without the prior written approval of CITY. Subcontracts (including without limitation subcontracts with subconsultants), if any, will contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement, including provisions relating to insurance requirements and indemnification.
Contract No. 22PW01006
15 6.7 CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS: CITY reserves the right to employ other contractors in connection with the various projects worked upon by CONSULTANT.
6.8 PROHIBITED INTERESTS: CONSULTANT warrants, represents and maintains that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, CONSULTANT warrants and represents that it has not paid, nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, CITY will have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of CITY, during the term of his or her service with CITY, will have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
6.9 TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.
6.10 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE : This Agreement will be interpreted and governed according to the laws of the State of California. In the event of litigation between the Parties, venue, without exception, will be in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California. If, and only if, applicable law requires that all or part of any such litigation be tried exclusively in federal court, venue, without exception, will be in the Central District of California located in the City of Los Angeles, California.
6.11 ATTORNEYS' FEES: If either Party commences an action against the other Party, legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such litigation will be entitled to have and recover from the losing Party reasonable attorneys' fees and all other costs of such action.
6.12 SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: This Agreement will be binding on the successors and assigns of the
Parties.
6.13 NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFIT: There are no intended third- party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. All rights and benefits under this Agreement inure exclusively to the Parties.
6.14 CONSTRUCTION OF AGREEMENT : This Agreement will not be construed in favor of, or against, either Party but will be construed as if the Parties prepared this Agreement together through a process of negotiation and with the advice of their respective attorneys.
6.15 SEVERABILITY: If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining Contract No. 22PW01006
16 provisions will continue in full force and effect.
6.16 AMENDMENT: MODIFICATION: No amendment, modification or supplement of this Agreement will be valid or binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties, subject to CITY approval. The requirement for written amendments, modifications or supplements cannot be waived and any attempted waiver will be void and invalid.
6.17 CAPTIONS: The captions of the various articles, sections and paragraphs are for convenience and ease of reference only, and do not define, limit, augmen t, or describe the scope, content, or intent of this Agreement.
6.18 INCONSISTENCIES OR CONFLICTS: In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and any of the exhibits attached hereto, the provisions of this Agreement will control.
6.19 ENTIRE AGREEMENT : This Agreement, including all attached exhibits, constitutes the entire, complete, final and exclusive expression of the Parties with respect to the matters addressed herein and supersedes all other agreements or understandings, whether oral or written, which may have been entered into between CITY and CONSULTANT prior to the execution of this Agreement. Any statements, representations, or other agreements, whether oral or written, made by either Party that is not embodied herein will not be valid or binding on the Parties. No amendment, modification or supplement to this Agreement will be valid and binding unless in writing and duly executed by the Parties pursuant to Section
6.16, above.
6.20 COUNTERPARTS: This A greement will be executed in three (3) original counterparts each of which will be of equal force and effect. No handwritten or typewritten amendment, modification or supplement to any one counterpart will be valid or binding unless made to all three count erparts in conformity with Section
6.16, above. One fully executed original counterpart will be delivered to CONSULTANT and the remaining two original counterparts will be retained by CITY.
(SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE)
Contract No. 22PW01006
17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first appearing in this Agreement, above.
CITY OF EL MONTE
By:
Alma K. Martinez,
City Manager
Date:
RAFTELIS
By:
Name:
Title:
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Richard Padilla,
Assistant City Attorney
Date:
Contract No. 22PW01006
18 EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Contract No. 22PW01006
19 EXHIBIT “B”
APPROVED COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
14.2 14.3
14.4 ATTACHMENT 1
PROPOSALS RECEIVED
Proposal to
City of El MonteCity Manager’s OfficeRequest for Qualifications (RFQ)Guaranteed Income Pilot Non-Profit Program Administrator By
Geocko, Inc. (dba LiveStories)and
Financial Beginnings California
February 24, 2022
Page1PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Table of Contents
COVER LETTER 3
501(c)(3) DESIGNATION LETTER 4
PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM 6Project Leadership 6FORWARD Support Center 7Community Partners 8 NARRATIVE 9About LiveStories 9Project Case Studies 11Case Study 1: City of Spokane 11Case Study 2: Skagit County 12Case Study 3: Washington State Department of Agriculture 13Program Implementation and Administration 15Data Collection and Reporting 15 BUDGET 17
ATTACHMENTS 18Attachment A. False Claims Act Certification 18Attachment B. History Of Debarment Certification 19Attachment C. Civil Litigation History 20Attachment D. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement 21 PROPOSAL EXHIBITS 24Exhibit 1. Leadership Team Biographies 24Exhibit 2. Program Differentiators and Experience 27Exhibit 3. Program Administration and Operational Capabilities 30Summary 30Program Design and Implementation 30FORWARD Application Platform 32Customer Service Support Center 32Community Partnerships and Outreach 33Application Processing and Eligibility Verification (Initial and Recertification) 33Payment Processing and Funds Disbursement 34Reporting Capabilities 35Financial Management and Compliance 36Equity in All Program Phases 36 Page2PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
COVER LETTER
February 24, 2022
Alma Martinez, City ManagerCity of El Monte11333 Valley BoulevardEl Monte, CA 91731Email: [email protected] RE: RFQ for Guaranteed Income Pilot Non-Profit Program Administrator; February 2022 Dear Ms. Martinez,
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this RFQ for the City of El Monte’s Guaranteed Income(GI) Pilot Non-Profit Program Administrator.Geocko, Inc. dba LiveStoriesis pleased to provideour qualifications for the GI pilot. LiveStories wasestablished in 2015. Since then, we have worked with more than 350 local, state, and federalgovernments and agencies to become a trusted steward of assistance programs across the UnitedStates. Our FORWARD solution continues to help our customers streamline community development,communication, and compliance to maximize recovery efforts. We are administering and distributingmore than $73 million in household and business assistance funds in nine jurisdictions.We are extremely interested in partnering with the City for this program and believe our significantexperience makes us well-equipped to understand and fulfill the City’s needs for fund administrationand disbursement services. In addition, we have the resources – including operations, platform,staffing, community partnerships, and capacity – in place to successfully administer the City’s pilot.Should we be selected, we will partner withFinancialBeginnings California, which is a 501(c)(3)non-profit organization (see following page for their IRS designation letter).The primary point of contact for this proposal is:Name: Raven McShane, Director, Strategic GrowthAddress: PO Box 12242, Seattle WA 98102Phone: (206) 892-8298Email: [email protected] Please don’t hesitate to let us know if you have any questions about our proposal or would like tolearn more about our solution. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Adnan MahmudCEO, LiveStories
Page3PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
501(c)(3) DESIGNATION LETTER
Page4PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Page5PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM
LiveStories employs a team of qualified organization leaders, domain experts, and support staff withextensive experience, depth of expertise, and demonstrated capacity to support administration,operations, and customer services for the City of El Monte’s Guaranteed Income (GI) pilot.
Project LeadershipThe following table outlines key leadership team members for both LiveStories and our communitypartners and their responsibilities within the City’s program. This team will work closely with the Cityand community partners throughout the life of the program to design, implement, and administer theGI pilot. Biographies for this team have been provided as Exhibit 1.
Name / Title Responsibilities Location
LiveStories
Adnan Mahmud, CEO
Principal-in-Charge: Executive oversight for the City’sproject and programs Seattle,Washington
Tim Morones, Vice President,Operations
Program Manager: Oversight of project and programimplementation Seattle,Washington
Scott Hoiland, SeniorOperations Manager
Program operations, including application intake, casemanagement, and reporting Seattle,Washington
Amira Crawford, Director,Client Services
Customer service, including client support and programadministration and research Baltimore,Maryland
Page6PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Raven McShane, Director,Strategic Growth
Oversight of marketing, outreach, and communitypartner engagement and management Seattle,Washington
Rose Wallace, GrowthManager
Community partner identification and engagement
Los Angeles,California
Community Partners
Financial BeginningsCalifornia: Joanne Danganan,Program Manager Development of financial literacy course for participants Los Angeles,California
tk/Communications: YusefRobb, Chief Strategist,
Lead storytelling component and media training ofparticipants as needed Los Angeles,California
FORWARD Support CenterThe FORWARD support center team employsmore than30 trained, knowledgeable assistanceprogram specialists, including customer service, intake specialists, case managers, and team leads,all of whom provide hands-on application, portal, and technical support to program applicants. Uponreceipt of an application, our support center team will initiate intake and case management activities toensure that applications are complete, eligibility is verified, and payments are processed. Our intakespecialists and case managers will review applications against eligibility criteria and documentationrequirements and follow up with applicants on any missing information or documentation.These team members are carefully screened and selected for their exceptional customer service andcommunication skills, organization, and attention to detail, as well as their passion for helping theircommunities; many of them are also fluent in two or more languages. We are always seeking newtalent, especially those local to the communities we serve as well as those with specializedexperience, expertise, and skill sets that are helpful to our customers and program applicants.During implementation and as needed throughout the program, this team receives comprehensivetraining on our operations and security policies and procedures (including Personal IdentificationInformation [PII] Confidentiality and Security requirements). LiveStories will also document andpresent a City-specific program manual that will be used to train the support center team andcommunity partners on the program, including eligibility and documentation requirements, to ensurethey are well-equipped to assist applicants with program inquiries, program eligibility, and applicationpreparation; they will also assist applicants with identifying any federal or state assistance programsavailable to them, including other City services, using our platform’s resource catalog.Our applicant-facing team members are trained to navigate applicant interactions with care,compassion, sensitivity, and professionalism. After all, these programs are for people who may beunder high levels of stress and anxiety and are facing distressing and potentially traumatic situationssuch as housing instability and homelessness. They are looking for the solutions that LiveStories hasbeen tasked with administering and may be unhappy about their circumstances and find theapplication process burdensome. We have found that being respectful, empathetic, and reassuringtoward an applicant’s situation has been key to diffusing any tension and refocusing the interaction ongetting the assistance they need.
Page7PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Community PartnersWe understand the importance of creating awareness of the pilot and encouraging eligible residentsacross the City to apply and be engaged. A key aspect of this is identifying and setting up partnershipswith community-based organizations (CBOs), nonprofits, and for-profit agencies with local presence.By engaging and partnering with these community partners, we can ensure that the City’s programamplifies its reach and capacity throughout the community, as well as provides culturally andlinguistically sensitive service to applicants.
We have a commitment fromFinancial Beginnings Californiato leadfinancial literacy courses and conduct financial literacy assessments forpilot participants.Financial Beginnings is a 501(c)(3) national nonprofit that providesno-cost financial education programming through its volunteer network of professionals. Theireducational programs incorporate all aspects of personal finance to give individuals the foundationthey need to make informed financial decisions. They already have a financial literacy LearningManagement System that is open to the public on their website. For this program, they would createa closed course specifically for the City’s pilot to track participant progress.Financial Beginnings has a close partnership with East West Bank, which has an El Monte branch, ifthe City would like to engage them for the pilot’s banking and debit card needs.
Contact: Joanne Danganan, Program ManagerPhone: 310.936.3948Email: joanne.danganan@finbegca.org Headquarters: 6443 SW Beaverton HillsdaleHwy Suite 430, Portland, OR 97221Website: www.financialbeginnings.org/ We have a commitment fromtk/Communicationsto leadstorytellingcomponents and media train pilot participants as needed.tk/Communication’s Chief Strategist, Yusef Robb, leads and delivershigh-impact strategic communications and crisis counseling forgovernments, elected officials, publicly traded companies, educational institutions, global advocacyorganizations, and high-profile individuals.Yusef has been on the frontlines of the pandemic as a key adviser to mayors, government agencies,and civic organizations responding to the crisis. He led the communications strategy for theAngeleno Card Campaign launched by the Los Angeles Mayor’s Fund; this program provided nearly$37 million in direct cash assistance to Angelenos most impacted by the pandemic.
Contact: Yusef Robb, Chief StrategistPhone: Available upon requestEmail: [email protected] Address: Los Angeles, CAWebsite: www.tkcommunicationsllc.com/ We also are in the early stages of discussions with local financial advisory firms, such as OperationHOPE, to provide financial counseling services to pilot participants.
Page8PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
NARRATIVEAbout LiveStoriesEstablished in 2015, Geocko, Inc., dba LiveStories, is a venture-funded, private company thatprovides data tools to help governments, agencies, and other organizations collect, explore, andpresent program and impact data. These data tools enable our customers to connect government andother programs to households and businesses. LiveStories works with more than 350 local, state, andfederal government agencies and has become a trusted steward of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA),Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Community Development Block Grant(CDBG), and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funding (CSLFRF), and other funding forprograms around the United States.In 2020, we launchedour unified assistance solution, FORWARD, in response to the COVID-19pandemic as a tool for economic recovery. Since then, FORWARD has helped and continues to helpour customers streamline community development, communication, and compliance to maximize theirrecovery efforts. With the use of FORWARD, we administer economic and community developmentprograms for households and businesses, including, but not limited to the following programs:
Types of Programs Supported by FORWARD
Households Businesses
Rental and Utility AssistanceAffordable Housing DevelopmentDown Payment AssistanceHousing RehabilitationMeal Delivery Services Business Assistance GrantsDisaster RecoveryEconomic Development LoansMicroenterprise GrantsPublic Facilities and Infrastructure Our FORWARD solution was designed to provide end-to-end and modular support of grant andassistance programs such as the GI pilot being provided by the City. We have the resources, includingfinances, staffing, platform, operations, and capacity, in place to successfully administer the City’sprogram from Day 1. We have done and are continuing to do this across our customer base, and arecurrently managing nine assistance programs. In theState of Washington alone, we have distributednearly $52 million in assistance programs – equating to $2 million in payment processing per weekto households and businesses across the state. FORWARD has also been contracted to distribute$42 million to Missouri households and $19.5 million to California businesses.We have been able to achieve this level of success because our platform, operations, and resourceswere designed to scale. Program processes—including program information, application completion,eligibility review, approvals or denials, communications, and funds disbursement—are built into oursolution and automated where possible, which allows us to implement, launch, and support multipleprograms at any given time and within weeks.Because of our significant experience in working with federal programs, we are well-equipped toadminister these types of programs effectively and will ensure that the GI pilot adheres to all rules,regulations, and guidance.
Page9PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Project Case StudiesThe following are detailed case studies for three assistance programs being administered byLiveStories. We have also provided a comprehensive list of our other assistance projects in Exhibit 2.
Case Study 1: City of Spokane
Client Name / LocationCity of Spokane, Washington
Date of Completion2020 to Ongoing
Program ManagerTim Morones
Key Staff MembersAdnan Mahmud, Scott Hoiland, FORWARDSupport Center Project Timeline and BudgetBusiness Grants: Six weeks, $2.4 millionRental Assistance: Ongoing / $22.4 million Final Project Duration and CostBusiness Grants: Six weeks, $2.4 millionRental Assistance: Ongoing Brief Description of Process and ResultsIn 2020, the City of Spokane deployed FORWARD to distribute more than $2.4 million in CARES Actfunds to small businesses and nonprofits in less than six weeks. FORWARD conducted outreach to thecommunity, collected applications, reviewed applications based on the City’s eligibility criteria, anddistributed funds. We also worked with local business support organizations to run webinars andtraining events so that they can aid the business owners. FORWARD also provided weekly updates anda final program report to City leadership. We received 300 applications, of which 148 were approved.Half of the awardees were minority-, women-, and LGBTQ-owned businesses. The average awardamount was $16,000.The City expanded their contract to use our FORWARD platform to distribute $22.4 million in emergencyrental assistance through the Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA1 and ERA2) and Treasury RentAssistance Program (T-RAP1 and T-RAP2). To date, these programs have provided funds to more than1,500 tenants and landlords across the City. The City was also the first in the state that has successfullydistributed 100% of itsERA1 funds. In addition,equitable access toassistance is a crucialaspect of our FORWARDsolution and has beenintegrated into everyphase of the programswe administer, with thegoal of reducing anyperceived or actualbarriers to assistancedue to lack of awareness,limited access totechnology, languagessupported, and others.For Spokane’s rentalassistance program, weexceeded our equity Page10PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
delivery goals and effectively engaged populations of need within the community, as evidenced by thefollowing metrics for the ERA1 and T-RAP1 programs.● 36.2% of the City’s ERA1 and T-RAP1 funds were disbursed to BIPOC applicants (including12.1% and 8.3% to Black/African American- and Hispanic- identifying applicants, respectively;both groups have historically been disproportionately impacted by housing insecurity).● Nearly 8.6% of the recipients were youth (ages 18 to 24) heads of households.● 61% of recipients were below poverty level: The median income for recipients was $14,440,which is substantially less than the median income of $58,293 across all Spokane residents.FORWARD was the end-to-end solution for both business and household assistance programs; it wasleveraged for conducting outreach to the community, collecting applications, reviewing the applications,distributing the funds, and all required reporting.
Case Study 2: Skagit County
Client Name / LocationSkagit County, Washington
Date of Completion2021 to Ongoing
Program ManagerTim Morones
Key Staff MembersAdnan Mahmud, Scott Hoiland, FORWARDSupport Center Project Timeline and BudgetOne year / $13 million
Final Project Duration and CostOngoing
Brief Description of Process and ResultsThe County is using FORWARD to distribute more than $13 million in emergency rental assistance, withthe intent of serving extremely low-income residents. This program and funds are to prevent eviction forhouseholds who have been financially impacted by the COVID pandemic. Households and landlords canuse the funds to cover past due, current, and future rent and utility bills. Applicants can reapply for up toa maximum 18 months of assistance; in many cases, we are disbursing funds several times until theirmaximum is reached.
Page11PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
As seen in the following image, the County’s rental assistance program is expected to run untilmid-2023. It has provided funds to 1,500 households and growing, with the average payment disbursedbeing $6,200 per household, which is equivalent to four months of rental assistance. The program hasprovided more than 6,000 months of rental assistance to County households.
FORWARD is providing the end-to-end solution for community outreach, collecting applications,reviewing the applications, and distributing rental assistance funds. The program design also includesthe use of digital and paper applications to support equity.
Case Study 3: Washington State Department of Agriculture Client Name / LocationWashington State Department of Agriculture Date of Completion2021
Program ManagerTim Morones
Key Staff MembersAdnan Mahmud, Scott Hoiland, FORWARDSupport Center Project Timeline and Budget11 weeks, $14 million
Final Project Duration and Cost11 weeks, $14 million
Brief Description of Process and ResultsIn 2021, the Washington State Department of Agriculture contracted FORWARD to distribute $14million to nearly 1,000 applications to businesses in four sectors that have been economically hurt due tomarketplace disruptions created by the necessary public health measures during the COVID-19pandemic: wineries/breweries, shellfish farmers, farmers markets, and agritourism. At the end of the11-week project term, we had approved 839 applications for funds, with the average award amountbeing $17,000. A third of these awardees were minority-, women-, and LGBTQ-owned.
Page12PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Funds were used for a variety of relief and recovery reasons, including reduced income, increased costs,staff retention, operating expenses (rent, lease, mortgages, and supplies), pandemic compliancemeasures, and others.We supported WSDA’s program with the following services: Administration, application collection andprocessing, payment processing, funds disbursement, and reporting. We also identified and worked withcommunity partners in each of the sectors for program awareness and outreach.
Page13PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Program Implementation and AdministrationLiveStories is proposing its unified FORWARD solution for end-to-end support of the City’s GI pilot.Our solution combines our team’s knowledge, experience, and relationships with the technicalefficiencies offered through the FORWARD platform. FORWARD forms the foundation of our programadministration and operational capabilities and will provide the following services:● Program design and implementation● FORWARD application platform● Customer service support center● Community partnerships and outreach (including financial literacy courses and“storytelling”/media training for pilot participants)● Application processing and eligibility verification (initial and recertification)● Payment processing and funds disbursement● Program reportingProgram design is the foundation of all of the assistance programsadministered by LiveStories. We understand that there is no “one sizefits all” approach for assistance programs; every program has its ownset of program-unique requirements, such as goals, target audience,eligibility criteria, and workflows. During program design, we will workwith the City to review the program goals and requirements,application information and eligibility criteria, activities specific toparticipant and control groups, community partnerships, marketingand communication strategies (including outreach and recruitment),division of responsibilities, and any other components. All of thisinformation will be documented, operationalized, and implementedthrough the FORWARD solution and platform, including the build of aCity/pilot-specific landing page, digital and paper application forms,and processing workflows.Program management, communication, and reporting are integral to ensuring that the City’s pilot isimplemented successfully and running smoothly. We recommend setting up a weekly project meetingwith the City to discuss program design, including any expectations around outcomes, and reviewimplementation progress. After go-live, we would recommend a weekly meeting for the first month,then move to a semi-monthly (twice a month) meeting cadence once the program is underway. Thesemeetings will review program progress, fiscal review of funds disbursement and monies remaining,outreach and applicant metrics and trends, and insights and recommendations.Detailed descriptions of LiveStories’ administration and operational capabilities, including a high-levelproposed timeline for the implementation and administration ofthe City’sGI pilot, have been providedas Exhibit 3. We will work closely with the City to ensure the timeline meets program goals.
Data Collection and ReportingAs part of program management, we will provide weekly and monthly service reports to the City. TheFORWARD platform has built-in recordkeeping that allows us to maintain detailed and completerecords of outreach efforts, applicant intake, applicant documents and forms, applicant assistanceefforts, support mechanisms, and application statuses. In addition, the platform provides reports withup-to-date data on application processes, including the number of emails sent, email open rate, Page14PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
number of applications submitted, application acceptance rate, and more. These metrics are availableto the City in real time, enabling us to monitor trends and react accordingly. At the end of the contractterm, we will present a Final Report detailing the program’s metrics and accomplishments over theterm, including year-to-year comparisons. Our marketing partner will also work with the City and theselected program evaluator on the outcomes report.LiveStories can also leverage its equity mapping tool in the identification of City neighborhoods andareas at high risk of housing instability and homelessness. In 2021, LiveStories used the UrbanInstitute’s Rental Assistance Priority Index to analyze emergency rental assistance funds distributionfor the City of Spokane. The following figure overlays applicant funding disbursed through the City’srental assistance programs on census tracts within City limit. The distribution of funds coincides withcensus tracts estimated to have the greatest need as indicated by darker shading. We believe that alarge part of this is due to the marketing and outreach efforts undertaken by both us and our partners.We anticipate using this Rental Assistance Priority Index with the City’s pilot to help direct outreachefforts toward high-risk tracts, allowing us to reach households in areas of highest housing insecurity.
Data collection and reporting are supported through our FORWARD platform, which allows us tostreamline and automate administration, operations, and reporting functions of the City’s program.FORWARD is a cloud-based platform running on secure Amazon Web Services infrastructure andcombines a modern technology stack with a team of experts to deliver assistance programs quickly,correctly, and cost-effectively. All applicant details and documents are stored in a secure profile thatcan only be accessed by the applicant and program admin/support staff. Data is treated with top-levelsecurity and is not shared/sold to other third-party entities. The platform delivers 99.999% uptime –an industry best practice in terms of system reliability. It can handle more than 10,000 concurrentsessions and be scaled to handle increased traffic volume. In addition, the platform can be branded tomatch the City’s style and colors, as well as configured to integrate with other City data systems, suchas the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS).
Page15PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
BUDGETLiveStories is proposingan administration fee of5.5%of the funds allocated for theCity of ElMonte’s GI pilot. Thefollowingis an estimated breakdownof services and costsfortheimplementation, administration, and management of the pilot; it assumes that the pilot is allocated$1.5 million in funds.
Estimated Costs for the City of El Monte’s Guaranteed Income Pilot Program Administration $3,750
Program design, implementation, and administrationCustomer/account management supportAccounting, audit, and financial reportingArchiving and compliance FORWARD Platform $7,500Platform hosting and maintenanceBuild City/pilot-specific portal, including program information, eligibility criteria, andapplication submissionCollect, process, and retain applications and documentation Marketing & Outreach $11,250Community partner engagement (including language assistance)Outreach/recruitment materials and campaigns for participants and control groupFinancial literacy courses and “storytelling”/media training for participants Application Intake & Case Management $11,250Customer service support centerCollection of digital and paper applicationsInitial application processing and eligibility verificationParticipant recertification Payment Services & Reporting $48,750Payment processing and banking feesTax reporting (1099s)Public-facing reporting dashboard Estimated Funds Allocated for Pilot $1,500,000LiveStories’ Proposed Administration Costs $82,500Estimated Amount for GI and Incentive Payments $1,417,500 Page16PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A. False Claims Act Certification
Page17PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Attachment B. History Of Debarment Certification
Page18PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Attachment C. Civil Litigation History
Page19PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Attachment D. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement
Page20PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Page21PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Page22PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
PROPOSAL EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1. Leadership Team Biographies
Adnan Mahmud, LiveStories’ CEO, will provide executiveoversight forLiveStories’ administration of the City’s program.As founder and CEO of LiveStories, Adnan is passionate about using data andtechnology to tackle the world’s biggest challenges. Through LiveStories, he hasworked with more than 200 customers around the world and has been featuredas a Gov100 company every year since 2016.Prior to founding LiveStories, Adnan worked for eight years at Microsoft, where hemanaged the company’s largest data pipelines and received multiple patents indata analysis, visualization, and management. In addition, Adnan is co-founder ofJolkona, a nonprofit that provides mentorship and training for socialentrepreneurs.Adnan earned his master’s degree in Computer Science from the University ofSouthern California.
As the Project Director, Tim Morones, Vice Presidentof Operations, will provideoversight and account management for the City’s program. In this role, he wouldbe responsible for:● Oversight of the entire project ensuring a high quality of service● Providing transparency to the City through weekly project updates● Ensure an equitable application intake and review process● Accurate and secure payment processing and reporting processesAs Vice President of Operations, Tim oversees all FORWARD implementations,including design, management, and funds disbursement. Tim has more than 25years of experience in leadership and growth, customer operations, and financialmanagement for high-tech, high-growth companies. During this time he has alsomaintained an active community presence, serving on the board for both nonprofitand for-profit organizations. In 2012, he was elected Chairman of the AuditCommittee for ITEX Corporation (OCQB: ITEX).Tim holds a bachelor's degree in Finance from the California State University ofSacramento.
LiveStories’ Senior Operations Manager, Scott Hoiland, has more than 10 yearsof experience in program and customer operations, with a focus on workflowmanagement and analytical analysis.He has worked with technology companies to provide turnkey solutions toadvertisers through enhanced software platforms that were built from the groundup. Scott is a problem solver who enjoys learning how software works andworking with engineering teams to design user-friendly platforms.Scott graduated from the University of Washington with a degree in Economics.
Page23PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
LiveStories’ Director of Client Services, Amira Crawford, has 16 years of clientand technology management, strategic planning, and white-glove service forclients.Her areas of responsibility include client support, customer service, and programadministration and research. She and her Client Services team are the main pointsof contact between clients and LiveStories; in this role, they nurture clientrelationships as well as champion for clients’ interests and goals throughout allphases of their programs.Amira holds a masters degree in educational administration.
AsDirector of Strategic Growth, Raven McShaneleadsthe LiveStories effortsaround outreach, marketing, and partner engagement. She will be the point ofcontact during the proposal process, as well as involved throughout the programlifecycle to oversee partner relationships.Raven is an experienced operations director with a proven track record deliveringresults in a constantly changing landscape. Skilled at creating marketing plansand conducting community outreach, she helps LiveStories develop relationshipswith Community Based Organizations on the ground in communities across thecountry. With 15 years as a political fundraiser and campaign manager in dozensof communities under her belt, she has a unique and valuable perspective onbuilding relationships within communities.Raven is a Evergreen State College graduate and holds a degree in history andpolitical science.
AsGrowth Manager, Rose Wallacewill work closelywith the Director ofStrategic Growth and customers to identify and maintain relationships withcommunity partners for the City’s program.Before joining LiveStories, Rose spent six years as a fundraiser and public affairsconsultant working with clients and campaigns throughout California. She isadept at stakeholder relationship building, project management, and coalitionbuilding. She has led fundraising strategies for Congressional, Senate andPresidential campaigns and developed political and philanthropic givingstrategies for high net worth clients to maximize impact on issues affectingunderserved communities in California.Rose is a graduate of Brandeis University with a degree in political science andeconomics.
Page24PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
AsProgram Manager for Financial Beginnings California, Joanne Dangananequips financial educators and financial literacy advocates with the tools andtraining necessary to provide financial education to those in their communitieswho need it most. She leads the organization’s efforts in California and trainsvolunteers to teach courses from Financial Beginnings’ extensive course catalog.Joanne has more than decade of experience working in nonprofits in SouthernCalifornia, including as a Program Manager for Youth Empowerment Initiatives inLos Angeles in Orange Counties.She is a graduate of UCLA with a degree in sociology.
AsPrincipal of tk/Communications, Yusef Robbdelivershigh-stakes,high-impact strategic communications and crisis counsel to publicly tradedcompanies, investment funds, global advocacy organizations, educationalinstitutions, governments, elected officials and high-profile individuals.Robb has been on the frontlines of the pandemic in Los Angeles, helping theMayor, LADOT, the Mayor's Fund for Los Angeles and the Los AngelesCommunity College District respond to the crisis. He also counseled private sectorclients in LA, across the US and in Europe during the pandemic as they enteredinsolvency, pivoted their operations and urged government action.A COVID-19 financial assistance model he helped build was adopted by 11 citiesand two states. His COVID-crisis work includes going on the air with network TVand NPR affiliates and being quoted by theLA Timesand the Associated Press.During his career, he has played key roles in two first-of-kind Presidential forums,led a bid for the presidency that Politico called “a well-choreographed play,” andled a national NAACP campaign. He has been a key adviser to California’sGovernor and Controller, two Los Angeles Mayors, and multiple candidates andcampaigns across the country.Robb has appeared on/in the CBS Evening News, New York Times, Wall StreetJournal, BBC, NPR, and has worked with media across the United States, on theground in Asia, Europe, and South America, and in 60+ countries.He holds a BA in Journalism and an MA in Politics from New York University.
Page25PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Exhibit 2. Program Differentiators and ExperienceThe key driver behind FORWARD is bringing tangible solutions to governments and agencies taskedwith implementing and administering assistance programs for the communities they serve. Oursuccess in this is evidenced by the growth of new business and the expansion of existing contractsover the past two years.We believe that the following strengths will be of great benefit to the City in the administration of itspilot.● Managing large-scale coronavirus-related assistance programs. We have experience indeploying and managing multi-million dollar assistance programs for households andbusinesses in similar-sized communities in California and other states, and understand how tobalance state and federal requirements and ease of application for the target populations. Ouroffering includes full administration and management of assistance programs, includingconnecting applicants to resources, collaborating with community partners to design programs,developing applications, collecting and reviewing applications, distributing funds, providingapplication and technical assistance, providing ongoing reports to leadership, and following alldocument retention requirements.● Administering assistance programs like ARPA, CARES, CDBG, and CSLFRF. Our integratedapproach uses a modern technology stack and a team of experts to provide end-to-endprogram administration support, streamline and automate manual processes where possible,and reduce program costs. Our extensive capacity incorporates the training and coaching ofinternal and external personnel on the effective grant management, including fiscal andprogrammatic reporting requirements, scope of services, terms, coordination and participationin external funder audits, preparation of review materials and outcome/benchmark reports, andother related activities.● Providing trauma-informed, compassionate support to people in need. Financial and/orhousing instability are traumatic events for those who may find themselves suddenlystruggling through no fault of their own. People in need of programs like the GI pilot beingoffered through the City may be under high levels of stress and anxiety, which is why we arecompassionate, empathetic, and sensitive at both the organizational and customer servicelevels. We work with our customers to design assistance programs that mitigate barriers andburdens to assistance. In addition, our support team is trained to navigate applicantinteractions with respect and empathy toward an applicant’s situation, which has been key todiffusing any tension and refocusing the interaction on getting the assistance they need.● Targeted program outreach through community partnerships. We identify and work withCBO, nonprofit, and for-profit partners to develop program-specific communications andoutreach plans to enhance awareness of the program, especially in historically disadvantagedand marginalized communities. Our partnerships with these local, regional, and statewideorganizations will allow us to amplify the reach and capacity of the City’s program, connectwith a greater number of households, and provide culturally and linguistically sensitive serviceto applicants.● Decreasing barriers to access for diverse ethnic backgrounds. Our culturally and linguisticallysensitive and relevant outreach, as well as simple and intuitive processes paired withcustomized technical assistance, ensures that target communities can effectively navigate theGI pilot and any other resources and programs the City may make available.
Page26PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
● Monitoring and learning in real time about the needs and impact on the ground. The Citywill receive robust reporting on program performance and operations. This allows us tomonitor trends, such as community engagement or distribution of funds within the community,and any issues encountered. These findings, insights, and any recommendations will be sharedwith City leadership during project updates.
In the Narrative section of this proposal, we had provided detailed case studies on the assistanceprograms we administer for the City of Spokane, Skagit County, and the Washington StateDepartment of Agriculture. The following is a sample of our other household and business assistanceprograms, all of which incorporate program administration, case management, call center operations,funds disbursement, fraud controls, and the FORWARD application portal.● City of Long Beach (California): In 2022 FORWARD wasdeployed to administer the City’ssmall business grants program. This includes the distribution of $11.5 million in ARPA fundstargeting specific industries, including Personal Services and Fitness Relief; Restaurant,Brewery and Bar Relief; Non Profit Relief; and General Business Relief Grants.● City of Milpitas (California): In 2022 we deployedFORWARD to administer the Milpitas SmallBusiness Assistance Grant Program to support local businesses and microenterprises thathave been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The grant program will provide$5,000 grants and free technical assistance to more than 280 Milpitas small businesses.Grants may be used for business rent/mortgage, payroll, and operating expenses for productsor services.● Washington State Department of Commerce (WSDC): In2021, the WSDC began utilizingthe FORWARD platform’s data reporting functionality to collect Emergency Rental Assistanceprogram data from across the State of Washington’s 37 counties. Their goal is twofold: 1) buildreports that comply with the U.S. Department of Treasury’s requirements; and 2) create customreports to capture and illustrate the scale, operations, and outcomes of rental assistanceprograms at both the county and state levels.● State of Washington Department of Agriculture: In2021, the Department deployedFORWARD to process approximately 1,000 business grants, totaling $14 million, in less thannine weeks. The grant was available to four sectors – shellfish farmers, craft beverage, farmermarkets, and agritourism business – and each sector had a different application and eligibilitycriteria. We were responsible for creating, collecting, and reviewing applications as well asprocessing payments. We worked closely with sector partners to conduct outreach, especiallytargeting business owners, such as shellfish farmers, who otherwise are hard to reach.● City of Decatur (Illinois): In 2020, we deployed FORWARDto manage multiple grantprograms, totalling $70,000, targeting the City’s businesses. We collaborated with a localcommunity partner to create and collect applications and the related documentation. The localpartner utilized FORWARD to review and approve applications. We have also worked with theCity to launch AccessDecatur, which uses our FORWARD platform to centralize informationand applications for grants, benefits, and programs available to Decatur businesses andhouseholds.● City of Moline (Illinois): In 2020, we deployed FORWARDto manage successfulmicroenterprise grant programs within their CDBG funding, which was a total of $330,000.FORWARD collected and consolidated digital and paper forms, provided technical assistanceto applicants, shared real-time metrics with the City staff, followed up with applicants for Page27PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
additional information, and enabled the staff to review the applications with simple digitaltools. In addition to the CDBG programs, City staff leveraged the FORWARD platform to alsomanage liquor license renewals, which averages $225,000 per year.
We are also in the implementation stage for rental assistance programs in Marin County (California)and the County and City of St. Louis (Missouri). Marin County sought additional case managementsupport from LiveStories to reinforce their existing resources, which we are able to support throughour support center. The County and City of St. Louis are leveraging the FORWARD solution and ourcommunity partners to expedite ERA-2 application and payment processing; this includes $24 millionfor the County and $10 million for the City.
Page28PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Exhibit 3. Program Administration and Operational CapabilitiesSummaryLiveStories is proposing its unified FORWARD solution for end-to-end support of the City’s GI pilot.Our solution combines our team’s knowledge, experience, and relationships with the technicalefficiencies offered through the FORWARD platform.FORWARD forms the foundation of our program administration and operational capabilities and willprovide the following services:● Program Design and Implementation● FORWARD Application Platform● Customer Service Support Center● Community Partnerships and Outreach● Application Processing and Eligibility Verification (Initial and Recertification)● Payment Processing and Funds Disbursement● Reporting Capabilities● Financial Management and Compliance● Equity in All Program PhasesEach of these capabilities is detailed below and on the following pages.
Program Design and ImplementationProgram design is the foundation of all of the assistance programs we administer, and this will be noless true for the City’s GI pilot. We understand that there is no “one size fits all” approach forassistance programs; every program has its own set of program-unique requirements, such as goals,target audience, eligibility criteria, and workflows.During program design, we will work with the City to review the pilot’s goals and requirements,application information and eligibility criteria, activities specific to participant and control groups,community partnerships, marketing and communication strategies (including outreach andrecruitment), division of responsibilities, and any other components. All of this information will bedocumented, operationalized, and implemented through the FORWARD solution and platform,including the build of a City/pilot-specific landing page, digital and paper application forms, andprocessing workflows.The following is a high-level proposed timeline for the implementation and administration of the City’sGI pilot, based on our experience with similar assistance programs. We will work closely with the Cityto ensure the timeline meets program goals.
Stage LiveStories Activities Duration1. Kickoff ● Contract finalization and execution● Set up program kick-off meeting with the City andcommunity partners● Finalization of project timeline and scope, program design(including program eligibility/recertification criteria andcommunity/outreach/recruitment strategies) 2-4 weeks
2. MarketProgram
● Identify potential local partners to drive awareness andapplications Initial + Ongoing
Page29PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
● Collaborate with the City and partners to create an overallmarketing strategy● Create and distribute marketing materials includingbrochures, flyers, and ads in English, Spanish, Mandarin, andother languages as needed3. LaunchProgram ● FORWARD support center is operational and ready forapplication submission, eligibility verification, and payments● Can accept inquiries via phone calls, secure chat, and email● Make paper applications available (if needed)● Assist applicants in preparing application information anddocumentation June 2022(or as determinedby City)
4. CollectApplications
● Design and host applications in digital and paper formats(paper applications will be digitized upon receipt)● Collect applications from partners● Provide direct technical assistance to applicants throughFORWARD support center Ongoing
5. ReviewApplications
● Own the full application vetting process● Provide a final objective review of applications based oneligibility criteria established during program design● Follow up with applications with missing information and/ordocumentation● Refer applicants to other appropriate resources if in need ofadditional support and/or if found ineligible for program Ongoing
6. DistributeFunds
● Distribute funds to approved applicants on a monthly basisvia ACH payment, paper checks, or debit card, as determinedby participant preference● Provide financial literacy courses and “storytelling”/mediatraining to participants Ongoing
7. ParticipantRecertification
● Perform recertification on participants’ program anniversary● Recertification outreach will be initiatives 60 days prior toanniversary to mitigate any lapses in payment● Termination letters will be sent to participants who no longermeet eligibility criteria or who have been non-responsive Annually(or as determinedby City)
8. Monitor andEvaluate
● Conduct weekly project meetings with the City● Provide regular program reporting and updates to the City● Securely archive applications and related documentation● Provide tax forms to awardees starting in February 2023 Ongoing
9. Quarterlyand AnnualReporting
● Create a final report and present program data to the City● Fulfill reporting requirements for the City and otherstakeholders● Leverage FORWARD infrastructure and recommend updatesfor future City programs June 2024(or upon 100%disbursement orcommitmentof funds) Page30PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
FORWARD Application PlatformThe FORWARD platform is a key component of our proposal that allows us to automate andstreamline back-office functions in the administration, operations, and reporting of the City’s program.FORWARD simplifies the management of assistance programs: With our easy-to-use online platform,we can connect households to resources, collect applications, process payments, and drive equity –helping to increase the impact of social and economic programs without increasing costs.● 24/7 access via desktop and mobile devices● Platform is available in nearly 70 languages● Landing page with City/pilot branding, style, and colors● Centralization of program and eligibility information● User-friendly, guided digital application processes, including documentation upload● Support for paper applications and digitization● Review of applications against eligibility criteria (as established during program design)● Follow up with applicants on missing information or documentation● Facilitation of payments to applicants or landlords, as appropriate● Real-time monitoring of program metrics, trends, and insights (e.g., reports showing whichtenants have expiring assistance programs)● Maintenance of accurate recordkeeping and reporting requirementsAs part of our solution, we can work with the City to create a searchable catalog of other federal,state, and local resources available to pilot participants. Users who build a profile can opt to receiveautomated emails with program recommendations that match criteria built into their profile. Oursupport center will also use this catalog to connect participants with other assistance programs.FORWARD combines a modern technology stack with a team of experts to deliver assistanceprograms quickly, correctly, and cost-effectively. It is a cloud-based platform running on the secureAmazon Web Services infrastructure. All applicant details and documents are stored in a secureprofile that can only be accessed by the applicant and program admin/support staff. Data is treatedwith top-level security and is not shared/sold to other third-party entities. The platform delivers99.999% uptime – an industry best practice in terms of system reliability. It can handle more than10,000 concurrent sessions and be scaled to handle increased traffic volume. In addition, the platformcan be branded to match the City’s style and colors.
Customer Service Support CenterThe FORWARD support center offers live telephone and secure chat assistance between 8 AM and 5PM, Pacific Time (PT), Monday through Friday. Our team members receive comprehensive training onthe City’s program and can help applicants with program inquiries, application preparation, andtechnical support. Calls received after hours are directed to a messaging system. Applicants can alsorequest assistance via email. We respond to emails and after-hours calls within 12 business hours.Our program removes language as a potential barrier and allows us to assist and support applicants inthe language of their preference. Assistance in multiple languages is available through the FORWARDsupport center and oftentimes through our community partners; we also have access to languageassistance services for languages not available in house. In addition, the FORWARD platform andprogram applications are available in nearly 70 languages.
Page31PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Community Partnerships and OutreachWe understand the importance of creating awareness of the pilot and encouraging eligible residentsacross the City to apply and be engaged. We will work with the City to establish communitypartnerships and robust outreach strategies.Both before and after program go-live, we can set up partnerships with community-basedorganizations (CBOs), nonprofits, and for-profit agencies that have local presence in the City. Byengaging and partnering with these community partners, we can ensure that the City’s programamplifies its reach and capacity throughout the community, as well as provides culturally andlinguistically sensitive service to applicants. In addition, we will work with the City and our partners todevelop robust marketing and outreach strategies. From the outset, we will create marketing materialsthat are relevant and culturally sensitive/appropriate for communities throughout the City. We willidentify and add resources to create content and provide support in the top languages spoken in theCity.In the Project Management Team section of this proposal, we have identified community partners whocan provide participants with financial literacy courses and “storytelling”/media training. Every GIpayment will include communications on these services, encouraging participants to enroll andengage.
Application Processing and Eligibility Verification (Initial and Recertification)Applications can be submitted online via the FORWARD platform. The platform’s application form willbe customized to the City’s program; it has also been designed to be intuitive and user-friendly forapplicants to complete. We can also support collection and digitalization of paper applications,including any necessary documentation, for applicants with limited access to technology.To ensure funds are awarded and disbursed as quickly as possible, we will use the FORWARDplatform to automate verification of application completion/compliance and applicant eligibilityaccording to the eligibility criteria established during program design.Each application undergoes a multi-step review process. Once FORWARD receives an application, oursupport center will initiate intake and case management activities to ensure that applications arecomplete, eligibility is verified, and payments are processed. Our intake specialists and case managerswill review applications against eligibility criteria and documentation requirements and follow up withapplicants on any missing information or documentation.Applications that are missing any necessary documentation will be reviewed by a case manager, whowill reach out to the applicant directly to obtain the required information and update the application,as detailed below.● Ensure completeness of the application. If the applicationhas gaps, is missing requiredinformation or documentation, has incorrect information or documentation, or is otherwiseincomplete, our case managers will contact the applicant to collect the missing information.We will also leverage our community partners to collect additional information for applicationsthat raise questions during the review.● Check validity of application information and documentation. Our case managers will checkthe application against grant-specific eligibility requirements and verify the validity of providedinformation and documentation. We will also run a deduplication test to check whether this is aduplicate application. Applications that are considered complete and valid are marked with theresults of the deduplication test and forwarded for secondary review.
Page32PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
● Perform secondary review. Once applications pass theinitial completeness and validityreview, they undergo a secondary human review to verify the information and documentation.To ensure separation of duty, accuracy, and fairness, the team members involved in the initialreview are removed from the secondary review process.Completed applications that successfully pass the secondary review and meet eligibility criteria areapproved for funds payment. A denial notification letter will be sent to applicants whose completedapplications do not meet eligibility criteria. Incomplete applications or applications withinformation/documentation that cannot be validated will be pended until the missing or non-validatedelements are resolved.The checks for application completeness and validity are driven by the eligibility criteria anddocumentation requirements established in conjunction with the City. During program design, we willwork with the City to identify appropriate primary and secondary source verification to ensure that theprocess is consistent and equitable across all applications.The initial intake contact with applicants occurs within five business days; this will inform them ofapplication status and whether their application is pending outstanding items. Over the next 14 days,applicants with pending applications will receive follow-up calls, emails, and text messages at regularcadences from our case managers. After this, non-responsive applicants will receive one lastfollow-up attempt informing them that their application is still pending and to contact FORWARD ifthey are interested in pursuing the grant. If an applicant provides the outstanding items after thefollow-up attempts are expended, their application is prioritized and processed.Applicants are notified at every change in application status. They can log in to the FORWARDplatform to view their application status in real time. They can also opt in to automatic applicationstatus notifications to receive emails with updates to their application status and funds disbursement.Pilot participants will be contacted on their anniversary to recertify their eligibility for the program;FORWARD will initiate outreach via letter and phone to participants 60 days prior to their anniversaryto mitigate any lapses in payment.FORWARD will also be leveraged for control group activities, including quarterly surveys andincentive disbursement.
Payment Processing and Funds DisbursementFORWARD has the systems, operations, and workflows in place to expedite payment of GI funds. Theapplication approval/denial process is conducted within the FORWARD platform, which maintainsdetailed audit logs for every application.Payments are made using ACH, paper checks, or debit cards, according to the participant’s preference;our processes are secure and auditable. (Our partner, Financial Beginnings, has a close partnershipwith East West Bank, which has an El Monte branch, if the City would like to engage them for thepilot’s banking and debit card needs.) Payments will be sent to participants on the 25th day of eachmonth (or another day, as determined by the City) following approval of their application. Any Citypreferences for pre-payment review/approval steps, payment frequency, and other programrequirements can be built into our processes.Participants who are found to be no longer eligible for the pilot or who are non-responsive to ourrecertification attempts will receive a termination letter with their last GI payment.
Page33PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Our solution features several control processes including:● Dual review and verification by separate teams to ensure applications meet all approvalrequirements● Separation of duties between our Operations and Finance team to request payments andfacilitate payments● Reconciliation report of funding requests and the actual payments that were distributed● Secure storage of all information for reporting and auditing purposes.● We can provide an audit of all transactions if requiredAccording to the Office of Management and Budget, 5-15% of funding in federal programs is spent onimproper payments and fraud. To counter this and to minimize duplication of benefits, we incorporatethe following into our program and platform:● Populate the FORWARD database with previously submitted applications so that the systemhas historical data● Design the application forms to have mandatory questions asking applicants about previouslyreceived assistance● As soon as an application is submitted, the FORWARD platform will perform a 10-point check(DOB Check) on the application to detect duplication of benefit● During application review, the reviewer will be able to view the results of the DOB Check.● Have two team members review each application to ensure accuracy and fairness Reporting CapabilitiesProgram management, communication, and reporting are integral to ensuring that the City’s pilot isimplemented successfully and running smoothly. We pride ourselves on being responsive to the needsof the program, participants, and the City, and will ensure that any performance or quality issues areremediated as quickly as possible.We recommend setting up a weekly project meeting with the City to discuss program design,including any expectations around outcomes, and review implementation progress. After go-live, wewould recommend a weekly meeting for the first month, then move to a semi-monthly (twice a month)meeting cadence once the program is underway. These meetings will review program progress, fiscalreview of funds disbursement and monies remaining, applicant and control group metrics and trends,and insights and recommendations.As part of program management, we will provide weekly and monthly service reports to the City. TheFORWARD platform has built-in recordkeeping that allows us to maintain detailed and completerecords of outreach efforts, applicant intake, applicant documents and forms, applicant assistanceefforts, support mechanisms, and application statuses. In addition, the platform provides reports withup-to-date data on application processes, including the number of emails sent, email open rate,number of applications submitted, application acceptance rate, and more. These metrics are availableto the City in real time, enabling us to monitor trends and react accordingly.We will provide the City with reports about the program and share insights and recommendations toimprove the program. In addition, at the end of the contract term, we will present a Final Reportdetailing the program’s metrics and accomplishments over the term, including year-to-yearcomparisons. Our marketing partner will also work with the City and the selected program evaluatoron the outcomes report.
Page34PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Financial Management and ComplianceOur solution provides financial management and controls at the program level to ensure that theprogram remains in compliance with requirements. Specifically, our teams will:● Utilize their experience to decipher and interpret California-specific guidance where needed● Following the reporting and auditing requirements from federal and state authorities● Submit required interim and final/close-out reports to the Department of Treasury● Stay on top of any future guidance and rule adjustmentsWe will also take the following steps to successfully administer the program:● Generate 1099s for awarded applicants starting February 2023● Archive all applications and related documentation for five years● Perform a program audit after all the grants have been distributed Equity in All Program PhasesWe are committed to incorporating equity into every phase of the City’s program, as seen in theexamples below.● Culturally and linguistically sensitive support and outreach. From the outset, we will creatematerials that are relevant for the City’s culturally diverse communities. We will leverage ourFORWARD support center and partners to provide assistance in the languages used in theCity. The FORWARD platform can also support nearly 70 languages.● Bridge the digital divide. By supporting both digitaland paper applications, we give access toeveryone, not just those with the internet or access to a computer or mobile device. We willwork with the City and our partners to identify strategies that will drive fair access for thedifferent communities within the City.● Cohort-based application review. In other similarprograms, we implemented a two-weekreview window where we stack rank all applications received during a two-week period. Thisallows us to push equity within every review cycle.● Representation matters. We understand equity. LiveStoriesis a minority-owned businessbased in Washington State; in addition, more than 80% of the LiveStories team are womenand/or come from minority backgrounds.
Page35PO Box 12242, Seattle, WA 98102 | 800.819.9785 x1 www.forwardplatform.com | [email protected]
Design and Implementation of a Guaranteed Income Pilot
Program for the City of El Monte
Submitted to
Alma Martinez
City Manager
City of El Monte
11333 Valley Boulevard
El Monte, CA 91731
[email protected]
In response to
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) Guaranteed Income Pilot Non-Profit Program Administrator
Submitted by
RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street
P.O. Box 2138
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Christine Gallagher, Contract Administrator
Submitted on
February 22, 2022
This material is considered proprietary to RAND. These data shall not be disclosed outside Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in part for any purpose other than evaluation, provided that if work is approved as a result of or in connection with the submission of these data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use or disclose the data to the extent provided in the contract. This restriction does not limit the Government’s right to use the information contained in the data if it is obtained from another source without restriction.
CHRISTINE M. GALLAGHER 4570 FIFTH AVENUE TEL 412.683.2300 X4048 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR SUITE 600 FAX 412.683.2800
PITTSBURGH, PA [email protected]
15213-2665
OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.
RESEARCH AREAS
Children and Families
Education and the Arts
Energy and Environment
Health and Health Care
Infrastructure and
Transportation
International Affairs
Law and Business
National Security
Population and Aging
Public Safety
Science and Technology
Terrorism and
Homeland Security
OFFICES
Santa Monica, CA
Washington, DC
Pittsburgh, PA
New Orleans, LA
Jackson, MS
Boston, MA
Cambridge, UK
Brussels, BE
www.rand.org
Submitted to:
Alma Martinez
City Manager
City of El Monte
11333 Valley Boulevard
El Monte, CA 91731
[email protected]
February 22, 2022
Reference: RAND Proposal No. 2022PR-00281 entitled “Guaranteed Income Pilot Study”
Dear Ms. Martinez:
The RAND Corporation is pleased to submit the referenced proposal to the City of El Monte.
RAND's cost reimbursable proposal is valid for a period of ninety (90) calendar days from the date of this submission.
RAND is uniquely qualified to implement this program because of our experience with both the implementation and evaluation of similar projects. Among the past projects noted in our proposal is the implementation and evaluation of a large-scale guaranteed income program that we led in the State of Yucatán, Mexico. This included 8,000 participants in multiple cities. We also led the implementation and evaluation of an intervention that promoted the health and wellbeing of vulnerable families with children in rural western Kenya. This included 1,200 households in 60 villages. In California, we have led the evaluation of the impact of CalWORKs on the health and wellbeing of beneficiaries and their children. This included collecting data on welfare-to-work families and the barriers they face in local communities of California.
The proposed program implementation team has extensive experience in community-based participatory research and in establishing collaborative relationships with local communities and organizations. The team has knowledge, experience, and understanding of the nuances of implementing and evaluating guaranteed income programs, of programs for families with children, and of such programs within California.
RAND is a non-profit organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND's mission requires that we serve the public interest through wide dissemination of our research results.
RAND respectfully reserves the right to negotiate mutually agreeable terms, particularly in areas of intellectual property and publication rights. We are confident that we can reach mutually acceptable terms and conditions consistent with RAND's mission and the objectives of the City of El Monte.
For technical questions regarding this proposal, please contact Beverly Weidmer at (310) 393- 0411, x6788, or email at [email protected]. Please address contractual matters to the undersigned at (412) 683-2300, x4048, or email [email protected].
OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.
We thank you for the opportunity to participate in this very important project.
Sincerely,
Christine M. Gallagher
The RAND Corporation
Contract Administrator
[email protected]
412-683-2300 x4048
4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 8 Section 2: Project Management Team ......................................................................................... 9 Section 3: Management Plan ....................................................................................................... 11 Section 4: Background ................................................................................................................. 11 Section 5: Past Experience .......................................................................................................... 13 Project 1: Reconocer Urbano ...................................................................................................... 13 Project 2: Msingi Bora ................................................................................................................. 14 Project 3: Evaluation of SB1041 Reforms to California’s CalWORKs Program .................. 15 Section 6: Technical Approach ................................................................................................... 16 Section 6.1: Building a Sampling Frame ............................................................................... 16 Section 6.2: Issues to consider in developing a sample frame .............................................. 17 Section 6.3: Disadvantages of our proposed design .............................................................. 17 Section 6.4: Policy Experiments that could be considered ................................................... 17 Section 7: Scope of Work ............................................................................................................. 18 Task 1. Promotion, Recruitment and Outreach. ....................................................................... 18 Task 2. Assist City’s Finance Department with establishing a partnership with a local financial institution. ..................................................................................................................... 18 Task 3. Assist with program enrollment. ................................................................................... 18 Task 4. Review applications for eligibility. ................................................................................ 18 Task 5. Submit completed applications. ..................................................................................... 19 Task 6. Notify and enroll selected participants. ........................................................................ 19 Task 7. Conduct onboarding session with Pilot Program participants. .................................. 19 Task 8. Provide individualized benefits counseling. .................................................................. 19 Task 9. Collaborate with financial distribution entity to ensure prompt and effective distribution of the monthly cash benefit. ................................................................................... 19
Task 10. Conduct financial literacy course. ............................................................................... 19 Task 11: Connect program participants to local social services. ............................................. 19 Task 12. Track Pilot Program Process. ...................................................................................... 20 Task 13. Developing storytelling and communication strategies. ............................................ 20 Task 14. Create an online data dashboard. ............................................................................... 20 Task 15. Convene Working Group. ............................................................................................ 20 Task 16. Provide quarterly updates. ........................................................................................... 20 Task 17. Selection of a Program Evaluator. .............................................................................. 20 vii
T
ask 18. Support Program Evaluation. ..................................................................................... 20 Task 19. Facilitate the preparation of the program evaluator’s comprehensive report. ...... 20 Section 8: Timeline ....................................................................................................................... 21 Section 9: Knowledge of the City of El Monte ........................................................................... 23 Section 9.1: City of El Monte .................................................................................................. 23 Section 10: Budget ...................................................................................................................... 24 Section 10.1: RAND Detailed Total Budget ............................................................................ 24 Section 10.2: RAND Detailed Year 1 Budget Breakdown ..................................................... 25 Section 10.3: RAND Detailed Year 2 Budget Breakdown ..................................................... 26 Section 11: Budget Justification ................................................................................................ 27 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 32 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 33 CURRICULUM VITAE .............................................................................................................. 33 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................ 54 ABOUT RAND’s Survey Research Group ................................................................................ 54 APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................... 59 City of El Monte Descriptive Characteristics ............................................................................ 59 APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................... 61 City of El Monte Block Maps ...................................................................................................... 61 APPENDIX E ................................................................................................................................ 64 References ..................................................................................................................................... 64 APPENDIX F ................................................................................................................................ 68 Attachments .................................................................................................................................. 68 8 Section 1: Introduction
RAND is pleased to submit this proposal to coordinate the implementation of a Guaranteed Income Pilot Program in the City of El Monte. The Pilot Program will be used to determine the effectiveness of guaranteed monthly cash transfer on participants’ economic security, housing stability, physical and mental health, and well-being. Key findings related to the outcomes of the Pilot Program as well as information about how to improve program logistics and implementation will help the City of El Monte evaluate whether it should expand the program to increase the number of participants, include different demographic groups, increase the duration of the benefits, or modify the frequency or method of disbursement of the cash transfer.
Under this contract, RAND will work with staff from the City as well as their Guaranteed Income Ad Hoc Committee, an advisory working group, and other program partners to define Pilot Program goals, participant eligibility criteria, develop a strategy for promoting the program and recruiting participants , develop a strategy for randomizing eligible households into a treatment group (those who will receive a monthly cash transfer of $500 over a period of 12 months) and a control group, and will work with the City’s F inance Department to establish a partnership with a local bank or credit union to handle the disbursement of the monthly cash transfer to participating households. RAND proposes to recruit participants by mail ing them a letter inviting them to complete a survey that will collect information that we will use to assess eligibility for participation in the Pilot Program. RAND will assist eligible households in completing the program application forms, verify eligibility, notify selected participants, conduct one-on -one onboarding sessions with each participant, provide individualized counseling to provide information on the tax implications related to receipt of the benefit and how participation in the program may affect their eligibility for other State and Federal programs (e.g. CalWorks, CalFresh, etc.), and provide am optional course in financial literacy. RAND will also work with program participants to make them aware of other social services and resources for which they may be eligible and will help connect them to these services as needed.
As part of the program implementation process, RAND will track the Pilot Program’s target enrollment and retention rates and will provide the City and other program partners regular updates. We will convene a working group that will provide input into the design and implementation of the Pilot Program and will meet with the group regularly to provide updates. We will meet with program participants regularly to collect both quantitative and qualitative data that will provide information on the impact of the program, will develop a communication strategy that will enable participants to share their stories while also providing information to the community, the media, and other stakeholders. RAND will also create an online dashboard to keep the community, the City, the Ad Hoc Committee and the working group informed. In addition, RAND will provide the City quarterly updates o n program implementation and progress toward completion and will provide a final report that will include lessons learned related specifically to program implementation and recommendations for improvement. Finally, RAND will assist the City in identifying a program evaluator and will collaborate with the selected evaluator to prepare a comprehensive report evaluating the impact, effectiveness, and outcomes of the program.
Specific to the work called for in this contract, our team has extensive experience with:
• Implementation and evaluation of randomized control trials that involve a guaranteed basic income • Managing a complex guarantee basic income program implementation process • Participant recruitment and strategies to maximize participation and retention rates • Preparing detailed program implementation manuals and related documentation • Collecting quantitative and qualitative data through surveys and one -on-one interviews to assess program design and impact and to identify administration issues and unanticipated issues/effects • Preparing progress reports, methodology reports, program impact reports, and 9 • Evaluating program implementation to identify lessons learned and inform improvements.
The combination of RAND’s world-class research capabilities, strong content expertise in implementing and evaluating randomized control trials that involve a cash transfer, and experience conducting collaborative research at the community level, make our team exceedingly qualified for this work, as reflected by our proposed project leadership and our proposed technical approach for the implementation of the Pilot Program.
In the following sections, we describe the proposed project team, a project management plan, proposed technical approach for the successful implementation of the Pilot Program, relevant past experience, and familiarity with the City of El Monte.
Section 2: Project Management Team
Ms. Weidmer and Dr. Aguila will serve Co-Principal Investigators with overall responsibility for ensuring the successful implementation of the Pilot Program and reporting requirements. Ms. Weidmer and Dr. Aguila have an extensive history of successful collaboration on various projects including in the implementation and evaluation of a non-contributory pension program for the elderly in the State of Yucatán, Mexico. Both Ms.
Weidmer and Dr. Aguila also have significant experience as project leaders and a successful track record of delivering timely and high-quality deliverables to government and non-government agencies.
Under Ms. Weidmer’s leadership, key program implementation tasks will be conducted by RAND’s Survey Research Group (SRG) which has a compelling track record of work ing collaboratively on a variety of survey development, implementation, evaluation, and analysis projects. Ms. Weidmer will staff the project with SRG staff with specific skills mapped to the core project tasks. Selected key project staff will have overlapping expertise, which will allow us to maintain work on multiple simultaneous tasks, support different co-occurring activities, and provide surge capacity when needed in order to complete tasks in a timely manner. Below, we present the proposed Pilot Program implementation team and describe their role on the project. Curriculum Vitae for key staff can be found in Appendix A. Detailed information about the Survey Research Group can be found in Appendix B.
Beverly Weidmer
Beverly Weidmer is a Senior Survey Director in the Survey Research Group at RAND. She has over 25 years of experience in both quantitative and qualitative research methods, including all aspects of survey design and management, instrument development, focus groups, cognitive interviews, and usability testing. She has expertise in community-based participatory research, translation, and in the design and testing of culturally appropriate survey instruments. She specializes in the design and implementation of complex field projects including lo ngitudinal surveys, program evaluation projects, multi -mode data collection, and surveying difficult to reach populations (immigrants, low literate populations, welfare recipients, the elderly, and children and adolescents). Ms. Weidmer has managed surveys at both the local and national level. In addition, she has managed longitudinal surveys of children’s health involving the collection of anthropometric measurements, and various measures of child development, studies focusing on disparities in health outcomes among racial and ethnic minorities, barriers to health services for vulnerable populations, health care utilization and delivery, patient experience of care, and quality of life studies for patients with chronic illnesses. She is experienced in conduc ting cross -cultural research both in the U.S. and abroad (including projects in Mexico, Guatemala, the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam). Ms. Weidmer was born and reared in Mexico and is completely bilingual and bi -cultural. She has resided in Los Angeles for over 30 years . Ms. Weidmer will serve as the Principal Investigator and will have 10 responsibility for overall project management and contact with the City of El Monte City Manager’s Office.
She will be responsible for coordinating the implementation of the pilot and coordinating the work to be carried out by all SRG staff, providing quarterly updates to the City to report on the implementation of the GBI Pilot Program, convene and lead a working group to provide updates on the design and implementation of the program, collaborate with the program evaluator in producing a final report describing Pilot Program outcomes and effectiveness. Finally, she will monitor all spending and ensure that the project is completed on time and within budget.
Emma Aguila
Emma Aguila is a Senior Economist at RAND, an Associate Professor at the USC Price School of Public Policy, and a senior fellow at the USC Schaeffer Center. She was previously Director of the RAND Center fo r Latin American Social Policy. She earned her bachelor’s degree at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de Mexico in Mexico City and her master’s and doctoral degrees in economics at University College London. Her research interests include guaranteed basic income programs, welfare programs for low-income populations, and the interrelation between socioeconomic status and health. She has published two books examining aspects of income security, health, and migration: (1) United States and Mexico: Ties That B ind, Issues That Divide, and (2) Living Longer in Mexico: Income Security and Health. She has also authored many articles in top -ranking scientific journals such as Demography, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Social Science & Medicine, and Review of Economics and Statistics . Her work has been funded by the National Institutes for Health (NIH) and the Inter -American Development Bank, among others. Dr. Aguila has received several awards for research including the Inter-American Award for Research in Social Security, the RAND Gold Merit Award, and the High Impact Research Award from USC Price School. Dr. Aguila has nearly two decades of experience in designing, implementing, and evaluating innovative guaranteed income programs using experimental design and longitudinal surveys. She led a large randomized controlled trial to evaluate, over a five-year period, an unconditional guaranteed basic income program in Mexico. The program targeted 8,000 low-income and difficult-to-reach participants. She has conducted and advised survey data collection efforts for low-income households and indigenous populations in Los Angeles, Mexico, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, and Paraguay. Dr. Aguila will closely collaborate with Ms. Weidmer in the implementation of the Pi lot Program and will have joint responsibility for overall project management and contact with the City of El Monte City Manager’s Office and will also collaborate with the program evaluator in producing a final report.
Italo Lopez Garcia
Italo Lopez Garcia is an Economist at RAND Corporation and Senior Economist of the Center of Economic and Social Research at the University of Southern California. His research focus is the study of the determinants of human capital investments over the life cycle, with particular emphasis in the role of early childhood interventions to remediate disadvantages in child development. He is co-PI for an ongoing NICHD-funded R01 study of an Early Childhood Development (ECD) parenting intervention, delivered by the existing network of Community Health Workers in rural Kenya. His research on this project, published in journals such as Lancet Global Health, PLOS Medicine, and Social Science and Medicine , documents how this initiative significantly improved child cognitive, language, and socioemotional development, as well as parental practices. He also helped design and implement a randomized control trial for a similar initiative delivered by local health centers for vulnerable families in Chile published in the Journal of Political Economy. Altogether, he has more than a decade of experience in designing and implementing randomized control trials to evaluate early childhood development interventions, wi th work ranging from assembling multidisciplinary teams tasked with conducting the trial to publishing results in top -ranked journals. Dr. Lopez -García will work with Ms.
Weidmer and Dr. Aguila in the developing a protocol for recruiting and screening pot ential Pilot Program participants and in the developing implementation plan for the Pilot Program.
11 SRG Survey Coordinator (TBD) A bilingual (English/Spanish) will work with Ms. Weidmer in implementing the recruitment of potential program participants, wil l assist with promotion of the program, will oversee the translation of recruitment, promotion, and program materials into Spanish and Mandarin, and will assist in coordinating with the selected financial institution that will collaborate with the Pilot Pr ogram in the disbursement of the program payments. She will also assist with Ms. Weidmer in testing the electronic screening tool used to assess and document program participant eligibility, to test the program participant registry, and to develop and test the Pilot Program Dashboard.
Record Management Systems Administrator. An RMS Administrator (TBD) will develop, test and manage the database architecture used to recruit potential program participants and once they are enrolled in the program, to track t heir participation in the program. During the implementation of the Pilot Program, the RMS Administrator will manage the sample, coordinate sample delivery for the administration of surveys, track encounters between program participants and program counsel ors and generate progress reports.
Web Programmer. A Web Programmer (TBD) will work with Ms. Weidmer and other project staff on the development of a web -based screening tool that potential Pilot Program participants will be directed to as part of the program recruitment effort. The tool will help screen program participants to assess eligibility. In addition, the Web Programmer will help develop a web-based the Pilot Program dashboard to keep the community informed. During YR02 we have included additional time that may be needed for web -site updates once the full implementation starts.
We propose to hire two Pilot Program Counselors during the last four months of the first year of the project to help with the recruitment, screening and enrollment of program participants. In anticipation of the community’s needs, the Program Counselors will be bilingual (one in Spanish and English and another in English and Mandarin). Program Counselors will also be tasked with promoting the Pilot Program at local events, participate in community meetings, meet with each of the 125 households to help them complete enrollment applications, and subsequently, meet with each of the selected households periodically (in Year 2 of the project) to interview them one -on-one, to provide support, to help connect them to social services available in the City of El Monte, and to provide financial literacy instruction/classes. The Counselors will also encourage participants to take part in evaluation activities survey as surveys and other assessments and will follow up with those participants who fail to complete evaluation activities.
Section 3: Management Plan
To promote and assure timely performance of all project tasks , we will employ several management techniques: regular internal meetings to review progress, regular meetings with City staff and with the Guaranteed Income Ad Hoc Committee to address and resolve issues related to tasks on a critical path. We will also utilize MS Project or other project management software to develop a work breakdown schedule (WBS) of detailed schedules f or completion of tasks and subtasks, monitoring of progress and interrelated work activities, and keeping all project staff abreast of key priorities and deadlines.
Section 4: Background
Previous research has documented a relationship between socioecono mic status (SES) and health and mortality (Diez-Roux et al., 2004; Marmot, 2002) . SES is one of the fundamental causes of health disparities (Link & Phelan, 1995) . Life course models suggest early life social conditions and exposures throughout life have a cumulative effect on adult health. The cumulative exposure model suggests early and adult social 12 conditions affect health in old age. The social trajectories model states that early social conditions shape adult health conditions that affect health at older ages. This means interventions that improve SES such as guaranteed basic income programs (GBI) could improve health conditions over the life cycle (Berkman, 2009; Berkman et al., 2011). Social insurance programs—i.e., large-scale government programs to improve SES of low-income families—may reduce health disparities and improve t he health and wellbeing of the targeted population with long-lasting effects.
In many low- and middle-income countries, governments have introduced safety net programs that provide cash and other benefits such as a basic food basket, free meals, and subsidies to help pay for utilities, health insurance, or health care (Bitran & Giedion, 2003; Coady et al., 2004; Levy & Ohls, 2010; Willmore, 2007). For example, in Jamaica poor older adults receive free medical care and a cash transfer (Levy & Ohls, 2010). The United States provides food price subsidies, such as food stamp programs, and in -kind food assistance programs that have been extensively analyzed (Lee & Frongillo, 2001) . Other well -known conditional cash transfer programs have been introduced in Brazil and Mexico. In Mexico, cash and food assistance transfers for low-income households with children conditional on attending nutrition and health training sessions, have been very successful improving children schooling outcomes, health and wellbeing of all family members (Hevia de la Jara, 2009).
Unconditional cash -transfer schemes or guaranteed basic income programs have been implemented as temporary or permanent programs. Specifically, for older adults, non -contributory pensions that are unconditional cash-transfer programs are the main means for providing income security in old age in at least 40 countries around the world including Argentina, Brazil, Bangladesh, Mexico, and South Africa (Coady et al., 2004; Newson & Bourne, 2011) . Non-contributory pension programs have been introduced around the world as permanent programs that the recipient receives until he or she dies.
In the U.S., The COVID-19 pandemic and recent social justice protests have exposed and exacerbated existing inequalities. Those who were already disadvantaged in employment, food, housing, and financial security moved deeper into hardship. Guaranteed basic income (GBI), a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered, has been proposed as a potential solution for this durable inequality. Various forms of GBI have been proposed for decades including when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. suggested a guara nteed income in his 1968 Poor People’s Campaign. California has taken up the baton with a widely publicized trial in Stockton.
The Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, or SEED, started in 2019 with 125 randomly selected residents receiving $500 per month for a period of two years. The study concluded in February 2020 – right before COVID job losses and health impacts occurred (Martin-West et al., 2019) . The main findings of SEED are:
• Guaranteed income reduced income volatility, o r the month-to-month income fluctuations that households face.
• Unconditional cash enabled recipients to find full-time employment. • Recipients of guaranteed income were healthier, showing less depression and anxiety and enhanced wellbeing.
• The guaranteed income alleviated financial scarcity creating new opportunities for self - determination, choice, goal-setting, and risk-taking.
In this project, we propose to follow a similar but more refined approach to the implementation and evaluation of a cash transfer pilot program proposed by the City of El Monte.
13 Section 5: Past Experience
Below, we provide three examples of projects that demonstrate RAND’s experience in the design and implementation of randomized control trials involving cash transfer programs, and a project to evaluate the impact of reforms to the CalWORKs program that involved a collaborative ap proach to working with the California Department of Social Services, county-level CalWORKs programs throughout the state, and multiple stakeholders including CalWORKs program managers, caseworkers, and CalWORKs recipients.
Project 1: Reconocer Urbano
i. Name, location, date of completion: Reconocer Urbano (guaranteed income program) and Escuchar (evaluation); Yucatan, Mexico; 2007-2012.
ii. Program manager and key staff: Emma Aguila, RAND and University of Southern California, and Beverly A. Weidmer, RAND, program managers; Arie Kapteyn, University of Southern California, key staff
iii. Brief description of process and results
Mexico has a growing number of older persons, many of whom live in poverty, but few developed policies or programs to support them. This has prompted both the federal and state governments to introduce universal guaranteed income programs among older adults. Among the first state programs was Reconocer Urbano, a Yucatan program for persons 70 or older. This project provided recipients a ca sh transfer of MXN$550 per month (US$58.70 at 2014 purchasing power parity, or PPP) that represented about one-third of the monthly minimum wage in Yucatan.
To evaluate the state program, we chose two cities, Valladolid and Motul, through a cluster randomized controlled trial design by matched pairs of towns with similar census characteristics. Valladolid began receiving the state guaranteed income program, wh ile Motul was the control location. A concurrent effort used a randomized control trial design to select individuals within Merida, the Yucatan capital, for the program. In Merida, we employed a double randomization design . Of 1,175 blocks chosen, we assigned randomly half to treatment and half to control. Once we selected the sample of blocks, the field team conducted a household census of the selected blocks using mapping and cartography methods specified by the Mexican Census Bureau to identify households with eligible individuals. To evaluate the programs, we identified age-eligible persons in targeted locations and trained bi-lingual (Spanish and Mayan, the local languages) field staff. Three in -person evaluation surveys conducted quantitative interviews over a three-year period in all the locations asked recipients and members of their households about socioeconomic characteristics, health status and access to care (including personal measurements), and caregiving. Response rates for the first two waves was greater than 90 percent, while that for the last wave was roughly 80 percent. We also conducted qualitative interviews , focus groups to understand how participants used the income transfer, changes on their family dynamics, and household decision-making.
In the various pilot programs, we tested different implementation designs; cash vs debit card disbursement and frequency of payment. We found the program reduced work -for-pay among these older recipients. The guaranteed income program also led to reduced family transfers but did not completely crowd them out. The program had a variety of other benefits: increasing health care use, reducing anemia, food insecurity and hunger, and improving lung function and memory recall. Payment 14 frequency had some effects: women receiving more frequent payments had decreased frailty, perhaps because monies were used more for necessities than when receiving payments less frequently.
iv. Project timeline and budget; final duration and cost The project launched in mid-2007 with pilot payment of the guaranteed income and development of the baseline survey. In 2008, we translated the survey into Mayan, trained staff, selected intervention sites, identified “treatment” and “control” groups, conducted baseline data collection, and began the program for the “treatment” group. In 2009, we developed and conducted our baseline survey in Merida and our first follow-up surveys in Valladolid and Motul. In 2010, we developed and conducted our second follow- up surveys in Valladolid and Motul. In 2011, we developed and conducted our first follow -up survey in Merida. In 2012, we developed and conducted our second follow-up survey in Merida.
The total budget and cost of the 5-year project was $3,746,152.
Project 2: Msingi Bora
i. Name, location, date of completion: Msingi Bora (“Good Foundations” parenting program); rural western Kenya; 2017-2022.
ii. Program manager and key staff: Italo Lopez Garcia, RAND, and Jill Luoto, University of Southern California, program managers; Lia Fernald, U niversity of California at Berkeley, and Frances Aboud, McGill University, key staff
iii. Brief description of process and results
Approximately 250 million children in low - and middle-income countries will not reach their full developmental potential due to poverty, nutritional deficiencies, or inadequate psychosocial stimulation.
Early childhood development interventions that integrate responsive parenting and early learning with nutrition education can help improve development for such children. Two methods for delivering such intervention are individual home visits and group-based meetings.
With support from the U.S. National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, we tested the effectiveness of two group -based delivery models for an integrated early childhood development responsive simulation and nutrition education intervention using Kenya’s network of community health volunteers. We conducted the multi -arm cluster Randomized Control Trial evaluation of Mungi Bora, which was implemented across 6 0 villages and 1,152 households in three rural sub -counties of western Kenya. Specifically, we tested the effectiveness of a program that used 16 fortnightly group sessions and of one that used 12 group sessions and four home visits. Our implementation eva luation found the program content was acceptable to mothers, who averaged 70% attendance in the sessions.
Immediately after the eight -month interventions, we found the program had large positive impacts on cognitive, language, and socioemotional outcomes and maternal behaviors —and that the group -only program impacts were larger. A follow -up assessment two years later also showed the group -only intervention on children’s cognitive and socioemotional outcomes as well as on maternal behaviors were sustained, but with lower magnitude. In other words, our results show that a group -based intervention is at least as effective as a mixed -delivery model that combines home visits but is less burdensome to deliver.
iv. Project timeline and budget; final duration and cost 15 In Year 1, we launched the project and adapted curricula from other successful parenting interventions in rural Kenya. In Year 2, we trained community health workers to deliver the program, conducted a series of quantitative and qu alitative surveys; a baseline survey, conducted the intervention, and conducted our immediate follow-up survey. In Year 3, some participating households received additional follow-up home visits to encourage sustained behavioral change. We also conducted f ocus groups of community health volunteers to perform a process evaluation study. In Year 4, we conducted our second follow-up survey to assess sustained impacts on children and parental incomes. In Year 5, we performed project dissemination activities and assessed medium-term impacts.
The total budget and cost of the five-year project was $3,600,000.
Project 3: Evaluation of SB1041 Reforms to California’s CalWORKs Program
i. Name, location, date of completion: Evaluation of SB1041 Reforms to California’s CalWORKs Program, California, 2014-2017.
ii. Program manager and key staff: Beverly A. Weidmer, Lois Davis, Robert Bozick, and Lynn Karoly, RAND program managers.
iii. Brief description of process and results
The California Budget Act of 2012 contained significant reforms to California’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, known as CalWORKs (California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids). These reforms included changes to work requirements and the exemption for having a young child, with the goal of engaging welfare-to -work clients in more -intensive, work-related activities as early as possible. The reforms also provided enhanced supports to address barrier s to work, offered more flexibility in work activity options, and increased incentives to work.
The California Department of Social Services contracted with RAND and the American Institutes for Research to evaluate the implementation and impact of these reforms. As part of this evaluation, RAND implemented a longitudinal panel survey of CalWORKs bene ficiaries and children involving a telephone survey and an in-home survey conducted in both English and Spanish. The survey included the collection of anthropometric measures (e.g., height and weight), various measures of child development, and home observations. The evaluation also included a quantitative survey of CalWORKs administrative staff and the collection of qualitative data from CalWORKs caseworkers and beneficiaries via focus groups and in- depth, one-on-one interviews (in both English and Spanish).
The analysis found that core components of the reforms had been implemented, though issues remained with the execution of some components, particularly the welfare-to-work 24-month time clock. Counties continued to expand or enhance partnerships with local service providers, especially in areas where gaps previously existed. Understanding of the more complex components improved, but some shortfalls remained. The Online CalWORKs Appraisal Tool was useful for identifying barriers, though administration time was a concern. The Family Stabilization program succeeded in giving flexibility to meet the unique needs of each client. Take-up of educational opportunities lagged.
iv. Project timeline and budget; final duration and cost The total budget and cost of the three-year project was $3,089,488.
16 Section 6: Technical Approach
Section 6.1: Building a Sampling Frame
Randomized evaluation of pilot public policy programs is important in determining the feasibility and outcomes of a program before rolling it out on a large-scale. The Central Principle of statistical sampling asserts that the sample selection is random. This method ensures that the probability of being included in the sample does not depend on some characteristic and that every individual has an equal chance to be selected. For a proper evaluation and design, one needs baseline measurements of key variables and both treatment and control groups. These type of evaluation methods have been widely used around the world (e.g., Angrist et al., 2002; Attanasio et al., 2012; Banerjee et al., 2003; Behrman & Sengupta, 2005; Bobonis et al., 2004; Cronbach & Shapiro, 1982; Miguel & Kremer, 2003; Vermeersch & Kremer, 2005).
In implementing a Guaranteed Income Program in the City of El Monte, we propose to identify and recruit by mail (a sampling and recruitment design that is similar to that used by the SEED program in Stockton, CA with the additional implementation of best practices for randomized controlled trials in order to minimize bias).
Our proposed approach involves employing a double randomization two-stage design for the recruitment of program participants. In the first stage, we will randomly select city Census blocks, with inclusion probabilities proportional to the number of low-income households within a block. We will then purchase a sample of all active residential USPS addresses in the selected blocks from a commercial vendor . In the second stage, rather than announcing the Pilot Program from the outset, we will instead first mail each of the ~4,000 households in the selected blocks a letter inviting them to participate in a web-based survey designed to gather information that can be used to assess eligibility for the Guaranteed Income Pilot Program .
Participants will receive a post -paid incentive of $15 dollars for completing this initial survey. The survey invitation letter will be addressed to the current resident and will explain that the City of El Monte, the RAND Corporation, and the academic institution selected to conduct the program evaluation have launched an initiative to assess the wellbeing of families and children in the City of El Monte in order to design policies to improve their wellbeing. We propose that the Pilot Program first focus on low income, single mother households with children under 18 years old. The survey will collect information about family composition, income, race and ethnicity, education, primary language spoken in th e household, age, gender, relation of household members, and the contact information for the head of the household so that we may contact them again about participating in futur e data collection activities that will be conducted as part of the program evaluation effort (e.g. surveys, qualitative interviews, biomarkers) . Data collected as part of the survey will help us construct a sampling frame for the Pilot Program. Although we will follow -up with household residents to encourage them to complete the survey (by mailing reminders postcards and/or also sending a copy of the survey by mail with a postage-paid return envelope), we anticipate a modest response rate of approximately 10% (n=400 completed surveys) . We anticipate that approximately 75% (n=300) of participants who complete the survey will be eligible for the program and will constitute the sample frame for the Pilot Program. Once we identify sample frame, we will collaborate with the City and the evaluator to develop a strategy for randomizing participants into either the treatment or the control group and will then notify participants assigned to the treatment group to let them know that they have been selected to take part in the Pilot Program and inviting them to complete an application.
RAND proposes to hire bilingual Pilot Program Counselors who will be tasked with meeting with participants assigned to the treatment group to explain to them the goals of the program and what participation entails, to help them complete the program enrollment process, to answer any question or concerns they may have, and to verify proof of eligibility for the program. To avoid bias effects, the RAND counselors will not mention 17 the academic institution in charge of the evaluation so that participants understand that the Pilot Program is independent from any of the evaluation data collection activ ities. RAND counselors will conduct program onboarding sessions which will include informed consent and benefits counseling, contact information of the program staff, and enrollment with the financial institution selected for the disbursement of the cash transfer so that they may receive and activate a debit card which will be used to get the cash transfer to program participants. The benefit counseling will help participants understand any interaction between this Pilot Program and any other local, state or federal program benefits they may be receiving. We anticipate that approximately ~85% of participants (n=~250) will fully complete the Pilot Program enrollment process.
Section 6.2: Issues to consider in developing a sample frame
Other studies of cash transfer programs have found that a nnouncing the program before conducting a baseline assessment (usually by asking them to complete a survey) causes what is referred to in the literature as an “announcement effect” that bias es responses gathered in the baseline assessment . For example, the SEED program in Stockton, CA announced the program in the information they mailed to the randomly selected households targeted by the program and their initial web-based survey collected household-level baseline data, as well as individual-level data on key outcomes of interest. In other words, they failed to construct an initial listing or sampling frame and instead directly implement ed a full survey with the households they selected. This is an issue because they are not able to assess sample selection issues between the listing or sampling frame and the baseline survey. We propose to use a more rigorous approach that avoids these types of biases. One other disadvantage of the SEEDs approach is that they chose to notify the control group that they were assigned to the control group and therefore would not be receiving a cash transfer. This issue has been shown to bias responses to follow-up surveys and/or to increase non-response among the control group.
Section 6.3: Disadvantages of our proposed design
One of the main disadvantages of our proposed design is that it may exclude the most vulnerable populations who may be eligible for the program. Unpermitted addresses that do not have a street or mailing address (e.g. an unpermitted garage apartment or granny flat) may be inadvertently excluded from our sampling frame. Unpermitted housing is an issue throughout California due to the shortage of housing combined with high housing costs. This issue may cause a sample selection bias, particularly excluding the most vulnerable and low-income families. The issue of multiple households or families living within one dwelling unit (at one address) presents another challenge that may result in selection biases that are difficult to detect and again would disproportionally exclude low income families . Finally, in the current political climate, eligible vulnerable families may be afraid to apply to the Pilot Program, may not speak English, or may have low levels of literary or may not be able to access a web-based survey . These issues could also cause sample selection issues that are difficult to detect. While there are strategies we can use to increase participation in the baseline survey (e.g. providing a simple to read survey that is available in multiple languages, offering participants the opportunity to complete the survey by mail or by phone rather than over the web, and reassuring potential participants that participation in the survey is completely confidential, other strategies are more complicated to implement and require significantly more resources (e.g. canvassing selected blocks in person to identify eligible household). We will discuss these issues with the City, the s elected evaluator, the GI Ad Hoc Committee, and others to design a recruitment strategy that will efficiently allow us to identify eligible households at a reasonable cost while at the same time reducing the chance of introducing selection biases.
Section 6.4: Policy Experiments that could be considered
18 RAND proposes to recommend that cash transfers be disbursed on a monthly or bi-weekly schedule. Much existing research has found that the frequency of payments can have large effects on spending and outcomes.
For example, Shapiro (2005) found that caloric intake decreases by 10% as the month progresses. Increasing the frequency of payments may improve an individual’s ability to smooth their consumption over the month.
Evidence from Mexico and Kenya suggests that one -time or less frequent payments are more likely to be used for durable goods while more frequent payments increase food availability and health care use (Aguila et al., 2017; Haushofer & Shapiro, 2016). More frequent payments to low-income older adults in Mexico also improved health and wellbeing more than less frequent, larger payments did (Aguila and Smith, 2020) , potentially because of the difficulty of smoothing consumption between payments.
Section 7: Scope of Work
In working with staff from the City of El Monte as well as the City’s Guaranteed Income Ad Hoc Committee, and other partners, RAND will perform each of the tasks outlined below.
Task 1. Promotion, Recruitment and Outreach.
RAND will work with the City’s Guaranteed Income Ad Hoc Committee, City staff, and non-profit partners, to create and implement an outreach and recruitment plan to provide information about the program to El Monte residents. Our proposed recruitment approach is described in Section 6. of this proposal and involves targeting randomly selected Census blocks withing the City of El Monte, and then inviting all households in those blocks to complete a brief web survey that will be used to determine household eligibility for participation in the program. In developing a promotion, recruitment, and outreac h strategy, RAND will develop materials that are user-friendly and written at an appropriate reading level, and available in English, Spanish, Mandarin, and potentially other languages as needed. To facilitate promotion of the study to all language groups in the City of El Monte, the proposed RAND project team includes staff that is not only bilingual but also experienced in community-based participatory research (Ms. Weidmer and Drs. Aguila and García Lopez are all native Spanish speakers and the Pilot Pr ogram Counselors hired by RAND will also be bilingual in English/Spanish and English Mandarin.
Task 2. Assist City’s Finance Department with establishing a partnership with a local financial institution.
RAND will work with staff from the City’s Financial Department to establish a partnership with a local financial institution (e.g. a bank or credit union) that will be responsible for setting up a mechanism (e.g. a debit card) for the regular disbursement of the cash benefit to Pilot Program participants. RAND will assist in identifying criteria for assessing candidate financial institutions (for example, costs associated with the processing and disbursement of cash benefits, branch and ATM location/availability, customer service capabilities including availability of bilingual customer service representatives who can assist program participants who require assistance in languages other than English (e.g. Spanish, Mandarin, etc.).
Task 3. Assist with program enrollment.
In the first year of the project, RAND will hire two bilingual Pilot Program Counselors who will be tasked with assisting potential program participants in completing enrollment applications, self-certification forms and in providing information related to the necessary documentat ion to prove their eligibility for the Pilot Program. RAND Program Counselors will meet with potential participants either in person, by phone, or via ZOOM as needed and in keeping with COVID -19 public health protocols in effect at the time of implementation.
Task 4. Review applications for eligibility.
RAND Program Counselors will meet with each of the eligible families who completed a web-based survey to confirm household status and income by reviewing their enrollment applications and the documentatio n submitted to prove eligibility for the program (e.g. form of identification, proof of residence, paycheck stubs, 19 bank statements, tax returns, etc.) Meeting with potential participants will take place either in person, by phone, or via ZOOM as needed and in keeping with COVID-19 public health protocols in effect at the time of implementation.
Task 5. Submit completed applications.
Once RAND Program Counselors have reviewed the enrollment applications submitted by potential program participants, they wi ll submit them to the program partner or evaluator who will be tasked with randomly assigning eligible participants to either the treatment group (who will receive the monthly cash benefit) or the control group (who will not receive the monthly cash benefi t but who will be invited to take part in the surveys or other data collection activities conducted as part of the evaluation of the program).
Task 6. Notify and enroll selected participants.
Upon the assignment of eligible participants to the treatment group, RAND will mail each participant a notification letter letting them know they have been selected for the program. In addition, RAND Program Counselors will follow up by phone to confirm receipt of the letter, answer any questions or concerns participants may have, and schedule an appointment to meet one-on-one to complete enrollment in the Pilot Program.
Task 7. Conduct onboarding session with Pilot Program participants.
RAND will meet one-on-one with each of the selected program participants to provide additional information on what participation in the program entails, how the cash benefit will be disbursed, and what they need to do to complete enrollment in the program. Meeting with potential participants will take place either in person, by phone, or via ZOOM as needed and in keeping with COVID -19 public health protocols in effect at the time of implementation.
Task 8. Provide individualized benefits counseling.
As part of the initial on-boarding session or in a subsequent meeting, RAND will prov ide each participant selected information (both verbally and in writing) of possible impacts to federal, state, or county benefits (e.g. unemployment benefits, benefits from CalWORKs or CalFresh, etc.) and provide the opportunity for potential participants to make their own decisions as to whether to proceed in the program.
Task 9. Collaborate with financial distribution entity to ensure prompt and effective distribution of the monthly cash benefit.
RAND will collaborate with the selected financial distribution entity to ensure that each of the selected program participants open a bank account in order to receive the monthly funds via debit card, and that participants receive the monthly funds in a timely, predictable, and seamless fashion;
Task 10. Conduct financial literacy course.
RAND Program Counselors will conduct a financial literacy assessment with each of the program participants.
In addition, RAND will work with City staff, the GI Ad Hoc Committee and others to determine the content of an optional financial literacy course to be provided to program participants by RAND Program Counselors.
The financial literacy course will be provided in English, Spanish, and Mandarin, and all course materials will be available in all three languages.
Task 11: Connect program participants to local social services.
RAND Program Counselors will provide program participants with information on other social services, resources, or benefits for which they may be eligible (e.g. CalWORKs, CalFresh, WIC pr ogram, Headstart, subsidized housing, etc.) and if participants are interested, will work with other City contracted non -profit agency partners to connect participants with these social services and/or resources. 20 Task 12. Track Pilot Program Process.
RAND will program a participant registry (Record Management System) to track the Pilot Program’s recruitment effort, program enrollment and retention rates. We will program automated reports that can be used to provide the City of El Monte and oth er program partners with regular updates on progress toward enrollment and retention goals.
Task 13. Developing storytelling and communication strategies.
In an effort to promote transparency, engender trust among program participants, and respond to community inquiries, RAND will collaborate with City staff and the GI Ad Hoc Committee to develop a strategy for communicating with program participants and sharing information about the Pilot Program with the community, media, and other stakeholders. As part of this strategy, RAND will provide program participants an option to enroll in a storytelling component that will allow them to have agency over their own stories while maintaining their confidentiality as needed or requested. The strategy could involve d eveloping a program web page and conducting interviews with program participants to give them an opportunity to share their family life stories and share information about the impact the program has on their lives.
Task 14. Create an online data dashboard.
RAND will work with the City to create an online dashboard that will keep the community informed as to program activities and enrollment and retention rates.
Task 15. Convene Working Group.
RAND will convene a working group made up of key stakeholders a nd meet with them on a regular basis to provide updates on the design and implementation of the program and offer participants ongoing opportunities to meaningfully shape and inform the program design.
Task 16. Provide quarterly updates.
RAND will provide the City quarterly updates on the implementation and progress toward established goals of the Pilot Program. In addition, we will meet with the City on an ongoing basis throughout the life of the project to provide regular on progress toward completion of project milestones in relation to the timeline.
Task 17. Selection of a Program Evaluator.
RAND will work with the City to select an organization or academic institution to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the Pilot Program and prepare a comprehensive report evaluating the outcomes of the program.
Task 18. Support Program Evaluation.
RAND will assist the financial distribution entity, the City, and the selected program evaluator with collection of qualitative and quantitative data from th e program needed to evaluate the impact of the program.
Specifically, RAND Program Counselors will encourage program participants to participate in data collection activities (surveys, interviews) conducted by the program evaluator. In addition, RAND will work with the financial distribution entity to establish a cooperative agreement to facilitate the sharing of process data related to the disbursement of the cash benefit and the withdrawal of funds by program participants. Analysis of this data will allow the evaluator to identify how and when program funds are used in order to better understand the impact of the guaranteed income program.
Task 19. Facilitate the preparation of the program evaluator’s comprehensive report.
RAND will collaborate with the selected program evaluator in compiling a comprehensive report summarizing program impact, effectiveness, and outcomes of the program including the impact on participants’ economic 21 security, housing stability, physical and mental health, and wellbeing. To i nform the national debate, the report will include a discussion of the impact and usefulness of guaranteed income programs with an innovative policy design to reduce poverty, inequality, and improve the health and wellbeing of participants.
Finally, the report will include information that will allow the City to evaluate whether it should expand the program to increase the number of program participants, whether to include different demographics, or whether it should maximize the impact of the program by mo difying the duration of the benefits, the frequency of distribution, or the mode of distribution.
Section 8: Timeline
Below, we present a tentative timeline that shows the sequencing of project tasks by project year. We include pre-program tasks, tasks during the 12 -month Guaranteed Income Pilot program (November 2022-October 2023), and post-program activities. The schedule includes start and completion dates for all tasks and major subtasks, and shows task interdependencies. As we develop a detailed Pilot Program implementation plan, we will focus on tasks that are on critical paths at the same time to ensure that the project stay s on track.
We will develop a final schedule and timeline in consultation with the City’s Guaranteed Income Ad Hoc Committee.
Proposed Implementation Timeline
Year 1
Task March 15, 2022-March 14, 2023
No. Description Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 0 Develop Program Implementation Strategy
1 Promotion, Recruitment and Outreach
2 Assist City’s Finance Department with establishing a
partnership with a local financial institution
3 Assist with program enrollment
4 Review applications for eligibility
5 Submit completed applications
6 Notify and enroll selected participants
7 Conduct onboarding session with Pilot Program
participants
8 Provide individualized benefits counseling
9 Collaborate with financial distribution entity to ensure prompt and effective distribution of the monthly cash
benefit
10 Conduct financial literacy course
11 Connect program participants to local social services 12 Track Pilot Program Process
13 Developing storytelling and communication strategies 14 Create an online data dashboard
15 Convene Working Group
16 Provide quarterly updates
17 Selection of a Program Evaluator
18 Support Program Evaluation
22 19
Facilitate the preparation of the program evaluator’s
comprehensive report
Proposed Implementation Timeline (Continued)
Year 2
Task March 15, 2023-March 14, 2024
No. Description Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 0 Develop Program Implementation Strategy
1 Promotion, Recruitment and Outreach
2 Assist City’s Finance Department with establishing a
partnership with a local financial institution
3 Assist with program enrollment
4 Review applications for eligibility
5 Submit completed applications
6 Notify and enroll selected participants
7 Conduct onboarding session with Pilot Program
participants
8 Provide individualized benefits counseling
9 Collaborate with financial distribution entity to ensure prompt and effective distribution of the monthly cash
benefit
10 Conduct financial literacy course
11 Connect program participants to local social services 12 Track Pilot Program Process
13 Developing storytelling and communication strategies 14 Create an online data dashboard
15 Convene Working Group
16 Provide quarterly updates
17 Selection of a Program Evaluator
18 Support Program Evaluation
19 Facilitate the preparation of the program evaluator’s comprehensive report
23 Section 9: Knowledge of the City of El Monte
Since its inception in the 1940s, RAND has been headquartered in Santa Monica. As a result, the Los Angeles area has long been a focal point of RAND interest and research. RAND research on Los Angeles and its surrounding communities covers a wide range of issues, in cluding child care, demographics, education, and health. In this work, RAND has engaged state and local governments throughout the region, as well as non - governmental organizations seeking to improve all facets of life in the region.
The City of El Monte, particularly in its Hispanic, Asian, and foreign-born populations, reflects the rich diversity of the Los Angeles region that RAND has served (See Table 1 in Appendix C for descriptive characteristics for the City from the 2019 Americ an Community Survey). Though the relatively high poverty rate, particularly among families with children, presents some problems, the program the city is proposing represents an innovative way to address these challenges , and one whose evaluation could inf orm similar efforts elsewhere (See the block maps in Appendix D that graphically display poverty rates at the city block level as well as the blocks that have households with children under the age of 18 headed by a female resident with no husband or partner). Addressing poverty and related issues may also have long-term benefits for the city in boosting its levels of educational attainment.
El Monte is also home to an array of nonprofit organizations that may prove to be suitable partners for this work and related initiatives. Fraternal, labor, religious, and other community organizations serve the area.
RAND generally and each of the investigators for this project have direct experience in working with community organizations and non -profit organizations in a collaborative manner . The projects we cite elsewhere in this proposal all achieved the success they did because of our successful efforts to identify and engage local community organizations and key stakeholders. Beyond these projects, the proposed r esearch team has worked on projects that engaged local non-profit organizations both for cooperative research efforts and as part of a strategy to promote transparency in research by sharing information with study participants and stakeholders that are imp acted by findings from the research we conduct, for example by informing residents on education and income security issues that touch their lives.
Section 9.1: City of El Monte
El Monte is a city in Los Angeles County, California, United States.
The composition of the population is as follows: 32,234 people (28.4%) under the age of 18, 12,814 people (11.3%) aged 18 to 24, 33,263 people (29.3%) aged 25 to 44, 24,567 people (21.6%) aged 45 to 64, and 10,597 people (9.3%) who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 31.6 years. The city has evolved into a community with a large proportion of Hispanic population. The influx of Asians in the past decade has increased the proportion of the Asian community in El Monte. In 2010, El Monte had 113,4 75 inhabitants.
The racial makeup of El Monte was 44,058 (38.8%) White (4.9% Non -Hispanic White), 870 (0.8%) African American, 1,083 (1.0%) Native American, 28,503 (25.1%) Asian (13.5% Chinese, 7.4% Vietnamese, 1.2% Filipino, 0.4% Cambodian, 0.2% Burmese, 0.2% Japanese, 0.2% Korean, 0.2% Indian, 0.2% Thai), 131 (0.1%) Pacific Islander, 35,205 (31.0%) from other races, and 3,625 (3.2%) from two or more races. 78,317 (69.0%) of the population is Hispanic or Latino of any race (60.9% Mexican, 2.3% Salvadoran, 1.2% Guatemalan, 0.4% Nicaraguan, 0.3% Honduran, 0.3% Cuban, 0.2% Puerto Rican, and 0.2% Peruvian).
There were 27,814 households, out of which 14,557 (52.3%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 5,298 (19.0%) had a female householder with no husband present, 2,962 (10.6%) had a male householder with no wife present. The average household size was 4.04. There were 23,347 families (83.9% of all households); the average family size was 4.23. According to the 2010 United States Census, El Monte had a median household income of $39,535, with 24.3% of the population living below the federal poverty line.
24 Section 10: Budget
RAND is pleased to submit this Cost Reimbursable proposal in response to the City of El Monte’s Request for Qualifications Guaranteed Income Pilot Non -Profit Program Administrator. If selected, RAND respectfully reserves the right to negotiate mutually agr eeable contract terms. RAND’s total Budget for the proposed period is $474,944 and is detailed on the following pages
Section 10.1: RAND Detailed Total Budget
Total Proposal
Project Name:
Proposal Number: 20220460 Project Leader: Weidmer,Beverly A Start Date: Mar. 15, 2022
End Date: Mar. 14, 2024
Days Daily Rate Cost
Direct Labor and Fringe Costs
Professional Consultant Lopez Garcia,Italo Xavier Economist, Adjunct 5.00 708.95 3,545 Non-Professional Consultant Aguila,Emma Pardee RAND, Adjunct 20.00 816.51 16,330 Total Direct Labor 25.00 19,875
TOTAL Direct Labor and Fringe 19,875
Direct Non-Labor Costs
Technology Svcs Allocation 1,762
1,762
Total Survey (Inclusive of Weidmer, Beverly Labor Costs 397,683 397,683
Subcontract -
Total Direct Costs 419,320$
Indirect Costs All Indirect Cost rates are applied to TOTAL Direct Labor and Fringe Unit and Corporate Overhead 101.6% 20,196
FCCOM 1.2% 247
Total Indirect Costs 20,442$
Total Cost Before Fee 439,763$
Fee 35,181$
Total Including Fee 474,944$
SUBTOTAL Survey
Guaranteed Income Pilot Study
SUBTOTAL Computing
25 Section 10.2: RAND Detailed Year 1 Budget Breakdown
Cost Element Breakdown
Project Name:
Proposal Number: 20220460 Project Leader: Weidmer,Beverly A Budget Period: Budget Period 1
Budget Period Start: Mar. 15, 2022
Budget Period End: Mar. 14, 2023
Days Daily Rate Cost
Direct Labor and Fringe Costs
Professional Consultant Lopez Garcia,Italo Xavier Economist, Adjunct 5.00 708.95 3,545 Non-Professional Consultant Aguila,Emma Pardee RAND, Adjunct 12.00 803.37 9,640 Total Direct Labor 17.00 13,185
TOTAL Direct Labor and Fringe 13,185
Direct Non-Labor Costs
Technology Svcs Allocation 1,190
1,190
Total Survey (Inclusive of Weidmer, Beverly Labor Costs 171,723 171,723
Subcontract -
Total Direct Costs 186,098$
Indirect Costs All Indirect Cost rates are applied to TOTAL Direct Labor and Fringe Unit and Corporate Overhead 101.8% 13,423
FCCOM 1.1% 150
Total Indirect Costs 13,573$
Total Cost Before Fee 199,671$
Fee 15,974$
Total Including Fee 215,645$
SUBTOTAL Survey
Guaranteed Income Pilot Study
SUBTOTAL Computing
26 Section 10.3: RAND Detailed Year 2 Budget Breakdown
Cost Element Breakdown
Project Name:
Proposal Number: 20220460 Project Leader: Weidmer,Beverly A Budget Period: Budget Period 2
Budget Period Start: Mar. 15, 2023
Budget Period End: Mar. 14, 2024
Days Daily Rate Cost
Direct Labor and Fringe Costs
Non-Professional Consultant Aguila,Emma Pardee RAND, Adjunct 8.00 836.21 6,690 Total Direct Labor 8.00 6,690
TOTAL Direct Labor and Fringe 6,690
Direct Non-Labor Costs
Technology Svcs Allocation 572
572
Total Survey (Inclusive of Weidmer, Beverly Labor Costs 225,960 225,960
Subcontract -
Total Direct Costs 233,222$
Indirect Costs All Indirect Cost rates are applied to TOTAL Direct Labor and Fringe Unit and Corporate Overhead 101.3% 6,773
FCCOM 1.4% 96
Total Indirect Costs 6,870$
Total Cost Before Fee 240,092$
Fee 19,207$
Total Including Fee 259,299$
SUBTOTAL Survey
Guaranteed Income Pilot Study
SUBTOTAL Computing
27 Section 11: Budget Justification
RAND is pleased to submit this proposal in response to the Request for Qualifications for the implementation of a Basic Income Pilot Program.
We have budgeted a total of $474,944 over the 24 months of the project. The budget includes labor cost for RAND staff, RAND Survey Research Group (SRG) staff, and direct costs associated with the implementation of the Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Study.
The project will be led by Beverly Weidmer, Senior Survey Director in RAND’s SRG and Emma Aguila, RAND Senior Economist and Associate Professor at the USC Sol Price School of Public of Policy. Pilot Program implementation tasks will be carried out by RAND’s Survey Research Group (SRG). The Survey Research Group (SRG) was established at RAND in 1972 to provide RAND with an in -house capability for conducting primary data collection that was of the same high quality as the quality of RAND’s research analyses. The SRG is made up of policy analysts, health services researchers, and specialists in the technical aspects of survey research. These professionals share a common interest and expertise in applying state -of-the-art survey methods to the specia l challenges of public policy research and have special expertise in data collection in various community and healthcare settings with difficult -to-reach populations. After 50 years, SRG has become known for innovative survey planning, data collection, an d methodological research. SRG staff are experienced in working with community and other stakeholder groups as part of the data collection process and have many years of experience in collecting primary data in a variety of community and institutional settings.
The RAND Survey Research Group (SRG) operates as a cost center within RAND. This means that SRG’s charges for data collection are set to recover actual costs on an annual basis. Rather than charging users on the basis of an individual staff memb er’s actual rate, RAND’s SRG Cost Center charges users by “positions” (i.e., users pay a set hourly rate for a “Senior Survey Coordinator” regardless of which of our senior survey coordinators perform the task). However, SRG assigns specific individuals t o work on the project, as named in the proposal. Staff within each “position” have similar actual salaries and comparable skill sets. Each “position” hourly rate is inclusive of all costs (i.e., direct and indirect). SRG costs appear as a Direct Non-Labor Costs in the overall RAND budget, however, we have included a separate budget that details SRG costs. Ms.
Weidmer’s labor costs appear under the SRG budget while Dr. Aguila’s and Dr. García Lopez’ labor costs appear under the overall RAND budget.
PERSONNEL
Emma Aguila – Project Co-Principal Investigator. Dr. Aguila will closely collaborate with Ms. Weidmer in the implementation of the Pilot Program and will have joint responsibility for overall project management and contact with the City of El Monte City Manager’s Office and will also collaborate with the program evaluator in producing a final report. Ms. Aguila is budgeted at 5% effort (12 days) in Year 1 of the project and 3% effort in Year 2 of the Pilot Program (8 days).
Italo Lopez-García – Senior Economist. Dr. Lopez -García will work with Ms. Weidmer and Dr. Aguila in the developing a protocol for recruiting and screening potential Pilot Program participants and in the developing implementation plan for the Pilot Program. Dr. Lopez -García is budgeted for 2% effort (5 days) in Year 1 of the Pilot Program only.
TECHNOLOGY SERVICE ALLOCATION
28 Technology Services Allocation is calculated at a flat rate of $8.75 per hour of staff time. The budget reflects an inflation adjustment for costs in future budget periods. Technology services, consisting of computers per staff member; exchange services (voicemail, email, calendaring) and associated file storage; access to collaborative information resources, software provided on network servers; remote access to RAND through encrypted tunneling and Web -based AnywhereConnect; printing, copying, faxing, and scanning on RAND network machines, including troubleshooting and supplies; and Sharepoint Web -based sites for team collaboration.
Telecommunications, con sisting of videoconference facility use and maintenance; telephones and related moves, repairs, maintenance, administration; local, long- distance, international calling, 800 numbers for voice access by RAND travelers; RAND phone directory, database updates, and maintenance; RAND switchboard support; and three-party conference calling.
System Support Services, including but not limited to consulting and troubleshooting; troubleshooting to ensure that a computer is up and running or to assist with Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, or Excel; consultation on hardware and software for RAND work; assistance with printing, operating system, file sharing, email and communication software (including for remote access), Web browser, and calendaring software; RAND - specific documentation, product testing and evaluation.
SURVEY RESEARCH GROUP
PERSONNEL
Beverly Weidmer – Project Principal Investigator. Ms. Weidmer will have responsibility for overall project management and contact with the City of El Monte City Manager’s Offi ce. She will be responsible for coordinating the implementation of the pilot and coordinating the work to be carried out by all SRG staff, providing quarterly updates to the City to report on the implementation of the GBI Pilot Program, convene and lead a working group to provide updates on the design and implementation of the program, collaborate with the program evaluator in producing a final report describing Pilot Program outcomes and effectiveness. Finally, she will monitor all spending and ensure that the project is completed on time and within budget. Ms. Weidmer is budgeted at 20% effort (48 days) during each year of the Pilot Program.
SRG Survey Coordinator (TBD) A bilingual (English/Spanish) will work with Ms. Weidmer in implementing the recruitment of potential program participants, will assist with promotion of the program, will oversee the translation of recruitment, promotion, and program materials into Spanish and Mandarin, and will assist in coordinating with the selected financial institutio n that will collaborate with the Pilot Program in the disbursement of the program payments. She will also assist with Ms. Weidmer in testing the electronic screening tool used to assess and document program participant eligibility, to test the program part icipant registry, and to develop and test the Pilot Program Dashboard.
Record Management Systems Administrator. An RMS Administrator (TBD) will develop, test and manage the database architecture used to recruit potential program participants and once they are enrolled in the program, to track their participation in the program. During the implementation of the Pilot Program, the RMS Administrator will manage the sample, coordinate sample delivery for the administration of surveys, track encounters between program participants and program counselors and generate progress reports. In the first year of the Pilot Program, the administrator is budgeted for 2% effort (5 days total) to set up a program registry and generate reports. In year 2 of the Pilot Program, the administrator is budgeted at 2% effort (5 days). 29 Web Programmer. A Web Programmer (TBD) will work with Ms. Weidmer and other project staff on the development of a web-based screening tool that potential Pilot Program participants will be directed to as part of the program recruitment effort. The tool will help screen program participants to assess eligibility. In addition, the Web Programmer will help develop a web-based the Pilot Program dashboard to keep the community informed. During YR02 we have included additional time that may be needed for web-site updates once the full implementation starts. In the first year of the Pilot Program, the administrator is budgeted for 3% effort (8 days total) to program the web -based screening form for potential program participants. In year 2 of the Pilot Program, the administrator is budgeted at 2.5% effort (6 days).
Administrative Assistant. An Administrative Assistant (TBD) has been included in the budget to provide Ms. Weidmer and Dr. Aguila with administrat ive support. The Administrative Assistant is budgeted at 4% effort (10 days) in the first year of the Pilot Program and 2% effort (5 days) in the second year of the program.
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
YEAR 1-
Postage costs in the amount of $5,577 have been included to mail a program invitation letter and up to two reminder postcards to households targeted for recruitment into the Pilot Program. All correspondence will be mailed using USPS 1st class mail. Only actual costs will be charged.
Respondent payments in the amount of $3750 have been included for Program Participants to take part in a baseline assessment (an incentive o $15 for each of 250 participants (125 who will be assigned to the treatment and 125 who will be assigned to the control group).
Printing and packet prep costs in the amount of $6,491 have been included to print and packet prep a program participation letter, Frequently Asked Questions, outgoing and return envelopes, and reminder postcards for up to 4,000 households selected to apply to the Pilot Program. Printing costs also include costs for posters and flyers.
Miscellaneous costs in the amount of $500 have been included for the purchase of office supplies and materials that will be used in the recruitment effort for the Pilot Program.
Costs in the amount of $2,000 have been included to purchase, from a commercial sampling firm, a sample of addresses from selected zip codes and/or census tracts that will be targeted for inclusion in the Pilot Program.
Costs in the amount of $140 for an IS Web Survey System are included to cover the costs of hosting the web-based Program participant screening form.
Mileage costs in the amount of $724 have been include for project staff who will travel to El Monte to promote the Pilot Program, visit program participants as necessary, and hold community meetings.
Costs for 2 Pilot Program Counselors in the amount of $27,250 have been included in the first year of the project. The Counselors have been budgeted at half time over a period of four months and will 30 be responsible for promoting the Pilot Program at local events, will participate in community meetings, and will meet individual with each of the 125 households selected to participate in the Pilot Program to explain how the program will work, verify their eligibility, and help them complete enrollment applications. One of the counselors will be bilingual in English and Spanish and the other will be bilingual in English and Mandarin.
Translation cost s in the amount of $2,000 have been included to translate program recruitment materials (invitation letter, FAQs, reminder postcards) and promotional materials (posters, flyers) and the recruitment screener into Spanish and Mandarin. Translations will be d one by professional translators and reviewed by bilingual staff.
YEAR 2-
Respondent payments in the amount of $5,000 have been included to provide a $40 payment to each of the 125 program participants who agree to participate in a one -on-one, in depth in terview with one of the program counselors to share their experiences with the program.
Miscellaneous costs in the amount of $500 have been included for the purchase of office supplies and materials that will be used in the recruitment effort for the Pilot Program.
Printing costs in the amount of $500 have been included to print materials for the financial literacy classes that will be given to program participants.
Mileage costs in the amount of $2,172 have been included for project staff who will travel to El Monte to meet with program staff, to hold community meetings, and or counselors who will travel to participants homes to meet with them one-on -one and in groups to interview them and to provide financial literacy classes/instruction.
Costs for 2 Pilot Program Counselors in the amount of $68,800 have been included in the second year of the project. The Counselors have been budgeted at half time over a period of 12 months and will be responsible for promoting the Pilot Program at local events, will participate in community meetings, and will meet with each of the 125 households selected to participate in the Pilot Program periodically to interview them one -on-one, to provide support, to help connect them to social services available in t he City of El Monte, and to provide financial literacy instruction/classes. The Counselors will also encourage participants to take part in evaluation activities survey as surveys and other assessments and will follow up with those participants who fail to complete evaluation activities.
Translation costs in the amount of $1,000 have been included to translate financial literacy materials into Spanish and Mandarin.
Transcriptions costs in the amount of 27,500 ($10,490 for English language transcription and $17,010 for Spanish language transcription) have been included for the transcription of audio recordings of one-on-one interviews conducted with program participants. We anticipate interviews will take approximately one hour. Transcription will be conducted by a local transcription firm.
31 INDIRECT COSTS
Indirect rates consisting of Corporate Overhead -Onsite (69.3%) and Unit Overhead (RAND Social and Economic Wellbeing 32.4%) forward facing rates have been applied to this proposal. These indirect costs are applied to the cost bases of RAND Direct Labor (salary inclusive of sabbatic) and Fringe. RAND’s current forward facing rates along with the DCMA correspondence is attached for your reference. RAND is authorized to recover (bill) at these rates; theref ore RAND priced this proposal to align with these rates in an effort to represent the most accurate pricing estimate.
Indirect costs cannot specifically be identified with a project and are distributed to a base consisting of salaries, employee fringe, and adjunct staff salaries. Please note that the rates displayed in budget presentation may vary from the stated rates. These rates represent blended rates for costs incurred in a time period spanning a change in the rate. The displayed rate is a blended r ate weighted by the time period in which the costs are being incurred and are for the development of this specific budget presentation. Indirect rates applied to actual costs will be consistent with the authorized rate in effect at the time the costs were incurred.
COST OF MONEY – FCCOM
This cost element is applicable to salaries and fringe benefits only. The Cost of Money, or Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCOM), is a prescribed cost that is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). This cost is tied to the U.S. Treasury’s average published rate which is updated periodically by the U.S. Treasury.
FCCOM acknowledges there is a cost associated with investments in facilities (buildings, computers, furniture, etc.). FCCOM reimburses RAND for our cost of money (opportunity costs, forgone interest, economic loss, etc.) and is the government's way of providing an incentive to contractors for investment in facilities. FCCOM helps finance costs associated with building costs or other capital projects and non-reimbursable costs and is a way to recover otherwise unallowable financing costs associated with investments in facilities. Even though RAND is a non -profit corporation, RAND has been specifically excluded from OMB Circular A -122 coverage (Relocated to 2 CFR, Part 230), so the cost principles of the FAR instead apply. FCCOM is an allowable FAR cost and has been accepted by all federal agencies RAND currently conducts business with. RAND is applying an FCCOM rate of 1.2% in accordance with the most recent US Treasury rates.
FEE
RAND is proposing a fixed fee of 8% applied to all costs for this project. The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decision making through research and analysis. Fee charged in a “non-profit” environment is distinctly different from that in a “for profit” environment in that RAND, as a non-profit institution, does not have shareholders and provide dividends but instead retains all earnings for internal investment and business operations . Contract fees are essential to RAND's ability to carry out its mission and to meet the dynamic needs of its research sponsors. The fees provide funds for cost sharing on government grants, and for RAND-sponsored research, which is essential if RAND is to maintain a first-class research staff and fulfill its charter as a nonprofit scientific and educational organization. The fees also provide working capital, including cash necessary to pay salaries, fringe benefits, and other costs of doing business in advance of reimbursement. Selection of the appropriate fee percentage is handled in consultation with the Unit Director and is based on contract type, perceived risk and other factors. RAND’s fee structure is consistent with our DCAA disclosed practices and certified by annual independent audits.
32 APPENDICES
33 APPENDIX A
CURRICULUM VITAE
34 Beverly Weidmer, M.A.
Senior Survey Director
[email protected]
Experience
Senior Survey Director, RAND Corporation Mar. 2010–Present Survey Director, RAND Corporation Mar. 2002–Feb. 2010
For the last 20 years, Ms. Weidmer has led the design and implementation of large -scale, longitudinal surveys both in the U.S. and abroad, involving multiple modes of data collection, experimental designs, and difficult to reach populations including the elderly, children and teens, CalWORKs recipients, Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, clinicians, and members of law enforcement. She has led the development and testing of multiple survey tools including a survey to asses s the impact of a poverty abatement program in Mexico, a survey to assess cultural competency in healthcare organizations, a patient reported outcome survey (PRO) for patients with intraocular lens implants, a survey to assess health literacy in different healthcare settings, and patient experience of care surveys for special populations (ESRD patients, American Indians, etc.).
Education
Master of Arts: Latin American Studies, The University of Texas at Austin, 1990 Bachelor of the Arts: Government, The University of Texas at Austin, 1986 Special Qualifications
Ms. Weidmer has 30 years’ experience in both quantitative and qualitative research methods, including all aspects of survey design and implementation, instrument development, focus groups, and methods for assessing the validity of survey instruments, inclu ding cognitive interviews and usability testing. She is experienced in organizing instrument development processes involving the participation of multiple researchers and stakeholders, and in conducting focus groups, key informant interviews, and cognitiv e testing with a wide range of populations from Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to clinicians, health plan representatives, and ambulance providers. She has expertise in translation, in the design and testing of culturally appropriate survey instrumen ts, in the design and implementation of complex, multi -mode surveys, in reaching hard -to-reach populations, and in strategies to reduce sample attrition and item non - response.
Selected Publications
Aguila, Emma, Weidmer, Beverly A ., Rivera Illingworth, Alfonso, Martinez, Homero. “Culturally Competent Informed-Consent Process to Evaluate a Social Policy for Older Persons with Low Literacy.” The Mexican Case; Vol. 6, Issue 3, August-22-2016.
Aguila, Emma, Cervera, Maria Dolores, Martinez, Homero, and Weidmer, Beverly . “Developing and Testing Informed-Consent Methods in a Study of the Elderly in Mexico.” Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2015. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z8.html. 35 Bozick, Robert, Karoly, Lynn A., Whitaker, Anamarie A, Weidmer, Beverly, Muchow, Ashley, Gutierrez, Italo.
A descriptive profile of CalWORK’s recipients and their families: initial findings from the first wave of the California Socioeconomic survey. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2019.
Coker TR, Sareen HG, Chung PJ, Kennedy DP, Weidmer BA, Schuster MA. “Improving Access to and Utilization of Adolescent Preventive Health Care: The Perspectives of Adolescents and Parents. Journal of Adolescent Health.” 47(2): 133-142.
Davis, Lois, Barnes-Proby, Dionne, Karoly, Lynn A., Weidmer Beverly, Iyiewuare, Praise, Bozick, Robert, Fain, Gabriele, Kitmitto, Sami, Graczewski, Cheryl, Larsen, Eric, Bos, Johannes M., Arellanes, Melissa, Horinouchi, Andrew, Anthony, Jennifer, Castro, Marina, Fronberg, Kaitlin, Chandra, Connie, Zhang, Anlan. Evaluation of the SB 1041 reforms to California’s welfare to work program. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2020.
Friedberg, Mark W., Reid, Rachel O., Timbie, Justin W., Setodji, Claude, Kofner, Aaron, Weidme r, Beverly, and Kahn, Katherine. “Federally Qualified Health Center Clinicians and Staff Increasingly Dissatisfied With Workplace Conditions.” Health Affairs, August 2017, Vol. 36, No. 8, 1469-1475.
Jaycox, Lisa H., McCaffrey, Daniel F., Weidmer Ocampo, Be verly, Shelley, Gene, Blake, Susan, Peterson, Donna J., Richmond, Lucinda S., Kub, Joan E. “Challenges in the Evaluation and Implementation of School - Based Prevention and Intervention Programs on Sensitive Topics.” American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3):320- 336. (2006).
Jaycox, Lisa H., Daniel F. McCaffrey, Beverly A. Weidmer , Grant N. Marshall, Rebecca L. Collins, Laura J.
Hickman and Denise D. Quigley, Curbing Teen Dating Violence: Evidence from a School Prevention Program, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RB-9194-CDC, 2006.
Lee, Christoph I., Khodyakov, Dmitry, Weidmer, Beverly A ., Wenger, Neil S., Timbie, Justin W., Brantley, Brittain, Burgette, Lane F., Leuschner, Kristin, J., Hussy, Peter S., and Kahn, Katherine L. “Radiologists' Perceptions of Computerized Decision Support: A Focus Group Study From the Medicare Imaging Demonstration Project.” American Journal of Roentgenology 2015 205:5, 947-955 Morales LM, Weech-Maldonado R, Elliott MN, Weidmer B, Hays RD. “Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Language Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey (CAHPS).” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25(3).
Ngo-Metzger Q, Telfair J, Sorkin D, Weidmer B , Weech-Maldonado R, Hurtado M, and Hays RD. “Cult ural Competency and Quality of Care: Obtaining the Patient’s Perspective.” Commonwealth Fund Pub. No. 963.
October 2006.
Timbie, Justin W., Setodji, Claude Messan, Kress, Amii M., Lavelle, Tara A., Friedberg, Mark W., Mendel, Peter, Chen, Emily K., Weidmer, Beverly A., Buttorf Christine, Malsberger, Rosalie, Kommareddi, Mallika, Rastegar, Afshin, Kofner, Aaron, Hiatt, Liisa, Mahmud, Ammarah, Giuriceo Katherine D, Kahn, Katherine L.
Implementation of Medical Homes in Federally Qualified Health Centers. Ne w England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 337, Number 3 (July2017) pp.246-256.
Weech-Maldonado, Robert, Carle, Adam, Weidmer, Beverly A., Hurtado, Margarita, Ngo -Metzger, Quyen, and Hays, Ron D. “The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS ).” Cultural Competence (CC) Item Set Medical Care, Volume 50, Number 9 Suppl 2, September 2012, S22-S31.
Weidmer Ocampo, Beverly, Shelley, Gene A., and Jaycox, Lisa. H. “Latino Teens Talk About Help Seeking and Help Giving in Relation to Dating Violence.” Violence Against Women, Volume 12, Number 2, February 2007, pp. 172-189.
Weidmer Ocampo, Beverly, Johansson, Patrick, Dalpoas, Debbie, Wharton, David, Darby, Charles, and Hays, Ron D. “Adapting CAHPS for an American Indian Population.” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, Volume 20, Number 2, August 2009.
Weidmer, Beverly A., Brach, Cindy, Hays, Ron D. “Development and Evaluation of CAHPS® Survey Items Assessing How Well Healthcare Providers Address Health Literacy.” Medical Care , Volume 50, Number 8 Suppl 2, September 2012, S3-S11.
36 Weidmer, Beverly A., Brach, Cindy, Slaughter, Mary E., Hays, Ron D. “Development Items to Assess Patients’ Health Literacy Experiences at Hospitals for the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Hospital Survey.” Medical Care, Volume 50, Number 8 Suppl 2, September 2012, S12-S21.
Weidmer Ocampo, Beverly , Cleary, Paul D., Keller, San, Christian, Evensen, Margarita Hurtado, Margarita, Kosiak, Beth, Gallagher, Patricia M., Levine, Roger E., Hays, Ron D. “Development and Evaluation of the CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) Survey for In -Center Hemodialysis Patients.” American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 2014.
Professional Affiliations
American Association of Public Opinion Researchers
37 Emma Aguila
University of Southern California Tel: 213.821.0702 Sol Price School of Public Policy
635 Downey Way, VPD 512J Email: [email protected] Los Angeles, CA 90089
Education
University College London, UK, Ph.D. in Economics, 2006 University College London, UK, MSc. in Economics, 2001
Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, Mexico, B.A. in Economics, 2000
Research and Professional Experience
USC, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Associate Professor April 2020- USC, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Assistant Professor January 2014-April 2020 RAND, Senior Economist (from Associate, Full) June 2006- USC-RCMAR, Executive Committee Member August 2018-
RAND, Director Center for Latin American Social Policy April 2008- December 2013 University of Michigan, Affiliated Researcher, MRDRC September 2007-current
Teaching Experience
2014-present Graduate Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC. 2016-present Undergraduate Statistics for Policy, Planning, and Development, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC.
2019-present Graduate Statistics for Policy, Planning, and Development, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC.
Publications (Peer Reviewed)
Aguila, Emma, Zeewan Lee, and Rebeca Wong. 2021. Migration, work, and retirement: The case of Mexican- origin populations. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance , 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474747221000342
Aguila, Emma and Jacqueline L. Angel. 2021.” Retirement and Supplemental Income Programs for Low - Income Older Mexican-Origin Adults in the United States and Mexico.” Public Policy & Aging Report, prab10. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppar/prab010
Jun, Hankyung, Emma Aguila. 2021. “Private Insurance and Mental Health among Older Adults with Multiple Chronic Conditions: A Longitudinal Analysis by Race and Ethnicity.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(5), 2615.
Mejia-Arango, Silvia, Emma Aguila , Mariana López-Ortega, Luis Miguel Gutiérrez -Robledo, William A. Vega, Flavia C. Drumond Andrade, Sunshine M. Rote, Stephanie M. Grasso, Kyriakos S. Markides, and Jacqueline L. Angel. 2020. "Health and social correlates of dementia in oldest -old Mexican -origin 38 populations." Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions 6(1):e12105. https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.12105
Aguila, Emma and James P. Smith. 2020. “ Supplemental Income Program Design: A Cluster -Randomized Controlled Trial to Examine the Health and Wellbeing Effects on Older Adults by Gender, Duration, and Payment ” Social Science & Medicine , 259, 113139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113139
Aguila, Emma , Jung Ho Park, and Alma Vega. 2020. “Living Arrangements and Supplemental Income Programs for Older Adults.” Demography, 0, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-020-00879-3 Aguila, Emma, and Maria Casanova. 2020. “Short -Term Impact of Income on Cognitive Function: Evidence from a Sample of Mexican Older Adults.” Journal of Aging and Health. 32(7-8):591-603. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264319841155
Riumallo-Herl, Carlos and Emma Aguila. 2019. “Pension and health care in Mexico: What is the effect of old- age pensions on health care utilization patterns and insurance uptake? ” The British Medical Journal (BMJ) Global Health, 4(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001771 Casanova, Maria and Emma Aguila. 2019. “Gender Differences in Cognitive Function among Older Mexican Immigrants” The Journal of the Economics of Ageing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeoa.2019.100226 Aguila, Emma, Mariana López -Ortega, and Sean Angst. 2019. “Do income supplemental programs for older adults’ help reduce primary caregiver burden? Evidence from Mexico.” Journal of Cross -Cultural Gerontology, 34(4), 385-402 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10823-019-09374-8 Aguila, Emma, Mariana López-Ortega, and Luis Miguel Gutierrez. 2018. “Non-contributory Pension Programs and Frailty of Older Adults: Evidence from Mexico .” PLoS ONE 13(11): e0206792. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206792
Blanco, Luisa, Marco Angrisani, Emma Aguila, and Mei Leng. 2018. “Understanding the Racial/Ethnic Gap in Bank Account Ownership Among Older Adults.” Journal of Consumer Affairs , 53(2), 324-354 https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12188
Vega, Alma, Thalia Porteny, and Emma Aguila . 2018. “The Ro le of Clinics in Determining Older Recent Immigrants’ Use of Health Services.” Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 20(6), 1468-1475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-018-0693-x
Aguila, Emma, Arie Kapteyn, and Caroline Tassot. 2017. “Designing Cash Transfer Programs for an Older Population: The Mexican Case.” The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, 9, 111– 121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeoa.2016.09.001
Aguila, Emma, and Alma Vega. 2017. “Social Security Contributions and Return Migration Among Older Male Mexican Immigrants.” The Gerontologist, 57(3), 563– 574. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw140
Aguila, Emma, Arie Kapteyn, and Francisco Perez-Arce. 2017. “Consumption Smoothing and Frequency of Benefit Payments of Cash Transfer Programs.” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 107(5), 430-435. https://dx.doi.org/10.1257%2Faer.p20171147 39 Blanco, Luisa, Emma Aguila , Arturo Gongora, and O. Kenrik Duru. 2017. “Retirement Planning Among Hispanics: In God’s Hands?” Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 29(4), 311– 331. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2016.1272161
Vega, Alma, and Emma Aguila . 2017. “Foreign Retirement Income among New Older Immigrants in the United States.” International Migration, 55(3), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12325
Aguila, Emma , Beverly Weidmer, Alfonso Rivera Illingworth, and Homero Martinez. 2016. "Culturally Competent Informed -Consent Process to Evaluate a Social Policy for Older Pe rsons With Low Literacy: The Mexican Case." SAGE Open, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016665886
Aguila, Emma, Marco Angrisani, and Luisa Blanco. 2016. “Ownership of a Bank Account and Health of Older Hispanics.” Economics Letters, 144, 41–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2016.04.013
Aguila, Emma , Nelly Mejia, Francisco Perez -Arce, Edgar Ramirez, and Alfonso Rivera Illingworth. 2016. “Costs of Extending the Noncontributory Pension Program for Elderly: The Mexican Case.” Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 28(4), 325–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2016.1158384
Aguila, Emma, Erick G. Guerrero, and William A. Vega. 2016. “Sociodemographic Characteristics Associated with Alcohol Use among Low -Income Mexican Older Adults.” Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 11(1), 11-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-016-0061-6
Aguila, Emma, Arie Kapteyn, and James P. Smith. 2015. “Effects of Income Supplementation on Health of the Poor Elderly: The Case of Mexico.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (1), 70–75. https://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1414453112
Aguila, Emma, Nelly Mejía, Francisco Pérez, Alfonso Rivera, and Edgar Ramírez. 2015. “Pobreza Y Vulnerabilidad En México: El Caso De Los Jóvenes Que No Estudian Ni Trabajan.” Estudios Económicos, 30(1), 3–49.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/WR900/WR991/RAND_WR991. pdf
Aguila, Emma. 2014. “Male Labor Force Participation and Social Security in Mexico.” Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, 13(2), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474747213000292
Aguila, Emma , Michael D. Hurd, and Susann Rohwedder. 2014. “How Do Management Fees Affect Retirement Wealth under Mexico’s Personal Retirement Accounts System? Mexico’s Personal Retirement Accounts System.” Latin American Policy , 5(2), 331– 350. https://doi.org/10.1111/lamp.12051
Aguila, Emma, Jose Escarce, Mei Leng, and Leo Morales. 2013. “Health Status and Behavioral Risk Factors in Older Adult Mexicans and Mexican Immigrants to the United States.” Journal of Aging and Health, 25(1), 136–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264312468155
Aguila, Emma , and Julie Zissimopoulos. 2013. “Retirement and Health Benefits for Mexican Migrant Workers Returning from the United States: Retirement and Health Benefits for Mexican Migrant Workers Returning from the United States.” International Social Security Review, 66(2), 101–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/issr.12014
40 Aguila, Emma. 2011. “Personal Retirement Accounts and Saving.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(4), 1–24. Doi: 10.1257/pol.3.4.1
Aguila, Emma , Orazio Attanasio, and Costas Meghir. 2011. “Changes in Consumption at Retirement:
Evidence from Panel Data.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(3), 1094– 1099. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00140
Book Chapters (Peer Reviewed)
Emma Aguila. 2021. “Section 5 The Conference Series on Aging in the Americas (CAA) and Emerging Scholars in the Field.” (Resume). In J.L. Angel, M. López -Ortega and M.L. Gutierrez Robledo (Eds.).
Understanding the Context of Cognitive Aging. Mexico and the United Sta tes. 1st ed., pp. 321-324.
New York: Springer Science.
Gabriela Armenta, Emma Aguila, Mariana López-Ortega, and Silvia Mejia. 2021. “Impact of Supplemental Income on Major Depressive Episodes of Older Adults in Mexico”. In J.L. Angel, M. López -Ortega and M.L. Gutierrez Robledo (Eds.). Understanding the Context of Cognitive Aging. Mexico and the United States. 1st ed., pp. 265-288. New York: Springer Science.
Stephanie Grasso, Flavia Andrade, Mariana López-Ortega, and Emma Aguila. 2021. “Framing Challenges of Dementia and Mental Health Care in Mexican-origin Older Adults in Mexico and the United States:
Consensus Agenda Findings and Reco mmendations”. In J.L. Angel, M. López -Ortega and M.L.
Gutierrez Robledo (Eds.). Understanding the Context of Cognitive Aging. Mexico and the United States. (1st ed., pp. 325-333. New York: Springer Science.
Sean Angst, Emma Aguila, and Mariana López -Ortega. 2018. “Determinants of Informal Care Supply for Older Adults in Yucatan, Mexico”. In W. A. Vega, J.L. Angel, L.M.F. Gutiérrez Robledo, and K. S.
Markides, (Eds.) Challenges of Latino Aging in the Americas: Contextualizing Health and Aging in the Americas: Effects of Space, Time and Place, pp. 337-358 New York: Springer Science.
Aguila Emma, Raquel Fonseca, and Alma Vega. 2015. “Self -employment, Health Insurance, and Return Migration of Middle-Aged and Elderly Mexican Males.” In W. A. Vega, K. S. Markides, J. L. Angel, and F. M. Torres -Gil (Eds.), Challenges of Latino Aging in the Americas , pp. 103 -120. New York:
Springer Science.
Aguila, Emma, Claudia Diaz, Mary M. Fu, Arie Kapteyn and Ashley Pierson. 2012. “Envejecer en México:
Condiciones de Vida y Salud.” In Luis Miguel Gutiérrez Robledo and David Kershenobich, eds., Envejecimiento y Salud: Una Propuesta para un Plan de Acción. Mexico: National Academy of Medicine of Mexico, pp. 303-319.
Monographs and Technical Reports (Peer reviewed)
Aguila, Emma , Maria Dolores Cervera, Homero Martinez, and Beverly Weidmer. 2015. Developing and Testing Informed-Consent Methods in a Study of the Elderly in Mexico. RAND Corporation, Technical Report, TR-1288-8. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z8.html
Aguila, Emma , Arie Kapteyn, Nelly Mejia, Rosalba Robles, Oscar Vargas, and Beverly Weidmer. 2014.
Geographic Targeting in Urban Areas: A Social Welfare Program for Older Persons in Mexico. RAND 41 Corporation, Technical Report, TR -1288-5.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z5.html
Aguila, Emma, Abril Borges, Ashley Pierson, Rosalba Robles, Jose Eduardo del Torno, and Beverly Weidmer. 2014. Distributing Non -contributory Pension Benefi ts by Debit Card in Mexico: A Pilot Test. RAND Corporation, Technical Report, TR -1288-7.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z7.html
Aguila, Emma, Abril Borges, Cielo Margot Castillejos, Ashley Pierson, and Beverly Weidmer. 2014. Mortality Expectations of Older Mexicans: Development and Testing of Survey Measures. RAND Corporation, Technical Report, TR-1288-6. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z6.html
Aguila, Emma, Arie Kapteyn, Rosalba Robles, Oscar Vargas and Beverly Weidmer. 2014. A Non -contributory Pension Program for Older Persons in Yucatan, Mexico: Implementing and Designing the Evaluation the Program in Valladolid. RAND Corporation, Technical Report, Englis h version TR -1288-1 and Spanish version TR -1288-3. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z1.html and https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z3.html
Aguila, Emma, Abril Borges, Arie Kapteyn, Rosalba Robles, and Beverly Weidmer, 2014. A Non -contributory Pension Program for Older Persons in Yucatan, Mexico: Implementing and Designing the Ev aluation the Program in Mérida. RAND Corporation, Technical Report, English version TR-1288-2 and Spanish version TR -1288-4. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z2.html and https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z4.html
Aguila, Emma, Alisher Akhmedjonov, Ricardo Basurto -Davila, Krishna B. Kumar, Sarah Kups and Howard J.
Shatz. 2012. United States and Mexico: Ties that Bind, Issues that Divide. Santa Monica, California:
RAND Corporation, MG-985-1. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG985-1.html
Aguila, Emma , Claudia Diaz, Mary Manqing Fu, Arie Kapteyn and Ashley Pierson. 2011. Living Longer in Mexico: Income Security and Health. Santa Monica, California: RAND Corporation. English version MG-1179 and Spanish version MG-1179-z3. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1179.html and https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1179z3.html
Fellowships and Awards
American Society of Hispanic Economists (ASHE) Midcareer Mentoring Program 2021 Mexican National System of Investigators (SNI), Level III 2020 Mexican National System of Investigators (SNI), Level I 2017 Faculty High Impact Research Award, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC 2016 Diversity Initiative for Tenure in Economics (DITE), NSF 2016 Gold Merit Award, RAND 2008
First Prize of the Inter-American Award for Research on Social Security 2007 2008 First Prize of the Award on Pensions 2005, CONSAR, AMAFORE, Mexico. 2005
Funded Research
1R01AG068392-01A1 Aguila (Co-I) 05/01/21-01/31/26
42 University of Colorado Boulder, National Institute on Aging.
Health of Aging Mexicans on Both Sides of the Border.
Total Award: $283,501
USC_7/01/19 Aguila (PI) 07/01/19-06/30/20
Lusk Center for Real State, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC Selection of Undocumented Male Mexican Return Migrants.
Total Award: $12,000
18-84292-11 Aguila (PI) 12/15/17 – 3/31/21
University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, National Institute on Aging The Mexican Health and Aging Study & Social Security Administrative Records Linkages. Total Award:
$10,000
5P30AG017265-17 Aguila (PI) 08/01/16-06/30/17
Pilot Project, Center for Biodemography and Population Health, USC and UCLA Impact of a Noncontributory Pension Program on Biomarkers. Total Award: $41,249
R01 R01AG035008 Kapteyn, Aguila (Co-PIs) 08/01/10-07/31/17 National Institute on Aging
Experimental Design of a Social Security System in Yucatan. Total Award: $3,339,064
USC_11/19/15 Aguila (PI) 01/01/16-12/31/16
Bedrosian Center, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC Implementation Designs of a Non-contributory Social Security Program for Older Population. Total Award:
$2,000
USC_5/22/15 Aguila (PI) 05/15/15-06/30/16
Lusk Center for Real State, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC The Effect of Income Programs on Housing Choices and Living Arrangements in Old Age. Total Award:
$25,000
P01 P01AG022481 Kapteyn, Aguila (Co-PIs) 07/1/10-02/01/16 National Institute on Aging
P01 International Comparisons of Well-Being, Health, and Retirement. Project No.2 Experimental Design of a Social Security System. Total Award: $1,039,516
UM15-17 Aguila, Vega (CoPIs) 09/30/14-09/29/15
Michigan Retirement Research Center (MRRC), Social Security Administration Social Security Contributions and Return Migration among Older Mexican Immigrants.
Total Award: $34,319
IADB_8/22/13 Aguila (PI) 08/22/13-11/17/15
Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) and the Government of Paraguay Design of Longitudinal Social Protection Survey (ELPS) in Paraguay. Total Award: $187,031
43 IADB_8/21/13 Aguila (PI) 05/10/13-04/21/15
Inter-American Development Bank (IADB)
Design and Implementation of the Social Protection Longitudinal Survey (Encuesta Longitudinal de Protección Social, or ELPS) in Ecuador. Total Award: $436,672
UAH_8-01-12 Aguila (PI) 08/01/12-12/31/13
Chilean Ministry of Labor/Social Observatory (OSUAH) of the University Alberto Hurtado Data Quality and Analysis of the Fifth wave of the Chilean Social Protection Survey (Encuesta de Protección Social or EPS). Total Award: $46,500
C230_8/15/12 Aguila (PI) 08/15/12-12/31/12
Mexican Ministry of Social Development (SEDESOL)
Youth Poverty and Sustainability of a Supplemental Income Program in Mexico. Total Award: $40,539
P30AG012815 Aguila (PI) 02/1/10-02/01/11
Pilot grant, RAND Center for the Study of Aging, National Institute on Aging Assessing and Designing an Anemia Intervention for the Elderly. Total Award: $116,225
R21AG033312 Kapteyn, Aguila (Co-PIs) 10/29/08-01/31/11 National Institute of Aging
Design and Evaluation of a Social Security Program for the Oldest Old. Total Award: $407,088
State of Yucatan 5-20-2008 Aguila (PI) 05/20/08-06/30/12 Government of the State of Yucatan, Mexico
Design of a Non-contributory Pension Program. Total Award: $200,000
R21-AG030170 Rendall, Aguila, and Hancock (Co-PIs) 09/01/07-07/31/11 National Institute of Aging
Immigration, Emigration, and Age-by -Country Structure of Mexican Cohort Lifetimes. Total Award:
$400,745
R24HD050906 Aguila (PI) 07/27/05-05/31/10
Pilot grant, RAND Population Center, National Institute of Child Health & Development Evolution of the Composition of Return Migrants US-Mexico. Total Award: $33,223
AARP-Fox Center Aguila (PI) 11/1/08-12/08/10
Aging and Well Being in Mexico and Latin America. Total Award: $108,549
UM08-16 Aguila, Hurd and Rohwedder (CoPIs) 09/30/07-09/29/08 Michigan Retirement Research Center (MRRC), Social Security Administration Effect of Personal Retirement Accounts on Preparation for Retirement. Total Award: $100,000
UM08-14 Aguila, Zissimopoulos (Co-PIs) 09/29/07-09/29/08 Michigan Retirement Research Center (MRRC), Social Security Administration Labor Market Dynamics of Middle-aged and Elderly Mexicans. Total Award: $50,000
RSB08RC Aguila, Shatz (Co-PIs) 10/01/07–09/28/08
44 RAND Internal Funding
Mexican Migration to the United States. Total Award: $263,672
5 P30 AG012815 -13 Aguila (PI) 08/01/06–06/30/08
Pilot grant, RAND Center for the Study of Aging, National Institute on Aging Wealth and Sources of Income during Retirement in Mexico: Evidence of the MHAS and Social Security Administrative Records. Total Award: $50,000
5-34425 Aguila(PI) 01/01/07–08/31/07
University of Pennsylvania, National Institute on Aging Merging MHAS with Social Security Administrative Records. Total Award: $28,650
1557GJC242 Aguila (PI) 09/29/07-06/30/08
Pilot grant, RCMAR Center, CHIME UCLA, National Institute on Aging Immigrant Selection on Health Behaviors and Chronic Diseases as an Explanation for the Hispanic Health Advantage. Total Award: $20,000
Conference Presentations and Invited Seminars
Conference Presentations
2021 Effects of Progresa on Health Care Utilization of Middle-aged and Older Adults". 6th Annual Workshop of the Mexican Health and Aging Study (MHAS). October 2021. Emma Aguila.
Long-term Effects of Social Insurance on Adult Mortality: Evidence from Three Social Programs in Mexico. Gerontological Society of America (GSA) Annual Scientific Meeting 2021. November 2021.
Emma Aguila
Keynote speaker at International Conference of Multidisciplinary Investigation. International University of Ecuador (UIDE), Guayaquil, Ecuador. July 2021. Emma Aguila. 2019 American Economic Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, January 2019. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, Erik Meijer.
Cognition, Mortality, and Mortality Determinants in Latin America Workshop, Center on the Economics and Demography of Aging (CEDA), University of Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, February 2019.
Emma Aguila and Maria Casanova.
Population Association of America (PAA) Annual Conference, Austin, Texas, April 2019. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, Francisco Perez Arce.
INGER-ICAA Aging in the Americas Conference, Mexico City, Mexico, September, 2019. Emma Aguila.
Gerontological Society of America (GSA) Annual Scientific Meeting, Boston, MA, November, 2019.
Emma Aguila (presenter and symposium co-organizer) and Jacqueline L. Angel.
MHAS Annual Workshop, Mexico City, Mexico, November, 2019. Emma Aguila, Zeewan Lee, and Rebeca Wong.
2018 Gerontological Society of America (GSA) Annual Scientific Meeting, Boston, MA, November, 2018.
Emma Aguila and Maria Casanova.
2018 International Conference on Aging in the Americas, Tucson, AZ, September 2018. Emma Aguila, Mariana López-Ortega, and Sean Angst.
45 Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) Conference, Mexico City, Mexico, July 2018. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, Erik Meijer.
Consistency Amid Complexity: Navigating the Future of Pensions, OECD, Paris, France, June 2018.
Emma Aguila
Population Association of America (PAA) Annual Conference, Denver, CO, April 2018. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, Erik Meijer; Emma Aguila, Jung Ho Park, Alma Vega. 2017 20 Years of Pension Fund Managers (AFORES) in Mexico: Financial Education and Voluntary Saving, ITAM, Mexico City, November 2017. Emma Aguila.
Adult Mortality Determinants in Low and Middle-Income Countries Workshop, Center on the Economics and Demography of Aging (CEDA), University of Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, February 2017.
Emma Aguila and Hiram Beltran.
American Economic Association Annu al Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 2017. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, and Francisco Pere -Arce; Carlos Riumallo -Herl and Emma Aguila; Luisa Blanco, Marco Angrisani, and Emma Aguila.
2016 Gerontological Society of America (GSA) Annual Scientific Meeting, New Orleans, LA, November, 2016. Emma Aguila, Mariana Lopez-Ortega, and Luis Miguel Gutierrez Robledo.
Population Association of America (PAA) Annual Conference, Washington, DC, March 2016. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, Francisco Perez Arce; Emma Aguila and Mariana Lopez -Ortega; Sean Angst, Emma Aguila, and Mariana Lopez -Ortega; Alma Vega and Emma Aguila; Emma Aguila and Alma Vega; Nelly Mejia and Emma Aguila.
2015 Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) Conference, Miami, FL, November 2015. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, Francisco Perez Arce; Soledad De Gregorio, Emma Aguila, and Alfonso Rivera; Nelly Mejia and Emma Aguila.
Retirement Research Consortium (RRC), Washington, DC, August 2015. Emma Aguila and Alma Vega Conference Strengthening the Scientific Foundation for Policymaking to Meet the Challenges of Aging in Latin America and the Caribbean, Mexico City, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, NIA, National Academy of Medicine of Mexico, Institute of Geriatrics, University of Texas, University of Michigan, and IADB, May 2015. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, and James P. Smith.
2013 Conference Challenges of the Pension System and Matching Contributions, Colombian Ministry of Labor and IADB, Bogota, Colombia, December 2013. Emma Aguila.
Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association Annual Meeting, LACEA LAMES -2013, Mexico City, Mexico, November 2013. Emma Aguila.
Conference on Aging in the Americas, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, September 2013. Emma Aguila.
Inaugural Spring Symposium UCLA Blum Center on Poverty and Health in Latin America, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, May 2013. Emma Aguila.
Annual Conference on Social Protection, World Bank, Washington DC, April 2013. Emma Aguila. 2012 Conference "Envejecer en México: Condicion es de Vida y Salud", Leon Guanajuato, México, February 2012. Emma Aguila, Claudia Diaz, Mary Manqing Fu, Arie Kapteyn, and Ashley Pierson. 2011 Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association Annual Meeting, LACEA LAMES -2011, Santiago, Chile, November 2011. Emma Aguila.
Conference Healthcare and Socio -Economic Development in Latin America, Santiago, Chile, November 2011. Emma Aguila.
46 Presentation: "Living Longer in Mexico: Income Security and Health", Washington, DC, October 2011. Claudia Diaz, Mary Manqing Fu, Arie Kapteyn, and Ashley Pierson.
Mind the Gap: From Evidence to Policy Impact, Cuernavaca, Mexico, June 2011. Emma Aguila Arie Kapteyn, and Rosalba Robles.
Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2011, London, UK, April 2011. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, Rosalba Robles, and Beverly Weidmer.
American Economic Association Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, January 2011. Emma Aguila and Arie Kapteyn.
2010 Econometric Society World Congress 2010, Shanghai, China, August 2010. Emma Aguila, Orazio Attanasio, and Costas Meghir; American Economic Association Annual Meeting 2010, Atlanta, GA, January 2010. Emma Aguila, Orazio Attanasio, and Costas Meghir. 2007 Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Society of Labor Economists, Chicago, IL, May 2007. Emma Aguila. 2006 III Fórum Nacional de Seguro de Vida e Previdência e Previdencia Privada, São Paulo, Brazil, August 2006. Emma Aguila.
2005 XXX Annual Meeting of the Spanish Economic Association, Murcia, Spain, December 2005; 7th RTN Workshop on Economics of Ageing, Venice International University, Venice, Italy, October 2005.
Emma Aguila; The Final Conference of the RTN Project on Financing Retirement in Europe: Public Sector Reform and Financial Market Development, London School of Economics, London, UK, September 2005. Emma Aguila; The 2nd Leicester PhD Conference in Economics, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK, May 2005. Emma Aguila; Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2005, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, March 2005. Emma Aguila; ENTER Jamboree 2005, ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium, January 2005. Emma Aguila.
Invited Seminars
2019 Public Affairs Colloquium, LBJ School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, February, 2019.
MRDRC Workshop, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, March 2019. Research Seminar, UTMB, Galveston, TX, August, 2019. Planning Meeting on Work, The Workp lace, and Aging, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Washington DC, September, 2019. Demography Brown Bag Seminar, UC Berkeley, CA, December, 2019. Seminar Series, Metrolopolitan Autonomous University, Mexico City, Mexico, December, 2019.
2018 Mexican Ministry of Social Development (SEDESOL) Research Seminar, Mexico City, Mexico, August, 2018.
2017 Multidisciplinary Research Colloquium Series Spring 2017, School of Gerontology, USC, Los Angeles, CA, January 2017. DITE Winter Meeting, Department of Economi cs, Duke University, Durham, NC, February 2017. NBER Summer Institute, Aging Workshop, Boston, MA, July 2017. James P. Smith Festschrift, RAND, Santa Monica, CA, November 2017.
2016 Development Seminar, Economics Department, USC, Los Angeles, CA, February 2016. DITE Summer Workshop, East Lansing, MI, July 2016. Research Seminar, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC, Los Angeles, CA, October 2016. USC Lusk Center for Real State Research Seminar Series, Los Angeles, CA, November, 2016. Universite du Quebec a Montreal (UQAM) Research Seminar, Economics Department, Montreal, Canada, December, 2016.
2015 Michigan Retirement Research Center Workshop, Ann Arbor, MI, April 2015. Seminar USC -CESR, June 2015. RAND, Santa Monica, CA, July 2015. NBER Summer Institut e, Boston, MA, July 2015.
Research Seminar, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC, Los Angeles, CA, October 2015. 2014 Research Seminar, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC, Los Angeles, CA, February 2014. Seminar, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC, Los Angeles, CA, November 2014. 47 2013 Seminar at the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy, Los Angeles, CA, March 2013. Seminar at the USC School of Social Work, Los Angeles, CA, January 2013. 2012 Binational Seminar at the School of Social Work, University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, CA, April 2012. Seminar, RAND, International Comparisons of Well -Being, Health and Retirement Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, July 2012.
2011 Seminar at the Population Studies Center (PSC) at the Institute for Social Research (ISR), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Mexican Health and Aging Study, MHAS -II Workshop, Mexico City, Mexico. RAND Annual Board Meeting 2011, Santa Monica, CA, November 2011. Seminar at The Pensions Supervisor (Superintendencia de Pensiones), Government of Chile, Santiago, Chile. 2010 RAND Labor and Population, Santa Monica, CA; NBER Summer Institute, Boston, MA; USC Development Seminar, Los Angeles, CA.
2009 MRRC Research Workshop, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI. World Bank Social Protection Seminar, Washington DC. Resource Centers for Minority Aging Research (RCMAR).
Annual Investigators Meeting, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL. CARSO Health Institute Seminar, Mexico City, Mexico. Seminar, Government of the State of Yucatan, Merida, Mexico. RAND Seminar Labor and Population, Santa Monica, CA. Mexican Census Bureau Seminar, INEGI, Aguascalientes, Mexico.
2008 UCLA-CHIME Workshop, Los Angeles, CA. MRRC Research Workshop, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MU.
2007 MRRC Research Workshop, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI. UCLA -CHIME Workshop, Los Angeles, CA.
2006 Research Department, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington DC. School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, CA. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. Department of Economics, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. Department of Economics, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden. UFAE, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Nuffield College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Abt Associates, Boston, MA.
Conference Organizer
2019 MHAS Annual Workshop, November, 2019, sponsors: Mexican National Institute of Geriatrics (INGER) and National Institute on Aging (NIA).
2019 ICAA-INGER Aging in the Americas, Framing Challenges of Ageing Cognitive and Mental Health Care in Mexican-origin Older Adults in Mexico and the U.S., Mexico City, Mexico. September 2019, sponsors: Mexican National Institute of Geriatrics (INGER), AARP, and Hogg Foundation for Mental Health.
2013 Workshop Linking Administrative Records to Survey Data of the Longitudinal Social Protection Survey (ELPS) in Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Paraguay, and Uruguay, Mexico City, May 2013, sponsor:
Inter-American Development Bank (IADB).
Student Committee Service
Dissertation Chair, Ph.D. in Public Policy and Management, USC Sol Price School of Public Policy, Hankyung Jun (current) and Zeewan Lee (2020); Ph.D. in Policy Analysis, RAND Graduate School, Nelly Mejia (2016) and Gabriela Armenta (current).
Dissertation Committee Member, Ph.D. in Public Policy and Management, USC Sol Price School of Public Policy, John Zhao (current), Soledad De Gregorio (2020), and Yolanda Zh u (2020); Ph.D. in Economics, Economics Department, USC, Ashish Sachdeva (2015); Ph.D. in Policy Analysis, RAND Graduate School, Sarah Kups (2014), Jeffery C. Tanner (2012), Claudia Diaz (2012), and Ricardo Basurto (2009). 48 Referee Service
American Economic Review Demography
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics Journal of the Economics of Ageing American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics Journal of Population Economics Journal of Development Economics The Journals of Gerontology: Series b Journal of Public Economics Journal Ageing and Society Journal of Policy Analysis and Management Journal Aging and Health Economic Letters Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology Economic Development and Cultural Change Latin American Research Review Review of Income and Wealth Estudios Económicos, Colmex Journal of Economic Inequality Journal of Economic Surveys Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics Salud Pública de México Journal of Pension Economics and Finance El Trimestre Económico Social Science and Medicine
University and External Service
Member PhD, MHA, MPP, DPPD, Latin American Task Force, and Research Committees, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC.
Advisor of the Mexican Health and Aging Study (MHAS), and the Latin American Social Protection Survey (ELPS).
Committee Member of Understanding the Aging Workforce and Employment at Older Ages, National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS).
Committee Member of The Network for Data -Intensive Research on Aging (NDIRA), Life Course Center, University of Minnesota.
Professional Affiliations
American Economic Association (AEA), The Econometric Society, Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM), Gerontological Society of America (GSA), Population Association of America (PAA), Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association (LACEA).
49 ITALO LOPEZ GARCIA
Senior Economist, CESR-USC
DATE November
2021 CONTACT
DETAILS 737 N Edinburgh Ave E-mail:
[email protected] Los Angeles, CA 90046 Citizenship: Chilean Mobile: +1 (310)9574873 Visa Status: US Permanent
Resident https://sites.google.com/site/italolopezg
RESEARCH INTERESTS Human Capital Investments over the life-cycle; Early Childhood Development; Retirement Behavior and Health Outcomes; Life-Cycle Structural Models EDUCATION Ph.D., Economics, University College of London 2008-2014 M.Sc., Economics, University Pompeu Fabra (with honors) 2006-2008 B.Sc. Civil Industrial Engineering (cum-laude) 2001
EMPLOYMENT
Research Scientist, CESR, University of Southern California Oct 2021- present Adjunct Economist, RAND Corporation Oct 2021 - present Full Economist, RAND Corporation Jun 2018 - Sep 2021 Associate Economist, RAND Corporation Sep 2014 - May 2018 Professor, RAND Pardee School of Public Policy Mar 2015 - Jun 2017 World Bank Consultant, DECRG, London, UK Jul 2010 - Dec 2013 Research/Teaching Assistant, University College London, UK Oct 2009 - Ago 2014 Financial Engineer, Andina S.A., Santiago de Chile Mar 2003 - Ago 2006
PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Lopez Garcia, Italo, Uzaib Saya, Jill Luoto (2021). “Cost-effectiveness and economic re- turns of group-based parenting interventions to promote early childhood development: Re- sults from a randomized controlled trial in rural Kenya.” PLOS Medicine. doi:10.1371/1003746
Carneiro, Pedro, Italo Lopez Garcia, Kjell Salvanes, Emma Tominey (2021). "Intergenerational Mobility and the Timing of Parental Income" , Journal of Political Economy, doi: 10.1086/712443
Knapp, David, Italo Lopez Garcia, Krishna Kumar, Jinkook Lee, Jonghoon Wong (2021). “A Life-cycle model of Korean Labor Supply, Savings and Benefit Claiming Decisions,” Journal of Economics of Aging.
Luoto, Jill, Italo Lopez Garcia, Frances Aboud, Daisy Singla, Lia Fernald, Helen Pitchik, Uzaib Saya, Ronald Otieno, Edith Alu (2020). “Group-based parenting interventions to promote child development in rural Kenya: a cluster-randomized effectiveness trial.” Lancet Global Health. doi: 10.1016/S2214- 109X(20)30469-1.
50 Luoto, Jill, Italo Lopez Garcia, Frances Aboud, Daisy Singla, Rebecca Zhu, Ronald Otieno, Edith Alu (2021). “An implementation evaluation of a group -based parenting intervention to promote early childhood development in rural Kenya.” Frontiers in Public Health.
Luoto, Jill, Italo Lopez Garcia, Frances Aboud, Daisy Singla, Lia Fernald (2019). "Testing means to scale early childhood development interventions in rural Kenya: the Msingi Bora cluster randomized controlled trial study design and protocol", BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):259. PMID 30832624
Lopez Garcia, Italo, Michael Pollard (2021). "Exploring the Social Security Benefit Implications of Same- Sex Marriage". Available at SocArXiv papers. doi:10.31235/osf.io/2qyba
REVISE AND RESUBMIT ARTICLES
Carneiro, Pedro, Emanuela Galasso, Italo Lopez Garcia, Miguel Cordero, Paula Bedregal (2021). "Impacts of a Large-Scale Parenting Program: Experimental Evidence from Chile." Revise and Resubmit 2nd round Journal of Political Economy.
Lopez Garcia, Italo (2021). "Human Capital and Labor Informality in Developing Countries: A Structural Dynamic Approach", Revise and Resubmit 2nd round Journal of Human Cap- ital.
WORKING PAPERS
Lopez Garcia, Italo, Nicole Maestas, Kathleen Mullen (2021). “The Changing Nature of Work.” Under Review in American Economic Review: Insights. Working Paper available at MRDRC WP 2020-415.
Lopez Garcia, Italo, Nicole Maestas, Kathleen Mullen (2021). “Latent Work Capacity and Retirement Expectations.” Under Review in Journal of Health Economics . Working Paper available at MRDRC WP 2019-400.
Lopez Garcia, Italo, Frances Aboud, Lia Fernald, Jill Luoto (2021). “Medium-term impacts of Msingi Bora, a group-based parenting intervention to promote child development in rural Kenya” To be submitted to Lancet Global Health.
Lopez Garcia, Italo, Kathleen Mullen, Jeffrey Wenger (2021). “Heterogeneous Effects of Retirement and Cognition: Estimating a Life-cycle Model of Retirement, Job Demands, Cognitive Health Investments and Cognitive Capital”. To be submitted to Journal of Public Economics.
Lopez Garcia, Italo, Helen Pitchik, Jill Luoto (2022). “Estimating the Production Function of Children’s Cognitive and Socioemotional Development: Evidence from Early and Medium- term Impacts of the Msingi Bora Trial”.
Jill Luoto, Frances Aboud, Lia Fernald, Italo Lopez Garcia (2022). “Spillover effects into younger siblings of an effective group -based parenting intervention: Evidence from the medium-term impacts of the Msingi Bora trial”.
Lopez Garcia, Italo, Kathleen Mullen, Jeffrey Wenger (2022). “The Role of Physical and Cognitive Job Demands on Disability and Retirement”.
51 Hurd, Michael, Italo Lopez Garcia, Susann Rohwedder (2021). "Willingness to Pay for Long-term Care Insurance in the United States: Evidence from the RAND American Life Panel Survey".
GRANTS
Principal Investigator, Michigan Retirement Research Center. "The Role of Physical and Cognitive Job Demands and Environmental Conditions on Disability and Retirement". Oct 2021 - Sep 2022. Budget:
$125,000
Principal Investigator, Michigan Retirement Research Center. "The Role of Physical and Cognitive Job Demands on Work and Retirement". Oct 2020 - Sep 2021. Budget: $125,000
Principal Investigator, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), Grant R21 HD099488. "Pathways and Mediators of Change in Early Childhood Development" July 2020 - June 2022.
Budget: $448,000
Co-Investigator, NICHD, Grant R21 HD098508-01. "Testing Means to Sustain Short -term Early Childhood Development Impacts Long-term". PI: Jill Luoto (RAND). Feb 2020 - Jan 2022. Budget: $393,000
Principal Investigator, National Institute of Aging, Grant R21 AG058114-01A1. "Heterogeneous Effects of Retirement on Cognition in the United States: The Role of Job Demands.
July 2018 - June 2021. Budget: $544,000
Co-Investigator, NICHD, Grant R01 HD090045 -01A1. "Testing Means to Scale of Early Childhood Development Interventions in Rural Kenya". PI: Jill Luoto (RAND). Apr 2017 - Mar 2022. Budget:
$3,924,000
Principal Investigator, Korean Institute of Health and Social Affairs. "Marriage and Fertility in Korea: A Life-cycle Model of Women’s Education, Work, and Family Decision". Sep 2016 - Dec 2018. Budget:
$400,000
Co-Principal Investigator, Michigan Retirement Research Center. "The Changing Nature of Work". PI:
Kathleen Mullen (RAND). Oct 2019 - Sep 2020. Budget: $125,000
Co-Investigator, Michigan Retirement Research Center. "Latent Work Capacity and Retirement Expectations". PI: Kathleen Mullen. Oct 2018 - Sep 2019. Budget: $100,000
Co-Investigator, Michigan Retirement Research Center. "Exploring the Social Security Benefit Implication
of Same-Sex Marriage in the United States". PI: Michael Pollard (RAND). Oct 2016 - Sep 2017. Budget: $100,000
Co-Principal Investigator, Korean Institute of Health and Social Affairs. "A Dynamic Micro- simulation Model of Korean Saving, Work, and Retirement Decisions". Mar 2015 - Dec 2017. Budget: $350,000
Principal Investigator, Michigan Retirement Research Center. "Means-tested Minimum Old-age Benefits, Poverty Rates and Well -being: Studying the 2008 Chilean Pension Re- forms". Oct 2015 - Sep 2016.
Budget: $100,000
52 Co-Investigator, World Bank Research Scholarship Bursary. "The Role of Parental Beliefs in Parental Investments in Children and Child Development: Evidence from a Large-scale Parenting Intervention in Chile". PI: Emanuela Galasso (World Bank). Mar 2014-Dec 2015. Budget: $442,000
GRANTS UNDER REVISION
Co-Principal Investigator, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), R01 HD104940. "Gender Equity, Parental Well-Being and Child Development in Rural Kenya: The Role of Father Involvement" April 2022 - March 2027. Budget: $3,679,023
Co-Principal Investigator, National Institute of Aging (NIA), R01 AG069944. "Work, Leisure, Cognitive Decline and Dementia: A life-cycle model" April 2022 - March 2027. $3,493,190
Co-Investigator, National Institute of Aging (NIA), R01 AG046290. "Assessment of Health- Related Work Capacity to Improve Independence of Older Adults". PI: Nicole Maestas (Harvard). December 2021 - November 2026. $3,906,267
PRESENTER AT CONFERENCES
Mar 2021 Society of Research in Child Development (SRCD) 2021, "An economic evaluation of effective group-based parenting interventions to promote early child development in rural Kenya".
Mar 2021 Michigan Retirement Research Center Workshop, Ann Harbor, "The Role of Physical and Cognitive Job Demands on Work and Retirement".
Jun 2019 CESPAR Workshop - The economics of aging 2019 - Sydney, Australia, "Adequacy and Sustainability of the Korean Defined-Benefit Pension System: Evidence from a Life-cycle Model of Labor Supply, Consumption, Wealth and Pensions".
Mar 2019 Michigan Retirement Research Center Workshop, Ann Harbor, "Latent Work Capacity and Retirement Expectations".Mar 2019 Society of Research in Child Development (SRCD) 2019 - Baltimore, "Parental Beliefs, Investments and Child Development: Evidence from a large-scale Randomized Control Trial".
Jan 2017 13th International Conference - - Western Economic Association International, Santiago, Chile. "The Role of Beliefs in Parental Investments in Children and Child Development: Evidence from a Large- scale Parenting Intervention in Chile".
Apr 2017 Michigan Retirement Research Center Workshop, Ann Harbor, "Willingness to Pay for Long- Term Care Insurance in the United States: How much Individuals Value High Quality Nursing Homes?".
Oct 2016 LACEA -LAMES 2016, Medellin, Colombia, "The Role of Beliefs in Parental In- vestments in Children and Child Development: Evidence from a large-scale parenting intervention in Chile".
May 2016 21st Society of Labor Economists meetings (SOLE), Seattle, "Intergenerational Mobility and the Timing of Parental Income".
53 Apr 2016 Michigan Retirement Research Center Workshop, Ann Harbor, "Willingness to Pay for Nursing Home Quality in the United States".
Ago 2015 Banff/Calgary Empirical Micro Workshop, Banff, Canada, "Intergenerational Mobility and the Timing of Parental Income".
Jul 2015 NBER Summer Institute, Boston, "Willingness to Pay for Long-Term Care Insurance in the United States".
Apr 2015 Michigan Retirement Research Center Workshop, Ann Harbor, "The Effects of the 2008 Chilean Pension Reform in Labor Supply and Income Inequality".
TEACHING
2021- : Introduction to Statistics, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC.
2015-2017: Empirical Analysis III, RAND Pardee School of Public Policy
2012: Public Microeconomics, M.Sc. Economics, University College of London 2010-2014:
Econometrics, 2d year undergraduate, University College of London
AFFILIATIONS
Research Affiliate Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, Germany Society of Labor Economists (SOLE) Latin American Economic Association (LACEA)
REFERRING
PLOS One, European Economic Review, Journal of Human Capital, LABOUR: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial Relations, Economics and Human Biology, RAND Peer- Reviewed Reports
54 APPENDIX B
ABOUT RAND’s Survey Research Group
55 RAND
Survey Research Group
The Survey Research Group (SRG) was established in 1972 to provide RAND with an in-house capability for conducting primary data collection. SRG is composed of survey methodologists, behavioral scientists, and specialists in the operational and technical aspects of survey research. These professionals share a common interest and expertise in applying state -of-the-art survey methods to the special challenges of public policy research.
One major challenge is the application of such nontraditional survey methods as interviewing specialized populations, mixing data collection methods, and implementing experimental designs. SRG staff have developed and tested a variety of approaches to such problems. They have designed and conducted mail, telephone and in- person surveys with physicians, corporate officials, attorneys, government officials, administrators of institutions, teachers and other elite professional groups, as well as with households and special populations like AIDS patients, the homeless, military perso nnel, school children, criminal offenders, sex industry workers, and substance abusers. SRG has also designed and managed data abstraction from public and private institutional records and conducted observational surveys of social processes and physical phenomena. In addition, SRG has successfully implemented experimental designs in such policy areas as health care cost containment and drug prevention.
SRG has developed a special expertise in carrying out studies that vary greatly in scale, budget, resear ch design, and management. Though some studies have been modest in size and cost, others have required multiple waves of data collection over several years at a considerable expenditure of personnel and financial resources. Similarly, they have conducted projects using a straightforward application of standard survey procedures as well as others that required innovative design and management. For some projects SRG staff have carried out all aspects of research design and implementation; for others they have worked with a consortium of research institutions and one or more subcontractors.
In meeting these challenges, SRG has evolved a flexible approach that emphasizes custom -tailored survey design and state-of -the-art survey methodology. Within this framework, SRG provides a wide range of services, among which are:
• Data collection design, including evaluation of alternative methods, scheduling, budgeting and technical planning
• Design of survey instruments, including the substance and wording of items, te chnical formatting and layout, planning for cost-effective data entry, cognitive testing, pretesting, and pilot testing • Preparation of documents, like project descriptions, OMB clearance packages and codebooks • Design and operations for sample selection and control, including locating and evaluating sources for sample frames, and tracking and maintaining longitudinal panels • Management and staffing for data collection, featuring scheduling, costing and technical planning as well as recruiting, hiring, and training interviewers, data abstractors, and coders • Conducting data collection, including focus groups, personal interviews, telephone surveys, mailed surveys, observational research, and abstraction and coding of data from public and private records • Obtaining cooperation with data collection from local communities, businesses, professional organizations, government officials, and other elite groups as well as enrolling participants in longitudinal studies
• Selecting and monitoring survey subcontractors, including writing RFPs, evaluating potential contractors, negotiating contracts, and maintaining the quality of ongoing work. 56 Additionally, SRG has capabilities for web usability testing; facilities for computer -assisted telephone interviewing (CATI); web surveys; an infrastructure for computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI); direct data entry; data scanning and production of scannable data collection forms; interactive data cleaning; management and reporting of sample status; internal and external tra cking of documents using bar code technology; and high -quality support for preparing questionnaires, personalized letters, and other survey materials.
SRG staff may become involved in a project in several ways. On many projects, SRG staff act as internal contractors, providing advice and technical assistance at various stages of project design and operation or serving as part -time project staff with specific responsibility for survey activities. For other projects, staff carry out all aspects of research design and implementation including complex data collection efforts taking place over a period of years.
SURVEY OPERATIONS AND TECHNICAL UNIT
The Survey Operations and Technical Unit is located at Santa Monica headquarters. The unit houses SRG staff and infrastructure devoted to survey operations, survey programming and survey support. The unit includes a centralized telephone interviewing center, a data reduction department responsible for conducting mail surveys and performing coding, editing and other computer data preparation tasks, a field data collection department to support computerized and non -computerized field interviewing, a unit of technical staff experienced in the design, programming and support of computer -assisted data collection (web, laptop, tablet, smartphone or other handheld device), and a core team of staff experienced in handling of files for record abstraction. These core capabilities are described below.
Telephone Surveys
The Survey Research Group (SRG) has operated a centralized telephone interviewing facility in Santa Monica since 1976. The telephone survey center provides RAND research investigators with an in -house capability for conducting computer-assisted telephone surveys. The unit has 25 individual interviewing stations. SRG maintains a core group of experienced interviewers and hires additional staff as needed. The work of all interviewers is systematically monitored for quality control and interviewer guidance. The central monitoring system enables both audio and visual “real time” monitoring of interviews in progress.
The Telephone Survey Center (TSC) uses the Berkeley CASES for CATI (computer -assisted-telephone interview) data collection. RAND was the first off -campus user of CASES system an d is running a current version of the software. The CATI system displays interview questions on a computer monitor for interviewers to read, and allows direct entry of responses into the computer data base at the time of the interview, while employing rea l-time edit and logic checks. It facilitates implementation of complex survey designs because it can quickly determine sample eligibility, provide appropriate skipping and branching routines, and tailor question wording to respondent and site characterist ics. The system includes sample management as well as automatic call scheduling and case delivery. This allows SRG to maintain the status of each case in the sample and to work the sample efficiently according to survey priorities and scheduled appointments. The telephone center is also used for respondent tracking, mail survey follow -up, and data retrieval.
Since the establishment of the telephone facility, SRG interviewers conducted local and national surveys with sample sizes from a few dozen to 60,0 00 using a range of sampling methods. Interviewers conducted interviews in multiple languages including English, Spanish, Russian, and Chinese. Interviewers conducted interviews with physicians and medical office staff, patients, household respondents, a ctive and retired 57 military, youth, substance users, institutional representatives, corporate executives, state court administrators, judges, hospital and nursing home administrators, and school district officials.
Data Reduction Department and Mail Surveys
The Data Reduction department (DR) conducts mail surveys and contributes to sample management by updating names and addresses, produces personalized contact materials (including payments to respondents), documents sample outcomes, generates lists for follow-up, and compiles reports. Clerks edit, code and prepare paper -and-pencil instruments for data entry. Specialists generate scannable forms and surveys, and oversee the data scanning of Opscan and non -opscan forms or surveys (using Teleforms software). A computerized record management system tracks cases and generates the next step in the survey process, such as a form to trigger a telephone follow-up call, a reminder letter to non-respondents or a new mailing of materials. Clerks can produce bar code tracking labels and use optical scanning equipment to record receipt of a document and track it throughout the system for individual cases and calculating response rates and summaries to monitor survey progress. Privacy safeguards in the system ensure that links cannot be made between an individual’s name and address information and responses to survey questions.
Field Survey Operations
SRG has extensive experience carrying out surveys with difficult -to-access and interview populations in the field ( for example, school children, immigrants, homeless youth, mentally ill and HIV positive adults, sex industry workers and low -income newly married couples). SRG maintains a core team of field specialists, team leads and interviewers who are able to conduct interviews nationwide. Field questionnaires can be paper-based or computer-assisted including laptops, tablets and handheld devices.
SRG works closely with community leaders and organizations to establish cooperation in individual communities between the providers of information and the data collection staff. SRG project management staff can develop and implement strategies for sampling, including mapping and listing households, and can assist with instrument development and testing. In conjunction with the field staff, SRG project management staff participate in pretesting, piloting and fielding the main study, as well as using previous survey experience to increase response rate and choose appropriate and motivating respondent incentives.
Web-based Surveys
SRG hosts web -based surveys using a variety of applications tailored to specific data collection tasks. SRG uses Confirmit Horizon software hosted in the Confirmit cloud to provide highly scalable and available surveys that allow for the full range of computer-assisted interview features (e.g. skips, calculations, error checking, testing for logical consistency, response rotations, text fills, pre -loaded data etc.). For projects that employ multiple modes of computer -assisted data collection the s uite of UC Berkeley CASES programs are used to provide a combination of web, CATI and/or CAPI interviewing from a single programmed instrument with a common backend database. SRG is also the administrative home for web -based Delphi studies using the “Expert Lens” application developed at RAND. Expert Lens provides multiple rounds of surveys, typically of area specialists, providing feedback with each round in an effort to achieve consensus amongst the expert of experts. All surveys are conducted using a Secure Socket Layer (SSL) and the server is monitored continuously to detect unauthorized access. In sum, RAND SRG provides secure and sophisticated web surveys.
Record Abstraction
58 SRG also has expertise in the abstraction of medical, legal, and other t ypes of records. This includes the review and coding of information contained in patient files, treatment program protocols, legal decisions, and financial data. SRG staff have experience in the development of paper -based and computerized abstraction forms or instruments, training and quality control procedures, coding schemes appropriate to the project task, and experience in record review and abstraction, and data entry and cleaning. SRG staffs each project with abstractors who have the appropriate ski ll and background for the project. When appropriate, SRG trains program or medical office or health plan staff to conduct on -site abstraction. For some projects, SRG project management staff have directed and coordinated the efforts of a vendor to review and abstract records.
Qualitative Data Collection
In addition to quantitative data collection, SRG houses experts in qualitative methods (focus groups, semi - structured interviews, cognitive interviews). SRG can conduct recruitment for such research via a network of recruitment vendors or using in -house staff, depending on the needs of the project and target population.
SRG has over 14 staff with expertise in focus group moderation, semi -structured interviews, and cognitive testing methods and can conduct groups in English, Spanish, and Chinese. Past stu dies have included children, adolescents, specialist physicians, hospital quality leaders, and Medicare beneficiaries. SRG codes qualitative data using a range of tools including Excel, Dedoose, NVivo, and Atlas.
59 APPENDIX C
City of El Monte Descriptive Characteristics
60 Table 1: City El Monte Descriptive Characteristics in 2019
Total households 31,535
Population (civilian noninstitutionalized) 115,477
Households with Income Below Poverty Level in Last Year All families
With related children of the householder under 18 years 20.4% With related children of the householder under 5 years only 16.8% Families with female householder, no spouse present
With related children of the householder under 18 years 28.8%
Population Characteristics
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 60.0%
White 27.9%
Asian 32.4%
Some other race 32.1%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 4.1%
Public Health Insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, VA) 52.6%
No health insurance coverage 11.4%
Population by age under 5 years 5.9%
Population by age 5 to 9 years 4.5%
Population by age 10 to 14 years 6.8%
Population by age 15 to 17 years
Population Under 18 years
3.3%
20.5%
Population by age 18 to 64 years 63.8%
Population by age 65 years and over 15.8%
Population 3 years and over enrolled in school (N = 27,183) Nursery school, preschool 5.8%
Kindergarten 4.6%
Elementary school (grades 1-8) 36.6%
Population 16 and over (N = 95,090)
In labor force, employed 57.8%
In labor force, unemployed 3.3%
Not in labor force 38.9%
Unemployment rate 5.4%
Mean travel time to work 31.8 min
Notes: Data from 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates
61 APPENDIX D
City of El Monte Block Maps
62 City of El Monte: Blocks with Households Below Poverty Level
63 City of El Monte: Blocks with Households with Children Under 18 and a Female Head of Household with No Husband Present
64 APPENDIX E
References
65 Aguila, E., Kapteyn, A., & Perez-Arce, F. (2017). Consumption Smoothing and Frequency of Benefit Payments of Cash Transfer Programs. American Economic Review , 107(5), 430– 435. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171147
Aguila, E., & Smith, J. P. (2020). Supplemental Income Program Design: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial to Examine the Health and Wellbeing Effects on Older Adults by Gender, Duration, and Payment.
Social Science and Medicine, 259, 113139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113139 Angelucci, M., & De Giorgi, G. (2009). Indirect Effects of an Aid Program: How Do Cash Transfers Affect Ineligibles’ Consumption? American Economic Review , 99(1), 486– 508. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.1.486
Angrist, J., King, E., Kremer, M., Bettinger, E., & Bloom, E. (2002). Vouchers for Private Schooling in Colombia:
Evidence from a Randomized Natural Experiment. American Economic Review, 92, 1535– 1558. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802762024629
Attanasio, O., & Lechene, V. (2010). Conditional cash transfers, women and the demand for food. In IFS Working Papers (W10/17; IFS Working Papers). Institute for Fiscal Studies. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ifs/ifsewp/10-17.html
Attanasio, O. P., Meghir, C., & Santiago, A. (2012). Education Choices in Mexico: Using a Structural Model and a Randomized Experiment to Evaluate PROGRESA. The Review of Economic Studies , 79(1), 37– 66. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdr015
Banerjee, A., Cole, S., Duflo, E., & Linden, L. (2003). Improving the Quality of Education in India: Evidence from Three Randomized Experiments. https://users.nber.org/~confer/2003/chs03/duflo.pdf Behrman, J., & Sengupta, P. (2005). Progressing through PROGRESA: An Impact Assessment of a School Subsidy Experiment in Rural Mexico. Economic Development and Cultural Change , 54, 237– 275. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.286295
Berkman, L. F. (2009). Social Epidemiology: Social Determinants of Health in the United States: Are We Losing Ground? Annual Review of Public Health, 30, 27– 41.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100310 Berkman, L. F., Ertel, K. A., & Glymour, M. M. (2011). Aging and Social Intervention: Life Course Perspectives.
Elsevier Academic Press, The handbooks of aging consisting of three Vols. Handbook of aging and the social sciences, 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-380880-6.00024-1 Bitran, R., & Giedion, U. (2003). W aivers and exemptions for health services in developing countries (No. 33359; pp. 1– 2). The World Bank.
http://documentos.bancomundial.org/curated/es/2003/01/6246381/waivers-exemptions-health- services-developing-countries
Bobonis, G., Miguel, E., & Sharma, C. (2004). Iron deficiency anemia and school participation. In Natural Field Experiments (No. 00219; Natural Field Experiments). The Field Experiments Website. https://ideas.repec.org/p/feb/natura/00219.html
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2019). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 cohort, 1979-2016 (rounds 1-27) [Produced and distributed by the Center for Human Resource Research (CHRR)Produced and distributed by the Center for Human Resource Research (CHRR), The Ohio State University. Columbus, OH]. https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy79 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2020). American Time Use Survey [Interview]. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/atus.html
Coady, D., Grosh, M., & Hoddinott, J. (2004). Targeting of transfers in developing countries: Review of lessons and experience (No. 30230; pp. 1– 320). The World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/464231468779449856/Targeting-of-transfers-in- developing-countries-review-of-lessons-and-experience
Collin, D. F., Shields-Zeeman, L. S., Batra, A., White, J. S., Tong, M., & Hamad, R. (2021). The effects of state earned income tax credits on mental health and health behaviors: A quasi-experimental study. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 276, 113274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113274 66 Cronbach, L. J., & Shapiro, K. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social program s. Jossey-Bass. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Designing+evaluations+of+educational+and+socia l+programs&author=Cronbach%2C+Lee+J.+%28Lee+Joseph%29&publication_year=1982 Diez-Roux, A., Phelan, J. C., Link, B. G., Kawachi, I., & Levin, B. (2 004). “Fundamental causes” of social inequalities in mortality: A test of the theory. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 45(3), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650404500303
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G . (2011). Individual risk attitudes:
Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3), 522–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x Duncan, G. J., Morris, P. A., & Rodrigues, C. (2011). Does money really matter? Estimating impacts of family income on young children’s achievement with data from random-assignment experiments.
Developmental Psychology, 47(5), 1263–1279. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023875 Finkelstein, A., Taubman, S., Wright, B., Bernstein, M., Gruber, J., Newhouse, J. P., Allen, H., Baicker, K., & Group, O. H. S. (2012). The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: Evidence from the First Year. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3), 1057–1106. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjs020 Garcia, M. A., Homan, P. A., Garcia, C., & Brown, T. H. (2020). The Color of COVID -19: Structural Racism and the Disproportionate Impact of the Pandemic on Older Black and Latinx Adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Pshychological Sciences and Social Sciences , gbaa114. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa114
Haushofer, J., & Shapiro, J. (2016). The Short -term Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers to the Poor:
ExperimentalEvidence from Kenya. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 131(4), 1973– 2042. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw025
Health and Retirement Study. (2021). Public use dataset . Produced and Distributed by the University of Michigan with Funding from the National Institute on Aging (Grant Number NIA U01AG009740). Ann Arbor, MI. https://hrs.isr.umich.edu/about
Heckman, J. J., & Karapakula, G. (2019). The Perry Preschoolers at Late Midlife: A Study in Design-Specific Inference (Working Paper No. 25888; Working Paper Series). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w25888
Hevia de la Jara, F. (2009). De Progresa a Oportunidades: Efectos y límites de la corriente cívica en el gobierno de Vicente Fox. Sociológica (México) , 24(70), 43– 81.
http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/soc/v24n70/v24n70a3.pdf
Jones, D., & Marinescu, I. (2018). The Labor Market Impacts of Universal and Permanent Cash Transfers:
Evidence from the Alaska Permanent Fund. In NBER Working Papers (No. 24312; NBER Working Papers). Na tional Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/24312.html
Lee, J. S., & Frongillo, E. A. (2001). Understanding needs is important for assessing the impact of food assistance program participation on nutritional and health status in U.S. elderly persons. The Journal of Nutrition, 131(3), 765–773. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/131.3.765 Levy, D., & Ohls, J. (2010). Evaluation of Jamaica’s PATH conditional cash transfer programme. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 2(4), 421–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2010.519783 Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. (1995). Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Spec No((Extra Issue)), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/2626958 Linver, M., Martin, A. , & Brooks -Gunn, J. (2004). Measuring Infants’ Home Environment: The IT-HOME for Infants Between Birth and 12 Months in Four National Data Sets. Parenting-Science and Practice - PARENT-SCI PRACT, 4, 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0402&3_2 Ludwig, J., Duncan, G. J., Gennetian, L. A., Katz, L. F., Kessler, R. C., Kling, J. R., & Sanbonmatsu, L. (2012).
Neighborhood effects on the long -term well-being of low -income adults. Science (New York, N.Y.) , 337(6101), 1505–1510. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1224648 67 Marmot, M. (2002). The influence of income on health: Views of an epidemiologist. Health Affairs (Project Hope), 21(2), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.21.2.31 Martin-West, S., Castro Baker, A., Balakrishnan, S., Rao, K., & Tan, G. Y. (2019). Pre-Analysis Plan Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration . https://www.jainfamilyinstitute.org/assets/seed -pre- analysis-plan-july-2019.pdf
Miguel, E., & Kremer, M. (2003). Worms: Identifying Impacts on Education and Health in the Presence of Treatment Externalities. Econometrica, 72(1), 159– 217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 0262.2004.00481.x
Misra, S. (2012). Randomized double blind placebo control studies, the “Gold Standard” in intervention based studies. Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitt ed Diseases and AIDS , 33(2), 131– 134. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7184.102130
Newson, L., & Bourne, A. W. (2011). Financing social pensions in low- and middle-income countries. HelpAge International. www.pension-watch.net
Shapiro, J. M. (2005). Is there a daily discount rate? Evidence from the food stamp nutrition cycle. Journal of Public Economics, 89(2–3), 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.05.003 Singh, A., Kaushik, A., Kumar, R., Nair, M., & Bhansali, S. (2014). Electrochemical Sensing of Cortisol: A Recent Update. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology , 174(3), 1115– 1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-014-0894-2
Vermeersch, C., & Kremer, M. (2005). Schools meals, educational achievement and school competition:
Evidence from a randomized evaluation. In Policy Research Working Paper Series (No. 3523; Policy Research Working Paper Series). The World Bank. https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/3523.html Willmore, L. (2007). Universal Pensions for Developing Countries. World Development , 35(1), 24– 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.09.008
68 APPENDIX F
Attachments
DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95 SECTION 00470
FALSE CLAIMS
Bidders/Proposers shall provide either the certification requested below or the information requested on the next page. Failure to certify or provide the requested information may result in a determination that the Bidder/Proposer is non-responsive. Failure to fully and accurately provide the requested certification or information may result in a determination that the Bidder/Proposer is not responsible. "False Claims Act", as used herein, is defined as either or both the Federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Sections 3729 et seq., and the California False Claims Act, Government Code Sections 12650 et seq.
FALSE CLAIMS ACT CERTIFICATION
If the Bidder/Proposer has no False Claims Act violations as described above, complete the following:
I, __ .,--__ -=-- _ __,,.,..------------,,--' hereby certify that neither (print name of owner, officer, manager, or licensee responsible for submission of Bid/Proposal) (Bidder/Proposer name as shown on Bid/Proposal)
nor -------------------------------
(name of responsible managing person licensed by Contractors' State License Board) has been determined by a court or tribunal of competentjurisdiction to have violated the False Claims Act as defined above.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this day at --- --------- -------------
(month and year) (city and state)
by _ ____,-------,..,,------------,----------,----,-_____,------,--....,...,.,...,--,----,----- (signature of owner, officer, manager, or licensee responsible for submission of Bid/Proposal)
FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
With regard to any determinations by a tribunal or court of competent jurisdiction that the False Claims Act, as defined above, has been violated by (1) the Bidder/Proposer submitting this Bid/Proposal, including any person who is an officer of, or in a management position with, or has an ownership interest in the contracting entity which is submitting this Bid/Proposal, or (2) the qualifying person licensed by the State Contractors' License Board to perform the work described in the Bid/Proposal, including any such person when they were an officer, manager, owner, or responsible managing employee of a construction contractor other than the Bidder/Proposer submitting this Bid/Proposal, Bidder/Proposer shall provide on the following page labeled "False Claim Act Violations Information:" (1) the date of the determination of the violation, (2) the identity of tribunal or court and the case name or number, if any, (3) the identity of government contract or project involved, (4) the identity of government agency involved, 5) the amount of fine imposed, and (6) any exculpatory information of which the City should be aware.
False Claims
00470-1
21 February 2022 Pittsburgh, PA
Linda F. Duffy
The RAND Corporation
DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95
DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95 DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95 Linda F. Duffy
The RAND Corporation
22 February 2022 Pittsburgh, PA
DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95
DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95 DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95 Linda F. Duffy
The RAND Corporation
DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95
CIVIL LITIGATION HISTORY INFORMATION
(1) Name of Case: __________________________ _
Court case identification number: ______________________ _ (2) Jurisdiction in which case was filed: _____________________ _ (3) Outcome of the case: _ _________________________ _
(1) Name of Case: ___________________________ _
Court case identification number: ______________________ _ (2} Jurisdiction in which case was filed: ______________________ _ (3) Outcome of the case: __________________________ _
(month and year) (city and state)
Declaration: I declare under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct.
Executed this ___ day of ________ at _______
___ _
by _____________________________ _
(signature of owner, officer, manager, or licensee responsible for submission of Bid/Proposal) Civil Litigation History
00471-2
*RAND is not engaged in any civil litigation what would prevent RAND from performing work under this contract. 21 February 2022 Pittsburgh, PA
DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95
DocuSign Envelope ID: 71473AF9-E6DF-4A3F-9C3F-1B919D3BA214 The RAND Corporation
Not applicable
DocuSign Envelope ID: 71473AF9-E6DF-4A3F-9C3F-1B919D3BA214 Not applicable
DocuSign Envelope ID: 71473AF9-E6DF-4A3F-9C3F-1B919D3BA214 Linda F. Duffy
Director Contracts, Grants, and Procurement
The RAND Corporation
22February 22
DocuSign Envelope ID: 71473AF9-E6DF-4A3F-9C3F-1B919D3BA214
ATTACHMENT 2
RAND PROPOSAL
Design and Implementation of a Guaranteed Income Pilot
Program for the City of El Monte
Submitted to
Alma Martinez
City Manager
City of El Monte
11333 Valley Boulevard
El Monte, CA 91731
[email protected]
In response to
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) Guaranteed Income Pilot Non-Profit Program Administrator
Submitted by
RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street
P.O. Box 2138
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Christine Gallagher, Contract Administrator
Submitted on
February 22, 2022
This material is considered proprietary to RAND. These data shall not be disclosed outside Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in part for any purpose other than evaluation, provided that if work is approved as a result of or in connection with the submission of these data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use or disclose the data to the extent provided in the contract. This restriction does not limit the Government’s right to use the information contained in the data if it is obtained from another source without restriction.
CHRISTINE M. GALLAGHER 4570 FIFTH AVENUE TEL 412.683.2300 X4048 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR SUITE 600 FAX 412.683.2800
PITTSBURGH, PA [email protected]
15213-2665
OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.
RESEARCH AREAS
Children and Families
Education and the Arts
Energy and Environment
Health and Health Care
Infrastructure and
Transportation
International Affairs
Law and Business
National Security
Population and Aging
Public Safety
Science and Technology
Terrorism and
Homeland Security
OFFICES
Santa Monica, CA
Washington, DC
Pittsburgh, PA
New Orleans, LA
Jackson, MS
Boston, MA
Cambridge, UK
Brussels, BE
www.rand.org
Submitted to:
Alma Martinez
City Manager
City of El Monte
11333 Valley Boulevard
El Monte, CA 91731
[email protected]
February 22, 2022
Reference: RAND Proposal No. 2022PR-00281 entitled “Guaranteed Income Pilot Study”
Dear Ms. Martinez:
The RAND Corporation is pleased to submit the referenced proposal to the City of El Monte.
RAND's cost reimbursable proposal is valid for a period of ninety (90) calendar days from the date of this submission.
RAND is uniquely qualified to implement this program because of our experience with both the implementation and evaluation of similar projects. Among the past projects noted in our proposal is the implementation and evaluation of a large-scale guaranteed income program that we led in the State of Yucatán, Mexico. This included 8,000 participants in multiple cities. We also led the implementation and evaluation of an intervention that promoted the health and wellbeing of vulnerable families with children in rural western Kenya. This included 1,200 households in 60 villages. In California, we have led the evaluation of the impact of CalWORKs on the health and wellbeing of beneficiaries and their children. This included collecting data on welfare-to-work families and the barriers they face in local communities of California.
The proposed program implementation team has extensive experience in community-based participatory research and in establishing collaborative relationships with local communities and organizations. The team has knowledge, experience, and understanding of the nuances of implementing and evaluating guaranteed income programs, of programs for families with children, and of such programs within California.
RAND is a non-profit organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND's mission requires that we serve the public interest through wide dissemination of our research results.
RAND respectfully reserves the right to negotiate mutually agreeable terms, particularly in areas of intellectual property and publication rights. We are confident that we can reach mutually acceptable terms and conditions consistent with RAND's mission and the objectives of the City of El Monte.
For technical questions regarding this proposal, please contact Beverly Weidmer at (310) 393- 0411, x6788, or email at [email protected]. Please address contractual matters to the undersigned at (412) 683-2300, x4048, or email [email protected].
OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.
We thank you for the opportunity to participate in this very important project.
Sincerely,
Christine M. Gallagher
The RAND Corporation
Contract Administrator
[email protected]
412-683-2300 x4048
4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 8 Section 2: Project Management Team ......................................................................................... 9 Section 3: Management Plan ....................................................................................................... 11 Section 4: Background ................................................................................................................. 11 Section 5: Past Experience .......................................................................................................... 13 Project 1: Reconocer Urbano ...................................................................................................... 13 Project 2: Msingi Bora ................................................................................................................. 14 Project 3: Evaluation of SB1041 Reforms to California’s CalWORKs Program .................. 15 Section 6: Technical Approach ................................................................................................... 16 Section 6.1: Building a Sampling Frame ............................................................................... 16 Section 6.2: Issues to consider in developing a sample frame .............................................. 17 Section 6.3: Disadvantages of our proposed design .............................................................. 17 Section 6.4: Policy Experiments that could be considered ................................................... 17 Section 7: Scope of Work ............................................................................................................. 18 Task 1. Promotion, Recruitment and Outreach. ....................................................................... 18 Task 2. Assist City’s Finance Department with establishing a partnership with a local financial institution. ..................................................................................................................... 18 Task 3. Assist with program enrollment. ................................................................................... 18 Task 4. Review applications for eligibility. ................................................................................ 18 Task 5. Submit completed applications. ..................................................................................... 19 Task 6. Notify and enroll selected participants. ........................................................................ 19 Task 7. Conduct onboarding session with Pilot Program participants. .................................. 19 Task 8. Provide individualized benefits counseling. .................................................................. 19 Task 9. Collaborate with financial distribution entity to ensure prompt and effective distribution of the monthly cash benefit. ................................................................................... 19
Task 10. Conduct financial literacy course. ............................................................................... 19 Task 11: Connect program participants to local social services. ............................................. 19 Task 12. Track Pilot Program Process. ...................................................................................... 20 Task 13. Developing storytelling and communication strategies. ............................................ 20 Task 14. Create an online data dashboard. ............................................................................... 20 Task 15. Convene Working Group. ............................................................................................ 20 Task 16. Provide quarterly updates. ........................................................................................... 20 Task 17. Selection of a Program Evaluator. .............................................................................. 20 vii
T
ask 18. Support Program Evaluation. ..................................................................................... 20 Task 19. Facilitate the preparation of the program evaluator’s comprehensive report. ...... 20 Section 8: Timeline ....................................................................................................................... 21 Section 9: Knowledge of the City of El Monte ........................................................................... 23 Section 9.1: City of El Monte .................................................................................................. 23 Section 10: Budget ...................................................................................................................... 24 Section 10.1: RAND Detailed Total Budget ............................................................................ 24 Section 10.2: RAND Detailed Year 1 Budget Breakdown ..................................................... 25 Section 10.3: RAND Detailed Year 2 Budget Breakdown ..................................................... 26 Section 11: Budget Justification ................................................................................................ 27 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 32 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 33 CURRICULUM VITAE .............................................................................................................. 33 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................ 54 ABOUT RAND’s Survey Research Group ................................................................................ 54 APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................... 59 City of El Monte Descriptive Characteristics ............................................................................ 59 APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................... 61 City of El Monte Block Maps ...................................................................................................... 61 APPENDIX E ................................................................................................................................ 64 References ..................................................................................................................................... 64 APPENDIX F ................................................................................................................................ 68 Attachments .................................................................................................................................. 68 8 Section 1: Introduction
RAND is pleased to submit this proposal to coordinate the implementation of a Guaranteed Income Pilot Program in the City of El Monte. The Pilot Program will be used to determine the effectiveness of guaranteed monthly cash transfer on participants’ economic security, housing stability, physical and mental health, and well-being. Key findings related to the outcomes of the Pilot Program as well as information about how to improve program logistics and implementation will help the City of El Monte evaluate whether it should expand the program to increase the number of participants, include different demographic groups, increase the duration of the benefits, or modify the frequency or method of disbursement of the cash transfer.
Under this contract, RAND will work with staff from the City as well as their Guaranteed Income Ad Hoc Committee, an advisory working group, and other program partners to define Pilot Program goals, participant eligibility criteria, develop a strategy for promoting the program and recruiting participants , develop a strategy for randomizing eligible households into a treatment group (those who will receive a monthly cash transfer of $500 over a period of 12 months) and a control group, and will work with the City’s F inance Department to establish a partnership with a local bank or credit union to handle the disbursement of the monthly cash transfer to participating households. RAND proposes to recruit participants by mail ing them a letter inviting them to complete a survey that will collect information that we will use to assess eligibility for participation in the Pilot Program. RAND will assist eligible households in completing the program application forms, verify eligibility, notify selected participants, conduct one-on -one onboarding sessions with each participant, provide individualized counseling to provide information on the tax implications related to receipt of the benefit and how participation in the program may affect their eligibility for other State and Federal programs (e.g. CalWorks, CalFresh, etc.), and provide am optional course in financial literacy. RAND will also work with program participants to make them aware of other social services and resources for which they may be eligible and will help connect them to these services as needed.
As part of the program implementation process, RAND will track the Pilot Program’s target enrollment and retention rates and will provide the City and other program partners regular updates. We will convene a working group that will provide input into the design and implementation of the Pilot Program and will meet with the group regularly to provide updates. We will meet with program participants regularly to collect both quantitative and qualitative data that will provide information on the impact of the program, will develop a communication strategy that will enable participants to share their stories while also providing information to the community, the media, and other stakeholders. RAND will also create an online dashboard to keep the community, the City, the Ad Hoc Committee and the working group informed. In addition, RAND will provide the City quarterly updates o n program implementation and progress toward completion and will provide a final report that will include lessons learned related specifically to program implementation and recommendations for improvement. Finally, RAND will assist the City in identifying a program evaluator and will collaborate with the selected evaluator to prepare a comprehensive report evaluating the impact, effectiveness, and outcomes of the program.
Specific to the work called for in this contract, our team has extensive experience with:
• Implementation and evaluation of randomized control trials that involve a guaranteed basic income • Managing a complex guarantee basic income program implementation process • Participant recruitment and strategies to maximize participation and retention rates • Preparing detailed program implementation manuals and related documentation • Collecting quantitative and qualitative data through surveys and one -on-one interviews to assess program design and impact and to identify administration issues and unanticipated issues/effects • Preparing progress reports, methodology reports, program impact reports, and 9 • Evaluating program implementation to identify lessons learned and inform improvements.
The combination of RAND’s world-class research capabilities, strong content expertise in implementing and evaluating randomized control trials that involve a cash transfer, and experience conducting collaborative research at the community level, make our team exceedingly qualified for this work, as reflected by our proposed project leadership and our proposed technical approach for the implementation of the Pilot Program.
In the following sections, we describe the proposed project team, a project management plan, proposed technical approach for the successful implementation of the Pilot Program, relevant past experience, and familiarity with the City of El Monte.
Section 2: Project Management Team
Ms. Weidmer and Dr. Aguila will serve Co-Principal Investigators with overall responsibility for ensuring the successful implementation of the Pilot Program and reporting requirements. Ms. Weidmer and Dr. Aguila have an extensive history of successful collaboration on various projects including in the implementation and evaluation of a non-contributory pension program for the elderly in the State of Yucatán, Mexico. Both Ms.
Weidmer and Dr. Aguila also have significant experience as project leaders and a successful track record of delivering timely and high-quality deliverables to government and non-government agencies.
Under Ms. Weidmer’s leadership, key program implementation tasks will be conducted by RAND’s Survey Research Group (SRG) which has a compelling track record of work ing collaboratively on a variety of survey development, implementation, evaluation, and analysis projects. Ms. Weidmer will staff the project with SRG staff with specific skills mapped to the core project tasks. Selected key project staff will have overlapping expertise, which will allow us to maintain work on multiple simultaneous tasks, support different co-occurring activities, and provide surge capacity when needed in order to complete tasks in a timely manner. Below, we present the proposed Pilot Program implementation team and describe their role on the project. Curriculum Vitae for key staff can be found in Appendix A. Detailed information about the Survey Research Group can be found in Appendix B.
Beverly Weidmer
Beverly Weidmer is a Senior Survey Director in the Survey Research Group at RAND. She has over 25 years of experience in both quantitative and qualitative research methods, including all aspects of survey design and management, instrument development, focus groups, cognitive interviews, and usability testing. She has expertise in community-based participatory research, translation, and in the design and testing of culturally appropriate survey instruments. She specializes in the design and implementation of complex field projects including lo ngitudinal surveys, program evaluation projects, multi -mode data collection, and surveying difficult to reach populations (immigrants, low literate populations, welfare recipients, the elderly, and children and adolescents). Ms. Weidmer has managed surveys at both the local and national level. In addition, she has managed longitudinal surveys of children’s health involving the collection of anthropometric measurements, and various measures of child development, studies focusing on disparities in health outcomes among racial and ethnic minorities, barriers to health services for vulnerable populations, health care utilization and delivery, patient experience of care, and quality of life studies for patients with chronic illnesses. She is experienced in conduc ting cross -cultural research both in the U.S. and abroad (including projects in Mexico, Guatemala, the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam). Ms. Weidmer was born and reared in Mexico and is completely bilingual and bi -cultural. She has resided in Los Angeles for over 30 years . Ms. Weidmer will serve as the Principal Investigator and will have 10 responsibility for overall project management and contact with the City of El Monte City Manager’s Office.
She will be responsible for coordinating the implementation of the pilot and coordinating the work to be carried out by all SRG staff, providing quarterly updates to the City to report on the implementation of the GBI Pilot Program, convene and lead a working group to provide updates on the design and implementation of the program, collaborate with the program evaluator in producing a final report describing Pilot Program outcomes and effectiveness. Finally, she will monitor all spending and ensure that the project is completed on time and within budget.
Emma Aguila
Emma Aguila is a Senior Economist at RAND, an Associate Professor at the USC Price School of Public Policy, and a senior fellow at the USC Schaeffer Center. She was previously Director of the RAND Center fo r Latin American Social Policy. She earned her bachelor’s degree at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de Mexico in Mexico City and her master’s and doctoral degrees in economics at University College London. Her research interests include guaranteed basic income programs, welfare programs for low-income populations, and the interrelation between socioeconomic status and health. She has published two books examining aspects of income security, health, and migration: (1) United States and Mexico: Ties That B ind, Issues That Divide, and (2) Living Longer in Mexico: Income Security and Health. She has also authored many articles in top -ranking scientific journals such as Demography, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Social Science & Medicine, and Review of Economics and Statistics . Her work has been funded by the National Institutes for Health (NIH) and the Inter -American Development Bank, among others. Dr. Aguila has received several awards for research including the Inter-American Award for Research in Social Security, the RAND Gold Merit Award, and the High Impact Research Award from USC Price School. Dr. Aguila has nearly two decades of experience in designing, implementing, and evaluating innovative guaranteed income programs using experimental design and longitudinal surveys. She led a large randomized controlled trial to evaluate, over a five-year period, an unconditional guaranteed basic income program in Mexico. The program targeted 8,000 low-income and difficult-to-reach participants. She has conducted and advised survey data collection efforts for low-income households and indigenous populations in Los Angeles, Mexico, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, and Paraguay. Dr. Aguila will closely collaborate with Ms. Weidmer in the implementation of the Pi lot Program and will have joint responsibility for overall project management and contact with the City of El Monte City Manager’s Office and will also collaborate with the program evaluator in producing a final report.
Italo Lopez Garcia
Italo Lopez Garcia is an Economist at RAND Corporation and Senior Economist of the Center of Economic and Social Research at the University of Southern California. His research focus is the study of the determinants of human capital investments over the life cycle, with particular emphasis in the role of early childhood interventions to remediate disadvantages in child development. He is co-PI for an ongoing NICHD-funded R01 study of an Early Childhood Development (ECD) parenting intervention, delivered by the existing network of Community Health Workers in rural Kenya. His research on this project, published in journals such as Lancet Global Health, PLOS Medicine, and Social Science and Medicine , documents how this initiative significantly improved child cognitive, language, and socioemotional development, as well as parental practices. He also helped design and implement a randomized control trial for a similar initiative delivered by local health centers for vulnerable families in Chile published in the Journal of Political Economy. Altogether, he has more than a decade of experience in designing and implementing randomized control trials to evaluate early childhood development interventions, wi th work ranging from assembling multidisciplinary teams tasked with conducting the trial to publishing results in top -ranked journals. Dr. Lopez -García will work with Ms.
Weidmer and Dr. Aguila in the developing a protocol for recruiting and screening pot ential Pilot Program participants and in the developing implementation plan for the Pilot Program.
11 SRG Survey Coordinator (TBD) A bilingual (English/Spanish) will work with Ms. Weidmer in implementing the recruitment of potential program participants, wil l assist with promotion of the program, will oversee the translation of recruitment, promotion, and program materials into Spanish and Mandarin, and will assist in coordinating with the selected financial institution that will collaborate with the Pilot Pr ogram in the disbursement of the program payments. She will also assist with Ms. Weidmer in testing the electronic screening tool used to assess and document program participant eligibility, to test the program participant registry, and to develop and test the Pilot Program Dashboard.
Record Management Systems Administrator. An RMS Administrator (TBD) will develop, test and manage the database architecture used to recruit potential program participants and once they are enrolled in the program, to track t heir participation in the program. During the implementation of the Pilot Program, the RMS Administrator will manage the sample, coordinate sample delivery for the administration of surveys, track encounters between program participants and program counsel ors and generate progress reports.
Web Programmer. A Web Programmer (TBD) will work with Ms. Weidmer and other project staff on the development of a web -based screening tool that potential Pilot Program participants will be directed to as part of the program recruitment effort. The tool will help screen program participants to assess eligibility. In addition, the Web Programmer will help develop a web-based the Pilot Program dashboard to keep the community informed. During YR02 we have included additional time that may be needed for web -site updates once the full implementation starts.
We propose to hire two Pilot Program Counselors during the last four months of the first year of the project to help with the recruitment, screening and enrollment of program participants. In anticipation of the community’s needs, the Program Counselors will be bilingual (one in Spanish and English and another in English and Mandarin). Program Counselors will also be tasked with promoting the Pilot Program at local events, participate in community meetings, meet with each of the 125 households to help them complete enrollment applications, and subsequently, meet with each of the selected households periodically (in Year 2 of the project) to interview them one -on-one, to provide support, to help connect them to social services available in the City of El Monte, and to provide financial literacy instruction/classes. The Counselors will also encourage participants to take part in evaluation activities survey as surveys and other assessments and will follow up with those participants who fail to complete evaluation activities.
Section 3: Management Plan
To promote and assure timely performance of all project tasks , we will employ several management techniques: regular internal meetings to review progress, regular meetings with City staff and with the Guaranteed Income Ad Hoc Committee to address and resolve issues related to tasks on a critical path. We will also utilize MS Project or other project management software to develop a work breakdown schedule (WBS) of detailed schedules f or completion of tasks and subtasks, monitoring of progress and interrelated work activities, and keeping all project staff abreast of key priorities and deadlines.
Section 4: Background
Previous research has documented a relationship between socioecono mic status (SES) and health and mortality (Diez-Roux et al., 2004; Marmot, 2002) . SES is one of the fundamental causes of health disparities (Link & Phelan, 1995) . Life course models suggest early life social conditions and exposures throughout life have a cumulative effect on adult health. The cumulative exposure model suggests early and adult social 12 conditions affect health in old age. The social trajectories model states that early social conditions shape adult health conditions that affect health at older ages. This means interventions that improve SES such as guaranteed basic income programs (GBI) could improve health conditions over the life cycle (Berkman, 2009; Berkman et al., 2011). Social insurance programs—i.e., large-scale government programs to improve SES of low-income families—may reduce health disparities and improve t he health and wellbeing of the targeted population with long-lasting effects.
In many low- and middle-income countries, governments have introduced safety net programs that provide cash and other benefits such as a basic food basket, free meals, and subsidies to help pay for utilities, health insurance, or health care (Bitran & Giedion, 2003; Coady et al., 2004; Levy & Ohls, 2010; Willmore, 2007). For example, in Jamaica poor older adults receive free medical care and a cash transfer (Levy & Ohls, 2010). The United States provides food price subsidies, such as food stamp programs, and in -kind food assistance programs that have been extensively analyzed (Lee & Frongillo, 2001) . Other well -known conditional cash transfer programs have been introduced in Brazil and Mexico. In Mexico, cash and food assistance transfers for low-income households with children conditional on attending nutrition and health training sessions, have been very successful improving children schooling outcomes, health and wellbeing of all family members (Hevia de la Jara, 2009).
Unconditional cash -transfer schemes or guaranteed basic income programs have been implemented as temporary or permanent programs. Specifically, for older adults, non -contributory pensions that are unconditional cash-transfer programs are the main means for providing income security in old age in at least 40 countries around the world including Argentina, Brazil, Bangladesh, Mexico, and South Africa (Coady et al., 2004; Newson & Bourne, 2011) . Non-contributory pension programs have been introduced around the world as permanent programs that the recipient receives until he or she dies.
In the U.S., The COVID-19 pandemic and recent social justice protests have exposed and exacerbated existing inequalities. Those who were already disadvantaged in employment, food, housing, and financial security moved deeper into hardship. Guaranteed basic income (GBI), a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered, has been proposed as a potential solution for this durable inequality. Various forms of GBI have been proposed for decades including when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. suggested a guara nteed income in his 1968 Poor People’s Campaign. California has taken up the baton with a widely publicized trial in Stockton.
The Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, or SEED, started in 2019 with 125 randomly selected residents receiving $500 per month for a period of two years. The study concluded in February 2020 – right before COVID job losses and health impacts occurred (Martin-West et al., 2019) . The main findings of SEED are:
• Guaranteed income reduced income volatility, o r the month-to-month income fluctuations that households face.
• Unconditional cash enabled recipients to find full-time employment. • Recipients of guaranteed income were healthier, showing less depression and anxiety and enhanced wellbeing.
• The guaranteed income alleviated financial scarcity creating new opportunities for self - determination, choice, goal-setting, and risk-taking.
In this project, we propose to follow a similar but more refined approach to the implementation and evaluation of a cash transfer pilot program proposed by the City of El Monte.
13 Section 5: Past Experience
Below, we provide three examples of projects that demonstrate RAND’s experience in the design and implementation of randomized control trials involving cash transfer programs, and a project to evaluate the impact of reforms to the CalWORKs program that involved a collaborative ap proach to working with the California Department of Social Services, county-level CalWORKs programs throughout the state, and multiple stakeholders including CalWORKs program managers, caseworkers, and CalWORKs recipients.
Project 1: Reconocer Urbano
i. Name, location, date of completion: Reconocer Urbano (guaranteed income program) and Escuchar (evaluation); Yucatan, Mexico; 2007-2012.
ii. Program manager and key staff: Emma Aguila, RAND and University of Southern California, and Beverly A. Weidmer, RAND, program managers; Arie Kapteyn, University of Southern California, key staff
iii. Brief description of process and results
Mexico has a growing number of older persons, many of whom live in poverty, but few developed policies or programs to support them. This has prompted both the federal and state governments to introduce universal guaranteed income programs among older adults. Among the first state programs was Reconocer Urbano, a Yucatan program for persons 70 or older. This project provided recipients a ca sh transfer of MXN$550 per month (US$58.70 at 2014 purchasing power parity, or PPP) that represented about one-third of the monthly minimum wage in Yucatan.
To evaluate the state program, we chose two cities, Valladolid and Motul, through a cluster randomized controlled trial design by matched pairs of towns with similar census characteristics. Valladolid began receiving the state guaranteed income program, wh ile Motul was the control location. A concurrent effort used a randomized control trial design to select individuals within Merida, the Yucatan capital, for the program. In Merida, we employed a double randomization design . Of 1,175 blocks chosen, we assigned randomly half to treatment and half to control. Once we selected the sample of blocks, the field team conducted a household census of the selected blocks using mapping and cartography methods specified by the Mexican Census Bureau to identify households with eligible individuals. To evaluate the programs, we identified age-eligible persons in targeted locations and trained bi-lingual (Spanish and Mayan, the local languages) field staff. Three in -person evaluation surveys conducted quantitative interviews over a three-year period in all the locations asked recipients and members of their households about socioeconomic characteristics, health status and access to care (including personal measurements), and caregiving. Response rates for the first two waves was greater than 90 percent, while that for the last wave was roughly 80 percent. We also conducted qualitative interviews , focus groups to understand how participants used the income transfer, changes on their family dynamics, and household decision-making.
In the various pilot programs, we tested different implementation designs; cash vs debit card disbursement and frequency of payment. We found the program reduced work -for-pay among these older recipients. The guaranteed income program also led to reduced family transfers but did not completely crowd them out. The program had a variety of other benefits: increasing health care use, reducing anemia, food insecurity and hunger, and improving lung function and memory recall. Payment 14 frequency had some effects: women receiving more frequent payments had decreased frailty, perhaps because monies were used more for necessities than when receiving payments less frequently.
iv. Project timeline and budget; final duration and cost The project launched in mid-2007 with pilot payment of the guaranteed income and development of the baseline survey. In 2008, we translated the survey into Mayan, trained staff, selected intervention sites, identified “treatment” and “control” groups, conducted baseline data collection, and began the program for the “treatment” group. In 2009, we developed and conducted our baseline survey in Merida and our first follow-up surveys in Valladolid and Motul. In 2010, we developed and conducted our second follow- up surveys in Valladolid and Motul. In 2011, we developed and conducted our first follow -up survey in Merida. In 2012, we developed and conducted our second follow-up survey in Merida.
The total budget and cost of the 5-year project was $3,746,152.
Project 2: Msingi Bora
i. Name, location, date of completion: Msingi Bora (“Good Foundations” parenting program); rural western Kenya; 2017-2022.
ii. Program manager and key staff: Italo Lopez Garcia, RAND, and Jill Luoto, University of Southern California, program managers; Lia Fernald, U niversity of California at Berkeley, and Frances Aboud, McGill University, key staff
iii. Brief description of process and results
Approximately 250 million children in low - and middle-income countries will not reach their full developmental potential due to poverty, nutritional deficiencies, or inadequate psychosocial stimulation.
Early childhood development interventions that integrate responsive parenting and early learning with nutrition education can help improve development for such children. Two methods for delivering such intervention are individual home visits and group-based meetings.
With support from the U.S. National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, we tested the effectiveness of two group -based delivery models for an integrated early childhood development responsive simulation and nutrition education intervention using Kenya’s network of community health volunteers. We conducted the multi -arm cluster Randomized Control Trial evaluation of Mungi Bora, which was implemented across 6 0 villages and 1,152 households in three rural sub -counties of western Kenya. Specifically, we tested the effectiveness of a program that used 16 fortnightly group sessions and of one that used 12 group sessions and four home visits. Our implementation eva luation found the program content was acceptable to mothers, who averaged 70% attendance in the sessions.
Immediately after the eight -month interventions, we found the program had large positive impacts on cognitive, language, and socioemotional outcomes and maternal behaviors —and that the group -only program impacts were larger. A follow -up assessment two years later also showed the group -only intervention on children’s cognitive and socioemotional outcomes as well as on maternal behaviors were sustained, but with lower magnitude. In other words, our results show that a group -based intervention is at least as effective as a mixed -delivery model that combines home visits but is less burdensome to deliver.
iv. Project timeline and budget; final duration and cost 15 In Year 1, we launched the project and adapted curricula from other successful parenting interventions in rural Kenya. In Year 2, we trained community health workers to deliver the program, conducted a series of quantitative and qu alitative surveys; a baseline survey, conducted the intervention, and conducted our immediate follow-up survey. In Year 3, some participating households received additional follow-up home visits to encourage sustained behavioral change. We also conducted f ocus groups of community health volunteers to perform a process evaluation study. In Year 4, we conducted our second follow-up survey to assess sustained impacts on children and parental incomes. In Year 5, we performed project dissemination activities and assessed medium-term impacts.
The total budget and cost of the five-year project was $3,600,000.
Project 3: Evaluation of SB1041 Reforms to California’s CalWORKs Program
i. Name, location, date of completion: Evaluation of SB1041 Reforms to California’s CalWORKs Program, California, 2014-2017.
ii. Program manager and key staff: Beverly A. Weidmer, Lois Davis, Robert Bozick, and Lynn Karoly, RAND program managers.
iii. Brief description of process and results
The California Budget Act of 2012 contained significant reforms to California’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, known as CalWORKs (California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids). These reforms included changes to work requirements and the exemption for having a young child, with the goal of engaging welfare-to -work clients in more -intensive, work-related activities as early as possible. The reforms also provided enhanced supports to address barrier s to work, offered more flexibility in work activity options, and increased incentives to work.
The California Department of Social Services contracted with RAND and the American Institutes for Research to evaluate the implementation and impact of these reforms. As part of this evaluation, RAND implemented a longitudinal panel survey of CalWORKs bene ficiaries and children involving a telephone survey and an in-home survey conducted in both English and Spanish. The survey included the collection of anthropometric measures (e.g., height and weight), various measures of child development, and home observations. The evaluation also included a quantitative survey of CalWORKs administrative staff and the collection of qualitative data from CalWORKs caseworkers and beneficiaries via focus groups and in- depth, one-on-one interviews (in both English and Spanish).
The analysis found that core components of the reforms had been implemented, though issues remained with the execution of some components, particularly the welfare-to-work 24-month time clock. Counties continued to expand or enhance partnerships with local service providers, especially in areas where gaps previously existed. Understanding of the more complex components improved, but some shortfalls remained. The Online CalWORKs Appraisal Tool was useful for identifying barriers, though administration time was a concern. The Family Stabilization program succeeded in giving flexibility to meet the unique needs of each client. Take-up of educational opportunities lagged.
iv. Project timeline and budget; final duration and cost The total budget and cost of the three-year project was $3,089,488.
16 Section 6: Technical Approach
Section 6.1: Building a Sampling Frame
Randomized evaluation of pilot public policy programs is important in determining the feasibility and outcomes of a program before rolling it out on a large-scale. The Central Principle of statistical sampling asserts that the sample selection is random. This method ensures that the probability of being included in the sample does not depend on some characteristic and that every individual has an equal chance to be selected. For a proper evaluation and design, one needs baseline measurements of key variables and both treatment and control groups. These type of evaluation methods have been widely used around the world (e.g., Angrist et al., 2002; Attanasio et al., 2012; Banerjee et al., 2003; Behrman & Sengupta, 2005; Bobonis et al., 2004; Cronbach & Shapiro, 1982; Miguel & Kremer, 2003; Vermeersch & Kremer, 2005).
In implementing a Guaranteed Income Program in the City of El Monte, we propose to identify and recruit by mail (a sampling and recruitment design that is similar to that used by the SEED program in Stockton, CA with the additional implementation of best practices for randomized controlled trials in order to minimize bias).
Our proposed approach involves employing a double randomization two-stage design for the recruitment of program participants. In the first stage, we will randomly select city Census blocks, with inclusion probabilities proportional to the number of low-income households within a block. We will then purchase a sample of all active residential USPS addresses in the selected blocks from a commercial vendor . In the second stage, rather than announcing the Pilot Program from the outset, we will instead first mail each of the ~4,000 households in the selected blocks a letter inviting them to participate in a web-based survey designed to gather information that can be used to assess eligibility for the Guaranteed Income Pilot Program .
Participants will receive a post -paid incentive of $15 dollars for completing this initial survey. The survey invitation letter will be addressed to the current resident and will explain that the City of El Monte, the RAND Corporation, and the academic institution selected to conduct the program evaluation have launched an initiative to assess the wellbeing of families and children in the City of El Monte in order to design policies to improve their wellbeing. We propose that the Pilot Program first focus on low income, single mother households with children under 18 years old. The survey will collect information about family composition, income, race and ethnicity, education, primary language spoken in th e household, age, gender, relation of household members, and the contact information for the head of the household so that we may contact them again about participating in futur e data collection activities that will be conducted as part of the program evaluation effort (e.g. surveys, qualitative interviews, biomarkers) . Data collected as part of the survey will help us construct a sampling frame for the Pilot Program. Although we will follow -up with household residents to encourage them to complete the survey (by mailing reminders postcards and/or also sending a copy of the survey by mail with a postage-paid return envelope), we anticipate a modest response rate of approximately 10% (n=400 completed surveys) . We anticipate that approximately 75% (n=300) of participants who complete the survey will be eligible for the program and will constitute the sample frame for the Pilot Program. Once we identify sample frame, we will collaborate with the City and the evaluator to develop a strategy for randomizing participants into either the treatment or the control group and will then notify participants assigned to the treatment group to let them know that they have been selected to take part in the Pilot Program and inviting them to complete an application.
RAND proposes to hire bilingual Pilot Program Counselors who will be tasked with meeting with participants assigned to the treatment group to explain to them the goals of the program and what participation entails, to help them complete the program enrollment process, to answer any question or concerns they may have, and to verify proof of eligibility for the program. To avoid bias effects, the RAND counselors will not mention 17 the academic institution in charge of the evaluation so that participants understand that the Pilot Program is independent from any of the evaluation data collection activ ities. RAND counselors will conduct program onboarding sessions which will include informed consent and benefits counseling, contact information of the program staff, and enrollment with the financial institution selected for the disbursement of the cash transfer so that they may receive and activate a debit card which will be used to get the cash transfer to program participants. The benefit counseling will help participants understand any interaction between this Pilot Program and any other local, state or federal program benefits they may be receiving. We anticipate that approximately ~85% of participants (n=~250) will fully complete the Pilot Program enrollment process.
Section 6.2: Issues to consider in developing a sample frame
Other studies of cash transfer programs have found that a nnouncing the program before conducting a baseline assessment (usually by asking them to complete a survey) causes what is referred to in the literature as an “announcement effect” that bias es responses gathered in the baseline assessment . For example, the SEED program in Stockton, CA announced the program in the information they mailed to the randomly selected households targeted by the program and their initial web-based survey collected household-level baseline data, as well as individual-level data on key outcomes of interest. In other words, they failed to construct an initial listing or sampling frame and instead directly implement ed a full survey with the households they selected. This is an issue because they are not able to assess sample selection issues between the listing or sampling frame and the baseline survey. We propose to use a more rigorous approach that avoids these types of biases. One other disadvantage of the SEEDs approach is that they chose to notify the control group that they were assigned to the control group and therefore would not be receiving a cash transfer. This issue has been shown to bias responses to follow-up surveys and/or to increase non-response among the control group.
Section 6.3: Disadvantages of our proposed design
One of the main disadvantages of our proposed design is that it may exclude the most vulnerable populations who may be eligible for the program. Unpermitted addresses that do not have a street or mailing address (e.g. an unpermitted garage apartment or granny flat) may be inadvertently excluded from our sampling frame. Unpermitted housing is an issue throughout California due to the shortage of housing combined with high housing costs. This issue may cause a sample selection bias, particularly excluding the most vulnerable and low-income families. The issue of multiple households or families living within one dwelling unit (at one address) presents another challenge that may result in selection biases that are difficult to detect and again would disproportionally exclude low income families . Finally, in the current political climate, eligible vulnerable families may be afraid to apply to the Pilot Program, may not speak English, or may have low levels of literary or may not be able to access a web-based survey . These issues could also cause sample selection issues that are difficult to detect. While there are strategies we can use to increase participation in the baseline survey (e.g. providing a simple to read survey that is available in multiple languages, offering participants the opportunity to complete the survey by mail or by phone rather than over the web, and reassuring potential participants that participation in the survey is completely confidential, other strategies are more complicated to implement and require significantly more resources (e.g. canvassing selected blocks in person to identify eligible household). We will discuss these issues with the City, the s elected evaluator, the GI Ad Hoc Committee, and others to design a recruitment strategy that will efficiently allow us to identify eligible households at a reasonable cost while at the same time reducing the chance of introducing selection biases.
Section 6.4: Policy Experiments that could be considered
18 RAND proposes to recommend that cash transfers be disbursed on a monthly or bi-weekly schedule. Much existing research has found that the frequency of payments can have large effects on spending and outcomes.
For example, Shapiro (2005) found that caloric intake decreases by 10% as the month progresses. Increasing the frequency of payments may improve an individual’s ability to smooth their consumption over the month.
Evidence from Mexico and Kenya suggests that one -time or less frequent payments are more likely to be used for durable goods while more frequent payments increase food availability and health care use (Aguila et al., 2017; Haushofer & Shapiro, 2016). More frequent payments to low-income older adults in Mexico also improved health and wellbeing more than less frequent, larger payments did (Aguila and Smith, 2020) , potentially because of the difficulty of smoothing consumption between payments.
Section 7: Scope of Work
In working with staff from the City of El Monte as well as the City’s Guaranteed Income Ad Hoc Committee, and other partners, RAND will perform each of the tasks outlined below.
Task 1. Promotion, Recruitment and Outreach.
RAND will work with the City’s Guaranteed Income Ad Hoc Committee, City staff, and non-profit partners, to create and implement an outreach and recruitment plan to provide information about the program to El Monte residents. Our proposed recruitment approach is described in Section 6. of this proposal and involves targeting randomly selected Census blocks withing the City of El Monte, and then inviting all households in those blocks to complete a brief web survey that will be used to determine household eligibility for participation in the program. In developing a promotion, recruitment, and outreac h strategy, RAND will develop materials that are user-friendly and written at an appropriate reading level, and available in English, Spanish, Mandarin, and potentially other languages as needed. To facilitate promotion of the study to all language groups in the City of El Monte, the proposed RAND project team includes staff that is not only bilingual but also experienced in community-based participatory research (Ms. Weidmer and Drs. Aguila and García Lopez are all native Spanish speakers and the Pilot Pr ogram Counselors hired by RAND will also be bilingual in English/Spanish and English Mandarin.
Task 2. Assist City’s Finance Department with establishing a partnership with a local financial institution.
RAND will work with staff from the City’s Financial Department to establish a partnership with a local financial institution (e.g. a bank or credit union) that will be responsible for setting up a mechanism (e.g. a debit card) for the regular disbursement of the cash benefit to Pilot Program participants. RAND will assist in identifying criteria for assessing candidate financial institutions (for example, costs associated with the processing and disbursement of cash benefits, branch and ATM location/availability, customer service capabilities including availability of bilingual customer service representatives who can assist program participants who require assistance in languages other than English (e.g. Spanish, Mandarin, etc.).
Task 3. Assist with program enrollment.
In the first year of the project, RAND will hire two bilingual Pilot Program Counselors who will be tasked with assisting potential program participants in completing enrollment applications, self-certification forms and in providing information related to the necessary documentat ion to prove their eligibility for the Pilot Program. RAND Program Counselors will meet with potential participants either in person, by phone, or via ZOOM as needed and in keeping with COVID -19 public health protocols in effect at the time of implementation.
Task 4. Review applications for eligibility.
RAND Program Counselors will meet with each of the eligible families who completed a web-based survey to confirm household status and income by reviewing their enrollment applications and the documentatio n submitted to prove eligibility for the program (e.g. form of identification, proof of residence, paycheck stubs, 19 bank statements, tax returns, etc.) Meeting with potential participants will take place either in person, by phone, or via ZOOM as needed and in keeping with COVID-19 public health protocols in effect at the time of implementation.
Task 5. Submit completed applications.
Once RAND Program Counselors have reviewed the enrollment applications submitted by potential program participants, they wi ll submit them to the program partner or evaluator who will be tasked with randomly assigning eligible participants to either the treatment group (who will receive the monthly cash benefit) or the control group (who will not receive the monthly cash benefi t but who will be invited to take part in the surveys or other data collection activities conducted as part of the evaluation of the program).
Task 6. Notify and enroll selected participants.
Upon the assignment of eligible participants to the treatment group, RAND will mail each participant a notification letter letting them know they have been selected for the program. In addition, RAND Program Counselors will follow up by phone to confirm receipt of the letter, answer any questions or concerns participants may have, and schedule an appointment to meet one-on-one to complete enrollment in the Pilot Program.
Task 7. Conduct onboarding session with Pilot Program participants.
RAND will meet one-on-one with each of the selected program participants to provide additional information on what participation in the program entails, how the cash benefit will be disbursed, and what they need to do to complete enrollment in the program. Meeting with potential participants will take place either in person, by phone, or via ZOOM as needed and in keeping with COVID -19 public health protocols in effect at the time of implementation.
Task 8. Provide individualized benefits counseling.
As part of the initial on-boarding session or in a subsequent meeting, RAND will prov ide each participant selected information (both verbally and in writing) of possible impacts to federal, state, or county benefits (e.g. unemployment benefits, benefits from CalWORKs or CalFresh, etc.) and provide the opportunity for potential participants to make their own decisions as to whether to proceed in the program.
Task 9. Collaborate with financial distribution entity to ensure prompt and effective distribution of the monthly cash benefit.
RAND will collaborate with the selected financial distribution entity to ensure that each of the selected program participants open a bank account in order to receive the monthly funds via debit card, and that participants receive the monthly funds in a timely, predictable, and seamless fashion;
Task 10. Conduct financial literacy course.
RAND Program Counselors will conduct a financial literacy assessment with each of the program participants.
In addition, RAND will work with City staff, the GI Ad Hoc Committee and others to determine the content of an optional financial literacy course to be provided to program participants by RAND Program Counselors.
The financial literacy course will be provided in English, Spanish, and Mandarin, and all course materials will be available in all three languages.
Task 11: Connect program participants to local social services.
RAND Program Counselors will provide program participants with information on other social services, resources, or benefits for which they may be eligible (e.g. CalWORKs, CalFresh, WIC pr ogram, Headstart, subsidized housing, etc.) and if participants are interested, will work with other City contracted non -profit agency partners to connect participants with these social services and/or resources. 20 Task 12. Track Pilot Program Process.
RAND will program a participant registry (Record Management System) to track the Pilot Program’s recruitment effort, program enrollment and retention rates. We will program automated reports that can be used to provide the City of El Monte and oth er program partners with regular updates on progress toward enrollment and retention goals.
Task 13. Developing storytelling and communication strategies.
In an effort to promote transparency, engender trust among program participants, and respond to community inquiries, RAND will collaborate with City staff and the GI Ad Hoc Committee to develop a strategy for communicating with program participants and sharing information about the Pilot Program with the community, media, and other stakeholders. As part of this strategy, RAND will provide program participants an option to enroll in a storytelling component that will allow them to have agency over their own stories while maintaining their confidentiality as needed or requested. The strategy could involve d eveloping a program web page and conducting interviews with program participants to give them an opportunity to share their family life stories and share information about the impact the program has on their lives.
Task 14. Create an online data dashboard.
RAND will work with the City to create an online dashboard that will keep the community informed as to program activities and enrollment and retention rates.
Task 15. Convene Working Group.
RAND will convene a working group made up of key stakeholders a nd meet with them on a regular basis to provide updates on the design and implementation of the program and offer participants ongoing opportunities to meaningfully shape and inform the program design.
Task 16. Provide quarterly updates.
RAND will provide the City quarterly updates on the implementation and progress toward established goals of the Pilot Program. In addition, we will meet with the City on an ongoing basis throughout the life of the project to provide regular on progress toward completion of project milestones in relation to the timeline.
Task 17. Selection of a Program Evaluator.
RAND will work with the City to select an organization or academic institution to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the Pilot Program and prepare a comprehensive report evaluating the outcomes of the program.
Task 18. Support Program Evaluation.
RAND will assist the financial distribution entity, the City, and the selected program evaluator with collection of qualitative and quantitative data from th e program needed to evaluate the impact of the program.
Specifically, RAND Program Counselors will encourage program participants to participate in data collection activities (surveys, interviews) conducted by the program evaluator. In addition, RAND will work with the financial distribution entity to establish a cooperative agreement to facilitate the sharing of process data related to the disbursement of the cash benefit and the withdrawal of funds by program participants. Analysis of this data will allow the evaluator to identify how and when program funds are used in order to better understand the impact of the guaranteed income program.
Task 19. Facilitate the preparation of the program evaluator’s comprehensive report.
RAND will collaborate with the selected program evaluator in compiling a comprehensive report summarizing program impact, effectiveness, and outcomes of the program including the impact on participants’ economic 21 security, housing stability, physical and mental health, and wellbeing. To i nform the national debate, the report will include a discussion of the impact and usefulness of guaranteed income programs with an innovative policy design to reduce poverty, inequality, and improve the health and wellbeing of participants.
Finally, the report will include information that will allow the City to evaluate whether it should expand the program to increase the number of program participants, whether to include different demographics, or whether it should maximize the impact of the program by mo difying the duration of the benefits, the frequency of distribution, or the mode of distribution.
Section 8: Timeline
Below, we present a tentative timeline that shows the sequencing of project tasks by project year. We include pre-program tasks, tasks during the 12 -month Guaranteed Income Pilot program (November 2022-October 2023), and post-program activities. The schedule includes start and completion dates for all tasks and major subtasks, and shows task interdependencies. As we develop a detailed Pilot Program implementation plan, we will focus on tasks that are on critical paths at the same time to ensure that the project stay s on track.
We will develop a final schedule and timeline in consultation with the City’s Guaranteed Income Ad Hoc Committee.
Proposed Implementation Timeline
Year 1
Task March 15, 2022-March 14, 2023
No. Description Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 0 Develop Program Implementation Strategy
1 Promotion, Recruitment and Outreach
2 Assist City’s Finance Department with establishing a
partnership with a local financial institution
3 Assist with program enrollment
4 Review applications for eligibility
5 Submit completed applications
6 Notify and enroll selected participants
7 Conduct onboarding session with Pilot Program
participants
8 Provide individualized benefits counseling
9 Collaborate with financial distribution entity to ensure prompt and effective distribution of the monthly cash
benefit
10 Conduct financial literacy course
11 Connect program participants to local social services 12 Track Pilot Program Process
13 Developing storytelling and communication strategies 14 Create an online data dashboard
15 Convene Working Group
16 Provide quarterly updates
17 Selection of a Program Evaluator
18 Support Program Evaluation
22 19
Facilitate the preparation of the program evaluator’s
comprehensive report
Proposed Implementation Timeline (Continued)
Year 2
Task March 15, 2023-March 14, 2024
No. Description Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 0 Develop Program Implementation Strategy
1 Promotion, Recruitment and Outreach
2 Assist City’s Finance Department with establishing a
partnership with a local financial institution
3 Assist with program enrollment
4 Review applications for eligibility
5 Submit completed applications
6 Notify and enroll selected participants
7 Conduct onboarding session with Pilot Program
participants
8 Provide individualized benefits counseling
9 Collaborate with financial distribution entity to ensure prompt and effective distribution of the monthly cash
benefit
10 Conduct financial literacy course
11 Connect program participants to local social services 12 Track Pilot Program Process
13 Developing storytelling and communication strategies 14 Create an online data dashboard
15 Convene Working Group
16 Provide quarterly updates
17 Selection of a Program Evaluator
18 Support Program Evaluation
19 Facilitate the preparation of the program evaluator’s comprehensive report
23 Section 9: Knowledge of the City of El Monte
Since its inception in the 1940s, RAND has been headquartered in Santa Monica. As a result, the Los Angeles area has long been a focal point of RAND interest and research. RAND research on Los Angeles and its surrounding communities covers a wide range of issues, in cluding child care, demographics, education, and health. In this work, RAND has engaged state and local governments throughout the region, as well as non - governmental organizations seeking to improve all facets of life in the region.
The City of El Monte, particularly in its Hispanic, Asian, and foreign-born populations, reflects the rich diversity of the Los Angeles region that RAND has served (See Table 1 in Appendix C for descriptive characteristics for the City from the 2019 Americ an Community Survey). Though the relatively high poverty rate, particularly among families with children, presents some problems, the program the city is proposing represents an innovative way to address these challenges , and one whose evaluation could inf orm similar efforts elsewhere (See the block maps in Appendix D that graphically display poverty rates at the city block level as well as the blocks that have households with children under the age of 18 headed by a female resident with no husband or partner). Addressing poverty and related issues may also have long-term benefits for the city in boosting its levels of educational attainment.
El Monte is also home to an array of nonprofit organizations that may prove to be suitable partners for this work and related initiatives. Fraternal, labor, religious, and other community organizations serve the area.
RAND generally and each of the investigators for this project have direct experience in working with community organizations and non -profit organizations in a collaborative manner . The projects we cite elsewhere in this proposal all achieved the success they did because of our successful efforts to identify and engage local community organizations and key stakeholders. Beyond these projects, the proposed r esearch team has worked on projects that engaged local non-profit organizations both for cooperative research efforts and as part of a strategy to promote transparency in research by sharing information with study participants and stakeholders that are imp acted by findings from the research we conduct, for example by informing residents on education and income security issues that touch their lives.
Section 9.1: City of El Monte
El Monte is a city in Los Angeles County, California, United States.
The composition of the population is as follows: 32,234 people (28.4%) under the age of 18, 12,814 people (11.3%) aged 18 to 24, 33,263 people (29.3%) aged 25 to 44, 24,567 people (21.6%) aged 45 to 64, and 10,597 people (9.3%) who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 31.6 years. The city has evolved into a community with a large proportion of Hispanic population. The influx of Asians in the past decade has increased the proportion of the Asian community in El Monte. In 2010, El Monte had 113,4 75 inhabitants.
The racial makeup of El Monte was 44,058 (38.8%) White (4.9% Non -Hispanic White), 870 (0.8%) African American, 1,083 (1.0%) Native American, 28,503 (25.1%) Asian (13.5% Chinese, 7.4% Vietnamese, 1.2% Filipino, 0.4% Cambodian, 0.2% Burmese, 0.2% Japanese, 0.2% Korean, 0.2% Indian, 0.2% Thai), 131 (0.1%) Pacific Islander, 35,205 (31.0%) from other races, and 3,625 (3.2%) from two or more races. 78,317 (69.0%) of the population is Hispanic or Latino of any race (60.9% Mexican, 2.3% Salvadoran, 1.2% Guatemalan, 0.4% Nicaraguan, 0.3% Honduran, 0.3% Cuban, 0.2% Puerto Rican, and 0.2% Peruvian).
There were 27,814 households, out of which 14,557 (52.3%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 5,298 (19.0%) had a female householder with no husband present, 2,962 (10.6%) had a male householder with no wife present. The average household size was 4.04. There were 23,347 families (83.9% of all households); the average family size was 4.23. According to the 2010 United States Census, El Monte had a median household income of $39,535, with 24.3% of the population living below the federal poverty line.
24 Section 10: Budget
RAND is pleased to submit this Cost Reimbursable proposal in response to the City of El Monte’s Request for Qualifications Guaranteed Income Pilot Non -Profit Program Administrator. If selected, RAND respectfully reserves the right to negotiate mutually agr eeable contract terms. RAND’s total Budget for the proposed period is $474,944 and is detailed on the following pages
Section 10.1: RAND Detailed Total Budget
Total Proposal
Project Name:
Proposal Number: 20220460 Project Leader: Weidmer,Beverly A Start Date: Mar. 15, 2022
End Date: Mar. 14, 2024
Days Daily Rate Cost
Direct Labor and Fringe Costs
Professional Consultant Lopez Garcia,Italo Xavier Economist, Adjunct 5.00 708.95 3,545 Non-Professional Consultant Aguila,Emma Pardee RAND, Adjunct 20.00 816.51 16,330 Total Direct Labor 25.00 19,875
TOTAL Direct Labor and Fringe 19,875
Direct Non-Labor Costs
Technology Svcs Allocation 1,762
1,762
Total Survey (Inclusive of Weidmer, Beverly Labor Costs 397,683 397,683
Subcontract -
Total Direct Costs 419,320$
Indirect Costs All Indirect Cost rates are applied to TOTAL Direct Labor and Fringe Unit and Corporate Overhead 101.6% 20,196
FCCOM 1.2% 247
Total Indirect Costs 20,442$
Total Cost Before Fee 439,763$
Fee 35,181$
Total Including Fee 474,944$
SUBTOTAL Survey
Guaranteed Income Pilot Study
SUBTOTAL Computing
25 Section 10.2: RAND Detailed Year 1 Budget Breakdown
Cost Element Breakdown
Project Name:
Proposal Number: 20220460 Project Leader: Weidmer,Beverly A Budget Period: Budget Period 1
Budget Period Start: Mar. 15, 2022
Budget Period End: Mar. 14, 2023
Days Daily Rate Cost
Direct Labor and Fringe Costs
Professional Consultant Lopez Garcia,Italo Xavier Economist, Adjunct 5.00 708.95 3,545 Non-Professional Consultant Aguila,Emma Pardee RAND, Adjunct 12.00 803.37 9,640 Total Direct Labor 17.00 13,185
TOTAL Direct Labor and Fringe 13,185
Direct Non-Labor Costs
Technology Svcs Allocation 1,190
1,190
Total Survey (Inclusive of Weidmer, Beverly Labor Costs 171,723 171,723
Subcontract -
Total Direct Costs 186,098$
Indirect Costs All Indirect Cost rates are applied to TOTAL Direct Labor and Fringe Unit and Corporate Overhead 101.8% 13,423
FCCOM 1.1% 150
Total Indirect Costs 13,573$
Total Cost Before Fee 199,671$
Fee 15,974$
Total Including Fee 215,645$
SUBTOTAL Survey
Guaranteed Income Pilot Study
SUBTOTAL Computing
26 Section 10.3: RAND Detailed Year 2 Budget Breakdown
Cost Element Breakdown
Project Name:
Proposal Number: 20220460 Project Leader: Weidmer,Beverly A Budget Period: Budget Period 2
Budget Period Start: Mar. 15, 2023
Budget Period End: Mar. 14, 2024
Days Daily Rate Cost
Direct Labor and Fringe Costs
Non-Professional Consultant Aguila,Emma Pardee RAND, Adjunct 8.00 836.21 6,690 Total Direct Labor 8.00 6,690
TOTAL Direct Labor and Fringe 6,690
Direct Non-Labor Costs
Technology Svcs Allocation 572
572
Total Survey (Inclusive of Weidmer, Beverly Labor Costs 225,960 225,960
Subcontract -
Total Direct Costs 233,222$
Indirect Costs All Indirect Cost rates are applied to TOTAL Direct Labor and Fringe Unit and Corporate Overhead 101.3% 6,773
FCCOM 1.4% 96
Total Indirect Costs 6,870$
Total Cost Before Fee 240,092$
Fee 19,207$
Total Including Fee 259,299$
SUBTOTAL Survey
Guaranteed Income Pilot Study
SUBTOTAL Computing
27 Section 11: Budget Justification
RAND is pleased to submit this proposal in response to the Request for Qualifications for the implementation of a Basic Income Pilot Program.
We have budgeted a total of $474,944 over the 24 months of the project. The budget includes labor cost for RAND staff, RAND Survey Research Group (SRG) staff, and direct costs associated with the implementation of the Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Study.
The project will be led by Beverly Weidmer, Senior Survey Director in RAND’s SRG and Emma Aguila, RAND Senior Economist and Associate Professor at the USC Sol Price School of Public of Policy. Pilot Program implementation tasks will be carried out by RAND’s Survey Research Group (SRG). The Survey Research Group (SRG) was established at RAND in 1972 to provide RAND with an in -house capability for conducting primary data collection that was of the same high quality as the quality of RAND’s research analyses. The SRG is made up of policy analysts, health services researchers, and specialists in the technical aspects of survey research. These professionals share a common interest and expertise in applying state -of-the-art survey methods to the specia l challenges of public policy research and have special expertise in data collection in various community and healthcare settings with difficult -to-reach populations. After 50 years, SRG has become known for innovative survey planning, data collection, an d methodological research. SRG staff are experienced in working with community and other stakeholder groups as part of the data collection process and have many years of experience in collecting primary data in a variety of community and institutional settings.
The RAND Survey Research Group (SRG) operates as a cost center within RAND. This means that SRG’s charges for data collection are set to recover actual costs on an annual basis. Rather than charging users on the basis of an individual staff memb er’s actual rate, RAND’s SRG Cost Center charges users by “positions” (i.e., users pay a set hourly rate for a “Senior Survey Coordinator” regardless of which of our senior survey coordinators perform the task). However, SRG assigns specific individuals t o work on the project, as named in the proposal. Staff within each “position” have similar actual salaries and comparable skill sets. Each “position” hourly rate is inclusive of all costs (i.e., direct and indirect). SRG costs appear as a Direct Non-Labor Costs in the overall RAND budget, however, we have included a separate budget that details SRG costs. Ms.
Weidmer’s labor costs appear under the SRG budget while Dr. Aguila’s and Dr. García Lopez’ labor costs appear under the overall RAND budget.
PERSONNEL
Emma Aguila – Project Co-Principal Investigator. Dr. Aguila will closely collaborate with Ms. Weidmer in the implementation of the Pilot Program and will have joint responsibility for overall project management and contact with the City of El Monte City Manager’s Office and will also collaborate with the program evaluator in producing a final report. Ms. Aguila is budgeted at 5% effort (12 days) in Year 1 of the project and 3% effort in Year 2 of the Pilot Program (8 days).
Italo Lopez-García – Senior Economist. Dr. Lopez -García will work with Ms. Weidmer and Dr. Aguila in the developing a protocol for recruiting and screening potential Pilot Program participants and in the developing implementation plan for the Pilot Program. Dr. Lopez -García is budgeted for 2% effort (5 days) in Year 1 of the Pilot Program only.
TECHNOLOGY SERVICE ALLOCATION
28 Technology Services Allocation is calculated at a flat rate of $8.75 per hour of staff time. The budget reflects an inflation adjustment for costs in future budget periods. Technology services, consisting of computers per staff member; exchange services (voicemail, email, calendaring) and associated file storage; access to collaborative information resources, software provided on network servers; remote access to RAND through encrypted tunneling and Web -based AnywhereConnect; printing, copying, faxing, and scanning on RAND network machines, including troubleshooting and supplies; and Sharepoint Web -based sites for team collaboration.
Telecommunications, con sisting of videoconference facility use and maintenance; telephones and related moves, repairs, maintenance, administration; local, long- distance, international calling, 800 numbers for voice access by RAND travelers; RAND phone directory, database updates, and maintenance; RAND switchboard support; and three-party conference calling.
System Support Services, including but not limited to consulting and troubleshooting; troubleshooting to ensure that a computer is up and running or to assist with Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, or Excel; consultation on hardware and software for RAND work; assistance with printing, operating system, file sharing, email and communication software (including for remote access), Web browser, and calendaring software; RAND - specific documentation, product testing and evaluation.
SURVEY RESEARCH GROUP
PERSONNEL
Beverly Weidmer – Project Principal Investigator. Ms. Weidmer will have responsibility for overall project management and contact with the City of El Monte City Manager’s Offi ce. She will be responsible for coordinating the implementation of the pilot and coordinating the work to be carried out by all SRG staff, providing quarterly updates to the City to report on the implementation of the GBI Pilot Program, convene and lead a working group to provide updates on the design and implementation of the program, collaborate with the program evaluator in producing a final report describing Pilot Program outcomes and effectiveness. Finally, she will monitor all spending and ensure that the project is completed on time and within budget. Ms. Weidmer is budgeted at 20% effort (48 days) during each year of the Pilot Program.
SRG Survey Coordinator (TBD) A bilingual (English/Spanish) will work with Ms. Weidmer in implementing the recruitment of potential program participants, will assist with promotion of the program, will oversee the translation of recruitment, promotion, and program materials into Spanish and Mandarin, and will assist in coordinating with the selected financial institutio n that will collaborate with the Pilot Program in the disbursement of the program payments. She will also assist with Ms. Weidmer in testing the electronic screening tool used to assess and document program participant eligibility, to test the program part icipant registry, and to develop and test the Pilot Program Dashboard.
Record Management Systems Administrator. An RMS Administrator (TBD) will develop, test and manage the database architecture used to recruit potential program participants and once they are enrolled in the program, to track their participation in the program. During the implementation of the Pilot Program, the RMS Administrator will manage the sample, coordinate sample delivery for the administration of surveys, track encounters between program participants and program counselors and generate progress reports. In the first year of the Pilot Program, the administrator is budgeted for 2% effort (5 days total) to set up a program registry and generate reports. In year 2 of the Pilot Program, the administrator is budgeted at 2% effort (5 days). 29 Web Programmer. A Web Programmer (TBD) will work with Ms. Weidmer and other project staff on the development of a web-based screening tool that potential Pilot Program participants will be directed to as part of the program recruitment effort. The tool will help screen program participants to assess eligibility. In addition, the Web Programmer will help develop a web-based the Pilot Program dashboard to keep the community informed. During YR02 we have included additional time that may be needed for web-site updates once the full implementation starts. In the first year of the Pilot Program, the administrator is budgeted for 3% effort (8 days total) to program the web -based screening form for potential program participants. In year 2 of the Pilot Program, the administrator is budgeted at 2.5% effort (6 days).
Administrative Assistant. An Administrative Assistant (TBD) has been included in the budget to provide Ms. Weidmer and Dr. Aguila with administrat ive support. The Administrative Assistant is budgeted at 4% effort (10 days) in the first year of the Pilot Program and 2% effort (5 days) in the second year of the program.
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
YEAR 1-
Postage costs in the amount of $5,577 have been included to mail a program invitation letter and up to two reminder postcards to households targeted for recruitment into the Pilot Program. All correspondence will be mailed using USPS 1st class mail. Only actual costs will be charged.
Respondent payments in the amount of $3750 have been included for Program Participants to take part in a baseline assessment (an incentive o $15 for each of 250 participants (125 who will be assigned to the treatment and 125 who will be assigned to the control group).
Printing and packet prep costs in the amount of $6,491 have been included to print and packet prep a program participation letter, Frequently Asked Questions, outgoing and return envelopes, and reminder postcards for up to 4,000 households selected to apply to the Pilot Program. Printing costs also include costs for posters and flyers.
Miscellaneous costs in the amount of $500 have been included for the purchase of office supplies and materials that will be used in the recruitment effort for the Pilot Program.
Costs in the amount of $2,000 have been included to purchase, from a commercial sampling firm, a sample of addresses from selected zip codes and/or census tracts that will be targeted for inclusion in the Pilot Program.
Costs in the amount of $140 for an IS Web Survey System are included to cover the costs of hosting the web-based Program participant screening form.
Mileage costs in the amount of $724 have been include for project staff who will travel to El Monte to promote the Pilot Program, visit program participants as necessary, and hold community meetings.
Costs for 2 Pilot Program Counselors in the amount of $27,250 have been included in the first year of the project. The Counselors have been budgeted at half time over a period of four months and will 30 be responsible for promoting the Pilot Program at local events, will participate in community meetings, and will meet individual with each of the 125 households selected to participate in the Pilot Program to explain how the program will work, verify their eligibility, and help them complete enrollment applications. One of the counselors will be bilingual in English and Spanish and the other will be bilingual in English and Mandarin.
Translation cost s in the amount of $2,000 have been included to translate program recruitment materials (invitation letter, FAQs, reminder postcards) and promotional materials (posters, flyers) and the recruitment screener into Spanish and Mandarin. Translations will be d one by professional translators and reviewed by bilingual staff.
YEAR 2-
Respondent payments in the amount of $5,000 have been included to provide a $40 payment to each of the 125 program participants who agree to participate in a one -on-one, in depth in terview with one of the program counselors to share their experiences with the program.
Miscellaneous costs in the amount of $500 have been included for the purchase of office supplies and materials that will be used in the recruitment effort for the Pilot Program.
Printing costs in the amount of $500 have been included to print materials for the financial literacy classes that will be given to program participants.
Mileage costs in the amount of $2,172 have been included for project staff who will travel to El Monte to meet with program staff, to hold community meetings, and or counselors who will travel to participants homes to meet with them one-on -one and in groups to interview them and to provide financial literacy classes/instruction.
Costs for 2 Pilot Program Counselors in the amount of $68,800 have been included in the second year of the project. The Counselors have been budgeted at half time over a period of 12 months and will be responsible for promoting the Pilot Program at local events, will participate in community meetings, and will meet with each of the 125 households selected to participate in the Pilot Program periodically to interview them one -on-one, to provide support, to help connect them to social services available in t he City of El Monte, and to provide financial literacy instruction/classes. The Counselors will also encourage participants to take part in evaluation activities survey as surveys and other assessments and will follow up with those participants who fail to complete evaluation activities.
Translation costs in the amount of $1,000 have been included to translate financial literacy materials into Spanish and Mandarin.
Transcriptions costs in the amount of 27,500 ($10,490 for English language transcription and $17,010 for Spanish language transcription) have been included for the transcription of audio recordings of one-on-one interviews conducted with program participants. We anticipate interviews will take approximately one hour. Transcription will be conducted by a local transcription firm.
31 INDIRECT COSTS
Indirect rates consisting of Corporate Overhead -Onsite (69.3%) and Unit Overhead (RAND Social and Economic Wellbeing 32.4%) forward facing rates have been applied to this proposal. These indirect costs are applied to the cost bases of RAND Direct Labor (salary inclusive of sabbatic) and Fringe. RAND’s current forward facing rates along with the DCMA correspondence is attached for your reference. RAND is authorized to recover (bill) at these rates; theref ore RAND priced this proposal to align with these rates in an effort to represent the most accurate pricing estimate.
Indirect costs cannot specifically be identified with a project and are distributed to a base consisting of salaries, employee fringe, and adjunct staff salaries. Please note that the rates displayed in budget presentation may vary from the stated rates. These rates represent blended rates for costs incurred in a time period spanning a change in the rate. The displayed rate is a blended r ate weighted by the time period in which the costs are being incurred and are for the development of this specific budget presentation. Indirect rates applied to actual costs will be consistent with the authorized rate in effect at the time the costs were incurred.
COST OF MONEY – FCCOM
This cost element is applicable to salaries and fringe benefits only. The Cost of Money, or Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCOM), is a prescribed cost that is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). This cost is tied to the U.S. Treasury’s average published rate which is updated periodically by the U.S. Treasury.
FCCOM acknowledges there is a cost associated with investments in facilities (buildings, computers, furniture, etc.). FCCOM reimburses RAND for our cost of money (opportunity costs, forgone interest, economic loss, etc.) and is the government's way of providing an incentive to contractors for investment in facilities. FCCOM helps finance costs associated with building costs or other capital projects and non-reimbursable costs and is a way to recover otherwise unallowable financing costs associated with investments in facilities. Even though RAND is a non -profit corporation, RAND has been specifically excluded from OMB Circular A -122 coverage (Relocated to 2 CFR, Part 230), so the cost principles of the FAR instead apply. FCCOM is an allowable FAR cost and has been accepted by all federal agencies RAND currently conducts business with. RAND is applying an FCCOM rate of 1.2% in accordance with the most recent US Treasury rates.
FEE
RAND is proposing a fixed fee of 8% applied to all costs for this project. The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decision making through research and analysis. Fee charged in a “non-profit” environment is distinctly different from that in a “for profit” environment in that RAND, as a non-profit institution, does not have shareholders and provide dividends but instead retains all earnings for internal investment and business operations . Contract fees are essential to RAND's ability to carry out its mission and to meet the dynamic needs of its research sponsors. The fees provide funds for cost sharing on government grants, and for RAND-sponsored research, which is essential if RAND is to maintain a first-class research staff and fulfill its charter as a nonprofit scientific and educational organization. The fees also provide working capital, including cash necessary to pay salaries, fringe benefits, and other costs of doing business in advance of reimbursement. Selection of the appropriate fee percentage is handled in consultation with the Unit Director and is based on contract type, perceived risk and other factors. RAND’s fee structure is consistent with our DCAA disclosed practices and certified by annual independent audits.
32 APPENDICES
33 APPENDIX A
CURRICULUM VITAE
34 Beverly Weidmer, M.A.
Senior Survey Director
[email protected]
Experience
Senior Survey Director, RAND Corporation Mar. 2010–Present Survey Director, RAND Corporation Mar. 2002–Feb. 2010
For the last 20 years, Ms. Weidmer has led the design and implementation of large -scale, longitudinal surveys both in the U.S. and abroad, involving multiple modes of data collection, experimental designs, and difficult to reach populations including the elderly, children and teens, CalWORKs recipients, Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, clinicians, and members of law enforcement. She has led the development and testing of multiple survey tools including a survey to asses s the impact of a poverty abatement program in Mexico, a survey to assess cultural competency in healthcare organizations, a patient reported outcome survey (PRO) for patients with intraocular lens implants, a survey to assess health literacy in different healthcare settings, and patient experience of care surveys for special populations (ESRD patients, American Indians, etc.).
Education
Master of Arts: Latin American Studies, The University of Texas at Austin, 1990 Bachelor of the Arts: Government, The University of Texas at Austin, 1986 Special Qualifications
Ms. Weidmer has 30 years’ experience in both quantitative and qualitative research methods, including all aspects of survey design and implementation, instrument development, focus groups, and methods for assessing the validity of survey instruments, inclu ding cognitive interviews and usability testing. She is experienced in organizing instrument development processes involving the participation of multiple researchers and stakeholders, and in conducting focus groups, key informant interviews, and cognitiv e testing with a wide range of populations from Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to clinicians, health plan representatives, and ambulance providers. She has expertise in translation, in the design and testing of culturally appropriate survey instrumen ts, in the design and implementation of complex, multi -mode surveys, in reaching hard -to-reach populations, and in strategies to reduce sample attrition and item non - response.
Selected Publications
Aguila, Emma, Weidmer, Beverly A ., Rivera Illingworth, Alfonso, Martinez, Homero. “Culturally Competent Informed-Consent Process to Evaluate a Social Policy for Older Persons with Low Literacy.” The Mexican Case; Vol. 6, Issue 3, August-22-2016.
Aguila, Emma, Cervera, Maria Dolores, Martinez, Homero, and Weidmer, Beverly . “Developing and Testing Informed-Consent Methods in a Study of the Elderly in Mexico.” Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2015. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z8.html. 35 Bozick, Robert, Karoly, Lynn A., Whitaker, Anamarie A, Weidmer, Beverly, Muchow, Ashley, Gutierrez, Italo.
A descriptive profile of CalWORK’s recipients and their families: initial findings from the first wave of the California Socioeconomic survey. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2019.
Coker TR, Sareen HG, Chung PJ, Kennedy DP, Weidmer BA, Schuster MA. “Improving Access to and Utilization of Adolescent Preventive Health Care: The Perspectives of Adolescents and Parents. Journal of Adolescent Health.” 47(2): 133-142.
Davis, Lois, Barnes-Proby, Dionne, Karoly, Lynn A., Weidmer Beverly, Iyiewuare, Praise, Bozick, Robert, Fain, Gabriele, Kitmitto, Sami, Graczewski, Cheryl, Larsen, Eric, Bos, Johannes M., Arellanes, Melissa, Horinouchi, Andrew, Anthony, Jennifer, Castro, Marina, Fronberg, Kaitlin, Chandra, Connie, Zhang, Anlan. Evaluation of the SB 1041 reforms to California’s welfare to work program. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2020.
Friedberg, Mark W., Reid, Rachel O., Timbie, Justin W., Setodji, Claude, Kofner, Aaron, Weidme r, Beverly, and Kahn, Katherine. “Federally Qualified Health Center Clinicians and Staff Increasingly Dissatisfied With Workplace Conditions.” Health Affairs, August 2017, Vol. 36, No. 8, 1469-1475.
Jaycox, Lisa H., McCaffrey, Daniel F., Weidmer Ocampo, Be verly, Shelley, Gene, Blake, Susan, Peterson, Donna J., Richmond, Lucinda S., Kub, Joan E. “Challenges in the Evaluation and Implementation of School - Based Prevention and Intervention Programs on Sensitive Topics.” American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3):320- 336. (2006).
Jaycox, Lisa H., Daniel F. McCaffrey, Beverly A. Weidmer , Grant N. Marshall, Rebecca L. Collins, Laura J.
Hickman and Denise D. Quigley, Curbing Teen Dating Violence: Evidence from a School Prevention Program, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RB-9194-CDC, 2006.
Lee, Christoph I., Khodyakov, Dmitry, Weidmer, Beverly A ., Wenger, Neil S., Timbie, Justin W., Brantley, Brittain, Burgette, Lane F., Leuschner, Kristin, J., Hussy, Peter S., and Kahn, Katherine L. “Radiologists' Perceptions of Computerized Decision Support: A Focus Group Study From the Medicare Imaging Demonstration Project.” American Journal of Roentgenology 2015 205:5, 947-955 Morales LM, Weech-Maldonado R, Elliott MN, Weidmer B, Hays RD. “Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Language Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey (CAHPS).” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25(3).
Ngo-Metzger Q, Telfair J, Sorkin D, Weidmer B , Weech-Maldonado R, Hurtado M, and Hays RD. “Cult ural Competency and Quality of Care: Obtaining the Patient’s Perspective.” Commonwealth Fund Pub. No. 963.
October 2006.
Timbie, Justin W., Setodji, Claude Messan, Kress, Amii M., Lavelle, Tara A., Friedberg, Mark W., Mendel, Peter, Chen, Emily K., Weidmer, Beverly A., Buttorf Christine, Malsberger, Rosalie, Kommareddi, Mallika, Rastegar, Afshin, Kofner, Aaron, Hiatt, Liisa, Mahmud, Ammarah, Giuriceo Katherine D, Kahn, Katherine L.
Implementation of Medical Homes in Federally Qualified Health Centers. Ne w England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 337, Number 3 (July2017) pp.246-256.
Weech-Maldonado, Robert, Carle, Adam, Weidmer, Beverly A., Hurtado, Margarita, Ngo -Metzger, Quyen, and Hays, Ron D. “The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS ).” Cultural Competence (CC) Item Set Medical Care, Volume 50, Number 9 Suppl 2, September 2012, S22-S31.
Weidmer Ocampo, Beverly, Shelley, Gene A., and Jaycox, Lisa. H. “Latino Teens Talk About Help Seeking and Help Giving in Relation to Dating Violence.” Violence Against Women, Volume 12, Number 2, February 2007, pp. 172-189.
Weidmer Ocampo, Beverly, Johansson, Patrick, Dalpoas, Debbie, Wharton, David, Darby, Charles, and Hays, Ron D. “Adapting CAHPS for an American Indian Population.” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, Volume 20, Number 2, August 2009.
Weidmer, Beverly A., Brach, Cindy, Hays, Ron D. “Development and Evaluation of CAHPS® Survey Items Assessing How Well Healthcare Providers Address Health Literacy.” Medical Care , Volume 50, Number 8 Suppl 2, September 2012, S3-S11.
36 Weidmer, Beverly A., Brach, Cindy, Slaughter, Mary E., Hays, Ron D. “Development Items to Assess Patients’ Health Literacy Experiences at Hospitals for the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Hospital Survey.” Medical Care, Volume 50, Number 8 Suppl 2, September 2012, S12-S21.
Weidmer Ocampo, Beverly , Cleary, Paul D., Keller, San, Christian, Evensen, Margarita Hurtado, Margarita, Kosiak, Beth, Gallagher, Patricia M., Levine, Roger E., Hays, Ron D. “Development and Evaluation of the CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) Survey for In -Center Hemodialysis Patients.” American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 2014.
Professional Affiliations
American Association of Public Opinion Researchers
37 Emma Aguila
University of Southern California Tel: 213.821.0702 Sol Price School of Public Policy
635 Downey Way, VPD 512J Email: [email protected] Los Angeles, CA 90089
Education
University College London, UK, Ph.D. in Economics, 2006 University College London, UK, MSc. in Economics, 2001
Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, Mexico, B.A. in Economics, 2000
Research and Professional Experience
USC, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Associate Professor April 2020- USC, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Assistant Professor January 2014-April 2020 RAND, Senior Economist (from Associate, Full) June 2006- USC-RCMAR, Executive Committee Member August 2018-
RAND, Director Center for Latin American Social Policy April 2008- December 2013 University of Michigan, Affiliated Researcher, MRDRC September 2007-current
Teaching Experience
2014-present Graduate Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC. 2016-present Undergraduate Statistics for Policy, Planning, and Development, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC.
2019-present Graduate Statistics for Policy, Planning, and Development, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC.
Publications (Peer Reviewed)
Aguila, Emma, Zeewan Lee, and Rebeca Wong. 2021. Migration, work, and retirement: The case of Mexican- origin populations. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance , 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474747221000342
Aguila, Emma and Jacqueline L. Angel. 2021.” Retirement and Supplemental Income Programs for Low - Income Older Mexican-Origin Adults in the United States and Mexico.” Public Policy & Aging Report, prab10. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppar/prab010
Jun, Hankyung, Emma Aguila. 2021. “Private Insurance and Mental Health among Older Adults with Multiple Chronic Conditions: A Longitudinal Analysis by Race and Ethnicity.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(5), 2615.
Mejia-Arango, Silvia, Emma Aguila , Mariana López-Ortega, Luis Miguel Gutiérrez -Robledo, William A. Vega, Flavia C. Drumond Andrade, Sunshine M. Rote, Stephanie M. Grasso, Kyriakos S. Markides, and Jacqueline L. Angel. 2020. "Health and social correlates of dementia in oldest -old Mexican -origin 38 populations." Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions 6(1):e12105. https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.12105
Aguila, Emma and James P. Smith. 2020. “ Supplemental Income Program Design: A Cluster -Randomized Controlled Trial to Examine the Health and Wellbeing Effects on Older Adults by Gender, Duration, and Payment ” Social Science & Medicine , 259, 113139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113139
Aguila, Emma , Jung Ho Park, and Alma Vega. 2020. “Living Arrangements and Supplemental Income Programs for Older Adults.” Demography, 0, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-020-00879-3 Aguila, Emma, and Maria Casanova. 2020. “Short -Term Impact of Income on Cognitive Function: Evidence from a Sample of Mexican Older Adults.” Journal of Aging and Health. 32(7-8):591-603. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264319841155
Riumallo-Herl, Carlos and Emma Aguila. 2019. “Pension and health care in Mexico: What is the effect of old- age pensions on health care utilization patterns and insurance uptake? ” The British Medical Journal (BMJ) Global Health, 4(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001771 Casanova, Maria and Emma Aguila. 2019. “Gender Differences in Cognitive Function among Older Mexican Immigrants” The Journal of the Economics of Ageing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeoa.2019.100226 Aguila, Emma, Mariana López -Ortega, and Sean Angst. 2019. “Do income supplemental programs for older adults’ help reduce primary caregiver burden? Evidence from Mexico.” Journal of Cross -Cultural Gerontology, 34(4), 385-402 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10823-019-09374-8 Aguila, Emma, Mariana López-Ortega, and Luis Miguel Gutierrez. 2018. “Non-contributory Pension Programs and Frailty of Older Adults: Evidence from Mexico .” PLoS ONE 13(11): e0206792. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206792
Blanco, Luisa, Marco Angrisani, Emma Aguila, and Mei Leng. 2018. “Understanding the Racial/Ethnic Gap in Bank Account Ownership Among Older Adults.” Journal of Consumer Affairs , 53(2), 324-354 https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12188
Vega, Alma, Thalia Porteny, and Emma Aguila . 2018. “The Ro le of Clinics in Determining Older Recent Immigrants’ Use of Health Services.” Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 20(6), 1468-1475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-018-0693-x
Aguila, Emma, Arie Kapteyn, and Caroline Tassot. 2017. “Designing Cash Transfer Programs for an Older Population: The Mexican Case.” The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, 9, 111– 121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeoa.2016.09.001
Aguila, Emma, and Alma Vega. 2017. “Social Security Contributions and Return Migration Among Older Male Mexican Immigrants.” The Gerontologist, 57(3), 563– 574. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw140
Aguila, Emma, Arie Kapteyn, and Francisco Perez-Arce. 2017. “Consumption Smoothing and Frequency of Benefit Payments of Cash Transfer Programs.” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 107(5), 430-435. https://dx.doi.org/10.1257%2Faer.p20171147 39 Blanco, Luisa, Emma Aguila , Arturo Gongora, and O. Kenrik Duru. 2017. “Retirement Planning Among Hispanics: In God’s Hands?” Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 29(4), 311– 331. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2016.1272161
Vega, Alma, and Emma Aguila . 2017. “Foreign Retirement Income among New Older Immigrants in the United States.” International Migration, 55(3), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12325
Aguila, Emma , Beverly Weidmer, Alfonso Rivera Illingworth, and Homero Martinez. 2016. "Culturally Competent Informed -Consent Process to Evaluate a Social Policy for Older Pe rsons With Low Literacy: The Mexican Case." SAGE Open, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016665886
Aguila, Emma, Marco Angrisani, and Luisa Blanco. 2016. “Ownership of a Bank Account and Health of Older Hispanics.” Economics Letters, 144, 41–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2016.04.013
Aguila, Emma , Nelly Mejia, Francisco Perez -Arce, Edgar Ramirez, and Alfonso Rivera Illingworth. 2016. “Costs of Extending the Noncontributory Pension Program for Elderly: The Mexican Case.” Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 28(4), 325–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2016.1158384
Aguila, Emma, Erick G. Guerrero, and William A. Vega. 2016. “Sociodemographic Characteristics Associated with Alcohol Use among Low -Income Mexican Older Adults.” Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 11(1), 11-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-016-0061-6
Aguila, Emma, Arie Kapteyn, and James P. Smith. 2015. “Effects of Income Supplementation on Health of the Poor Elderly: The Case of Mexico.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (1), 70–75. https://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1414453112
Aguila, Emma, Nelly Mejía, Francisco Pérez, Alfonso Rivera, and Edgar Ramírez. 2015. “Pobreza Y Vulnerabilidad En México: El Caso De Los Jóvenes Que No Estudian Ni Trabajan.” Estudios Económicos, 30(1), 3–49.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/WR900/WR991/RAND_WR991. pdf
Aguila, Emma. 2014. “Male Labor Force Participation and Social Security in Mexico.” Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, 13(2), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474747213000292
Aguila, Emma , Michael D. Hurd, and Susann Rohwedder. 2014. “How Do Management Fees Affect Retirement Wealth under Mexico’s Personal Retirement Accounts System? Mexico’s Personal Retirement Accounts System.” Latin American Policy , 5(2), 331– 350. https://doi.org/10.1111/lamp.12051
Aguila, Emma, Jose Escarce, Mei Leng, and Leo Morales. 2013. “Health Status and Behavioral Risk Factors in Older Adult Mexicans and Mexican Immigrants to the United States.” Journal of Aging and Health, 25(1), 136–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264312468155
Aguila, Emma , and Julie Zissimopoulos. 2013. “Retirement and Health Benefits for Mexican Migrant Workers Returning from the United States: Retirement and Health Benefits for Mexican Migrant Workers Returning from the United States.” International Social Security Review, 66(2), 101–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/issr.12014
40 Aguila, Emma. 2011. “Personal Retirement Accounts and Saving.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(4), 1–24. Doi: 10.1257/pol.3.4.1
Aguila, Emma , Orazio Attanasio, and Costas Meghir. 2011. “Changes in Consumption at Retirement:
Evidence from Panel Data.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(3), 1094– 1099. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00140
Book Chapters (Peer Reviewed)
Emma Aguila. 2021. “Section 5 The Conference Series on Aging in the Americas (CAA) and Emerging Scholars in the Field.” (Resume). In J.L. Angel, M. López -Ortega and M.L. Gutierrez Robledo (Eds.).
Understanding the Context of Cognitive Aging. Mexico and the United Sta tes. 1st ed., pp. 321-324.
New York: Springer Science.
Gabriela Armenta, Emma Aguila, Mariana López-Ortega, and Silvia Mejia. 2021. “Impact of Supplemental Income on Major Depressive Episodes of Older Adults in Mexico”. In J.L. Angel, M. López -Ortega and M.L. Gutierrez Robledo (Eds.). Understanding the Context of Cognitive Aging. Mexico and the United States. 1st ed., pp. 265-288. New York: Springer Science.
Stephanie Grasso, Flavia Andrade, Mariana López-Ortega, and Emma Aguila. 2021. “Framing Challenges of Dementia and Mental Health Care in Mexican-origin Older Adults in Mexico and the United States:
Consensus Agenda Findings and Reco mmendations”. In J.L. Angel, M. López -Ortega and M.L.
Gutierrez Robledo (Eds.). Understanding the Context of Cognitive Aging. Mexico and the United States. (1st ed., pp. 325-333. New York: Springer Science.
Sean Angst, Emma Aguila, and Mariana López -Ortega. 2018. “Determinants of Informal Care Supply for Older Adults in Yucatan, Mexico”. In W. A. Vega, J.L. Angel, L.M.F. Gutiérrez Robledo, and K. S.
Markides, (Eds.) Challenges of Latino Aging in the Americas: Contextualizing Health and Aging in the Americas: Effects of Space, Time and Place, pp. 337-358 New York: Springer Science.
Aguila Emma, Raquel Fonseca, and Alma Vega. 2015. “Self -employment, Health Insurance, and Return Migration of Middle-Aged and Elderly Mexican Males.” In W. A. Vega, K. S. Markides, J. L. Angel, and F. M. Torres -Gil (Eds.), Challenges of Latino Aging in the Americas , pp. 103 -120. New York:
Springer Science.
Aguila, Emma, Claudia Diaz, Mary M. Fu, Arie Kapteyn and Ashley Pierson. 2012. “Envejecer en México:
Condiciones de Vida y Salud.” In Luis Miguel Gutiérrez Robledo and David Kershenobich, eds., Envejecimiento y Salud: Una Propuesta para un Plan de Acción. Mexico: National Academy of Medicine of Mexico, pp. 303-319.
Monographs and Technical Reports (Peer reviewed)
Aguila, Emma , Maria Dolores Cervera, Homero Martinez, and Beverly Weidmer. 2015. Developing and Testing Informed-Consent Methods in a Study of the Elderly in Mexico. RAND Corporation, Technical Report, TR-1288-8. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z8.html
Aguila, Emma , Arie Kapteyn, Nelly Mejia, Rosalba Robles, Oscar Vargas, and Beverly Weidmer. 2014.
Geographic Targeting in Urban Areas: A Social Welfare Program for Older Persons in Mexico. RAND 41 Corporation, Technical Report, TR -1288-5.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z5.html
Aguila, Emma, Abril Borges, Ashley Pierson, Rosalba Robles, Jose Eduardo del Torno, and Beverly Weidmer. 2014. Distributing Non -contributory Pension Benefi ts by Debit Card in Mexico: A Pilot Test. RAND Corporation, Technical Report, TR -1288-7.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z7.html
Aguila, Emma, Abril Borges, Cielo Margot Castillejos, Ashley Pierson, and Beverly Weidmer. 2014. Mortality Expectations of Older Mexicans: Development and Testing of Survey Measures. RAND Corporation, Technical Report, TR-1288-6. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z6.html
Aguila, Emma, Arie Kapteyn, Rosalba Robles, Oscar Vargas and Beverly Weidmer. 2014. A Non -contributory Pension Program for Older Persons in Yucatan, Mexico: Implementing and Designing the Evaluation the Program in Valladolid. RAND Corporation, Technical Report, Englis h version TR -1288-1 and Spanish version TR -1288-3. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z1.html and https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z3.html
Aguila, Emma, Abril Borges, Arie Kapteyn, Rosalba Robles, and Beverly Weidmer, 2014. A Non -contributory Pension Program for Older Persons in Yucatan, Mexico: Implementing and Designing the Ev aluation the Program in Mérida. RAND Corporation, Technical Report, English version TR-1288-2 and Spanish version TR -1288-4. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z2.html and https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1288z4.html
Aguila, Emma, Alisher Akhmedjonov, Ricardo Basurto -Davila, Krishna B. Kumar, Sarah Kups and Howard J.
Shatz. 2012. United States and Mexico: Ties that Bind, Issues that Divide. Santa Monica, California:
RAND Corporation, MG-985-1. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG985-1.html
Aguila, Emma , Claudia Diaz, Mary Manqing Fu, Arie Kapteyn and Ashley Pierson. 2011. Living Longer in Mexico: Income Security and Health. Santa Monica, California: RAND Corporation. English version MG-1179 and Spanish version MG-1179-z3. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1179.html and https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1179z3.html
Fellowships and Awards
American Society of Hispanic Economists (ASHE) Midcareer Mentoring Program 2021 Mexican National System of Investigators (SNI), Level III 2020 Mexican National System of Investigators (SNI), Level I 2017 Faculty High Impact Research Award, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC 2016 Diversity Initiative for Tenure in Economics (DITE), NSF 2016 Gold Merit Award, RAND 2008
First Prize of the Inter-American Award for Research on Social Security 2007 2008 First Prize of the Award on Pensions 2005, CONSAR, AMAFORE, Mexico. 2005
Funded Research
1R01AG068392-01A1 Aguila (Co-I) 05/01/21-01/31/26
42 University of Colorado Boulder, National Institute on Aging.
Health of Aging Mexicans on Both Sides of the Border.
Total Award: $283,501
USC_7/01/19 Aguila (PI) 07/01/19-06/30/20
Lusk Center for Real State, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC Selection of Undocumented Male Mexican Return Migrants.
Total Award: $12,000
18-84292-11 Aguila (PI) 12/15/17 – 3/31/21
University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, National Institute on Aging The Mexican Health and Aging Study & Social Security Administrative Records Linkages. Total Award:
$10,000
5P30AG017265-17 Aguila (PI) 08/01/16-06/30/17
Pilot Project, Center for Biodemography and Population Health, USC and UCLA Impact of a Noncontributory Pension Program on Biomarkers. Total Award: $41,249
R01 R01AG035008 Kapteyn, Aguila (Co-PIs) 08/01/10-07/31/17 National Institute on Aging
Experimental Design of a Social Security System in Yucatan. Total Award: $3,339,064
USC_11/19/15 Aguila (PI) 01/01/16-12/31/16
Bedrosian Center, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC Implementation Designs of a Non-contributory Social Security Program for Older Population. Total Award:
$2,000
USC_5/22/15 Aguila (PI) 05/15/15-06/30/16
Lusk Center for Real State, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC The Effect of Income Programs on Housing Choices and Living Arrangements in Old Age. Total Award:
$25,000
P01 P01AG022481 Kapteyn, Aguila (Co-PIs) 07/1/10-02/01/16 National Institute on Aging
P01 International Comparisons of Well-Being, Health, and Retirement. Project No.2 Experimental Design of a Social Security System. Total Award: $1,039,516
UM15-17 Aguila, Vega (CoPIs) 09/30/14-09/29/15
Michigan Retirement Research Center (MRRC), Social Security Administration Social Security Contributions and Return Migration among Older Mexican Immigrants.
Total Award: $34,319
IADB_8/22/13 Aguila (PI) 08/22/13-11/17/15
Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) and the Government of Paraguay Design of Longitudinal Social Protection Survey (ELPS) in Paraguay. Total Award: $187,031
43 IADB_8/21/13 Aguila (PI) 05/10/13-04/21/15
Inter-American Development Bank (IADB)
Design and Implementation of the Social Protection Longitudinal Survey (Encuesta Longitudinal de Protección Social, or ELPS) in Ecuador. Total Award: $436,672
UAH_8-01-12 Aguila (PI) 08/01/12-12/31/13
Chilean Ministry of Labor/Social Observatory (OSUAH) of the University Alberto Hurtado Data Quality and Analysis of the Fifth wave of the Chilean Social Protection Survey (Encuesta de Protección Social or EPS). Total Award: $46,500
C230_8/15/12 Aguila (PI) 08/15/12-12/31/12
Mexican Ministry of Social Development (SEDESOL)
Youth Poverty and Sustainability of a Supplemental Income Program in Mexico. Total Award: $40,539
P30AG012815 Aguila (PI) 02/1/10-02/01/11
Pilot grant, RAND Center for the Study of Aging, National Institute on Aging Assessing and Designing an Anemia Intervention for the Elderly. Total Award: $116,225
R21AG033312 Kapteyn, Aguila (Co-PIs) 10/29/08-01/31/11 National Institute of Aging
Design and Evaluation of a Social Security Program for the Oldest Old. Total Award: $407,088
State of Yucatan 5-20-2008 Aguila (PI) 05/20/08-06/30/12 Government of the State of Yucatan, Mexico
Design of a Non-contributory Pension Program. Total Award: $200,000
R21-AG030170 Rendall, Aguila, and Hancock (Co-PIs) 09/01/07-07/31/11 National Institute of Aging
Immigration, Emigration, and Age-by -Country Structure of Mexican Cohort Lifetimes. Total Award:
$400,745
R24HD050906 Aguila (PI) 07/27/05-05/31/10
Pilot grant, RAND Population Center, National Institute of Child Health & Development Evolution of the Composition of Return Migrants US-Mexico. Total Award: $33,223
AARP-Fox Center Aguila (PI) 11/1/08-12/08/10
Aging and Well Being in Mexico and Latin America. Total Award: $108,549
UM08-16 Aguila, Hurd and Rohwedder (CoPIs) 09/30/07-09/29/08 Michigan Retirement Research Center (MRRC), Social Security Administration Effect of Personal Retirement Accounts on Preparation for Retirement. Total Award: $100,000
UM08-14 Aguila, Zissimopoulos (Co-PIs) 09/29/07-09/29/08 Michigan Retirement Research Center (MRRC), Social Security Administration Labor Market Dynamics of Middle-aged and Elderly Mexicans. Total Award: $50,000
RSB08RC Aguila, Shatz (Co-PIs) 10/01/07–09/28/08
44 RAND Internal Funding
Mexican Migration to the United States. Total Award: $263,672
5 P30 AG012815 -13 Aguila (PI) 08/01/06–06/30/08
Pilot grant, RAND Center for the Study of Aging, National Institute on Aging Wealth and Sources of Income during Retirement in Mexico: Evidence of the MHAS and Social Security Administrative Records. Total Award: $50,000
5-34425 Aguila(PI) 01/01/07–08/31/07
University of Pennsylvania, National Institute on Aging Merging MHAS with Social Security Administrative Records. Total Award: $28,650
1557GJC242 Aguila (PI) 09/29/07-06/30/08
Pilot grant, RCMAR Center, CHIME UCLA, National Institute on Aging Immigrant Selection on Health Behaviors and Chronic Diseases as an Explanation for the Hispanic Health Advantage. Total Award: $20,000
Conference Presentations and Invited Seminars
Conference Presentations
2021 Effects of Progresa on Health Care Utilization of Middle-aged and Older Adults". 6th Annual Workshop of the Mexican Health and Aging Study (MHAS). October 2021. Emma Aguila.
Long-term Effects of Social Insurance on Adult Mortality: Evidence from Three Social Programs in Mexico. Gerontological Society of America (GSA) Annual Scientific Meeting 2021. November 2021.
Emma Aguila
Keynote speaker at International Conference of Multidisciplinary Investigation. International University of Ecuador (UIDE), Guayaquil, Ecuador. July 2021. Emma Aguila. 2019 American Economic Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, January 2019. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, Erik Meijer.
Cognition, Mortality, and Mortality Determinants in Latin America Workshop, Center on the Economics and Demography of Aging (CEDA), University of Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, February 2019.
Emma Aguila and Maria Casanova.
Population Association of America (PAA) Annual Conference, Austin, Texas, April 2019. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, Francisco Perez Arce.
INGER-ICAA Aging in the Americas Conference, Mexico City, Mexico, September, 2019. Emma Aguila.
Gerontological Society of America (GSA) Annual Scientific Meeting, Boston, MA, November, 2019.
Emma Aguila (presenter and symposium co-organizer) and Jacqueline L. Angel.
MHAS Annual Workshop, Mexico City, Mexico, November, 2019. Emma Aguila, Zeewan Lee, and Rebeca Wong.
2018 Gerontological Society of America (GSA) Annual Scientific Meeting, Boston, MA, November, 2018.
Emma Aguila and Maria Casanova.
2018 International Conference on Aging in the Americas, Tucson, AZ, September 2018. Emma Aguila, Mariana López-Ortega, and Sean Angst.
45 Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) Conference, Mexico City, Mexico, July 2018. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, Erik Meijer.
Consistency Amid Complexity: Navigating the Future of Pensions, OECD, Paris, France, June 2018.
Emma Aguila
Population Association of America (PAA) Annual Conference, Denver, CO, April 2018. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, Erik Meijer; Emma Aguila, Jung Ho Park, Alma Vega. 2017 20 Years of Pension Fund Managers (AFORES) in Mexico: Financial Education and Voluntary Saving, ITAM, Mexico City, November 2017. Emma Aguila.
Adult Mortality Determinants in Low and Middle-Income Countries Workshop, Center on the Economics and Demography of Aging (CEDA), University of Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, February 2017.
Emma Aguila and Hiram Beltran.
American Economic Association Annu al Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 2017. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, and Francisco Pere -Arce; Carlos Riumallo -Herl and Emma Aguila; Luisa Blanco, Marco Angrisani, and Emma Aguila.
2016 Gerontological Society of America (GSA) Annual Scientific Meeting, New Orleans, LA, November, 2016. Emma Aguila, Mariana Lopez-Ortega, and Luis Miguel Gutierrez Robledo.
Population Association of America (PAA) Annual Conference, Washington, DC, March 2016. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, Francisco Perez Arce; Emma Aguila and Mariana Lopez -Ortega; Sean Angst, Emma Aguila, and Mariana Lopez -Ortega; Alma Vega and Emma Aguila; Emma Aguila and Alma Vega; Nelly Mejia and Emma Aguila.
2015 Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) Conference, Miami, FL, November 2015. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, Francisco Perez Arce; Soledad De Gregorio, Emma Aguila, and Alfonso Rivera; Nelly Mejia and Emma Aguila.
Retirement Research Consortium (RRC), Washington, DC, August 2015. Emma Aguila and Alma Vega Conference Strengthening the Scientific Foundation for Policymaking to Meet the Challenges of Aging in Latin America and the Caribbean, Mexico City, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, NIA, National Academy of Medicine of Mexico, Institute of Geriatrics, University of Texas, University of Michigan, and IADB, May 2015. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, and James P. Smith.
2013 Conference Challenges of the Pension System and Matching Contributions, Colombian Ministry of Labor and IADB, Bogota, Colombia, December 2013. Emma Aguila.
Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association Annual Meeting, LACEA LAMES -2013, Mexico City, Mexico, November 2013. Emma Aguila.
Conference on Aging in the Americas, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, September 2013. Emma Aguila.
Inaugural Spring Symposium UCLA Blum Center on Poverty and Health in Latin America, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, May 2013. Emma Aguila.
Annual Conference on Social Protection, World Bank, Washington DC, April 2013. Emma Aguila. 2012 Conference "Envejecer en México: Condicion es de Vida y Salud", Leon Guanajuato, México, February 2012. Emma Aguila, Claudia Diaz, Mary Manqing Fu, Arie Kapteyn, and Ashley Pierson. 2011 Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association Annual Meeting, LACEA LAMES -2011, Santiago, Chile, November 2011. Emma Aguila.
Conference Healthcare and Socio -Economic Development in Latin America, Santiago, Chile, November 2011. Emma Aguila.
46 Presentation: "Living Longer in Mexico: Income Security and Health", Washington, DC, October 2011. Claudia Diaz, Mary Manqing Fu, Arie Kapteyn, and Ashley Pierson.
Mind the Gap: From Evidence to Policy Impact, Cuernavaca, Mexico, June 2011. Emma Aguila Arie Kapteyn, and Rosalba Robles.
Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2011, London, UK, April 2011. Emma Aguila, Arie Kapteyn, Rosalba Robles, and Beverly Weidmer.
American Economic Association Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, January 2011. Emma Aguila and Arie Kapteyn.
2010 Econometric Society World Congress 2010, Shanghai, China, August 2010. Emma Aguila, Orazio Attanasio, and Costas Meghir; American Economic Association Annual Meeting 2010, Atlanta, GA, January 2010. Emma Aguila, Orazio Attanasio, and Costas Meghir. 2007 Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Society of Labor Economists, Chicago, IL, May 2007. Emma Aguila. 2006 III Fórum Nacional de Seguro de Vida e Previdência e Previdencia Privada, São Paulo, Brazil, August 2006. Emma Aguila.
2005 XXX Annual Meeting of the Spanish Economic Association, Murcia, Spain, December 2005; 7th RTN Workshop on Economics of Ageing, Venice International University, Venice, Italy, October 2005.
Emma Aguila; The Final Conference of the RTN Project on Financing Retirement in Europe: Public Sector Reform and Financial Market Development, London School of Economics, London, UK, September 2005. Emma Aguila; The 2nd Leicester PhD Conference in Economics, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK, May 2005. Emma Aguila; Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2005, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, March 2005. Emma Aguila; ENTER Jamboree 2005, ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium, January 2005. Emma Aguila.
Invited Seminars
2019 Public Affairs Colloquium, LBJ School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, February, 2019.
MRDRC Workshop, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, March 2019. Research Seminar, UTMB, Galveston, TX, August, 2019. Planning Meeting on Work, The Workp lace, and Aging, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Washington DC, September, 2019. Demography Brown Bag Seminar, UC Berkeley, CA, December, 2019. Seminar Series, Metrolopolitan Autonomous University, Mexico City, Mexico, December, 2019.
2018 Mexican Ministry of Social Development (SEDESOL) Research Seminar, Mexico City, Mexico, August, 2018.
2017 Multidisciplinary Research Colloquium Series Spring 2017, School of Gerontology, USC, Los Angeles, CA, January 2017. DITE Winter Meeting, Department of Economi cs, Duke University, Durham, NC, February 2017. NBER Summer Institute, Aging Workshop, Boston, MA, July 2017. James P. Smith Festschrift, RAND, Santa Monica, CA, November 2017.
2016 Development Seminar, Economics Department, USC, Los Angeles, CA, February 2016. DITE Summer Workshop, East Lansing, MI, July 2016. Research Seminar, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC, Los Angeles, CA, October 2016. USC Lusk Center for Real State Research Seminar Series, Los Angeles, CA, November, 2016. Universite du Quebec a Montreal (UQAM) Research Seminar, Economics Department, Montreal, Canada, December, 2016.
2015 Michigan Retirement Research Center Workshop, Ann Arbor, MI, April 2015. Seminar USC -CESR, June 2015. RAND, Santa Monica, CA, July 2015. NBER Summer Institut e, Boston, MA, July 2015.
Research Seminar, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC, Los Angeles, CA, October 2015. 2014 Research Seminar, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC, Los Angeles, CA, February 2014. Seminar, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC, Los Angeles, CA, November 2014. 47 2013 Seminar at the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy, Los Angeles, CA, March 2013. Seminar at the USC School of Social Work, Los Angeles, CA, January 2013. 2012 Binational Seminar at the School of Social Work, University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, CA, April 2012. Seminar, RAND, International Comparisons of Well -Being, Health and Retirement Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, July 2012.
2011 Seminar at the Population Studies Center (PSC) at the Institute for Social Research (ISR), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Mexican Health and Aging Study, MHAS -II Workshop, Mexico City, Mexico. RAND Annual Board Meeting 2011, Santa Monica, CA, November 2011. Seminar at The Pensions Supervisor (Superintendencia de Pensiones), Government of Chile, Santiago, Chile. 2010 RAND Labor and Population, Santa Monica, CA; NBER Summer Institute, Boston, MA; USC Development Seminar, Los Angeles, CA.
2009 MRRC Research Workshop, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI. World Bank Social Protection Seminar, Washington DC. Resource Centers for Minority Aging Research (RCMAR).
Annual Investigators Meeting, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL. CARSO Health Institute Seminar, Mexico City, Mexico. Seminar, Government of the State of Yucatan, Merida, Mexico. RAND Seminar Labor and Population, Santa Monica, CA. Mexican Census Bureau Seminar, INEGI, Aguascalientes, Mexico.
2008 UCLA-CHIME Workshop, Los Angeles, CA. MRRC Research Workshop, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MU.
2007 MRRC Research Workshop, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI. UCLA -CHIME Workshop, Los Angeles, CA.
2006 Research Department, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington DC. School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, CA. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. Department of Economics, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. Department of Economics, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden. UFAE, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Nuffield College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Abt Associates, Boston, MA.
Conference Organizer
2019 MHAS Annual Workshop, November, 2019, sponsors: Mexican National Institute of Geriatrics (INGER) and National Institute on Aging (NIA).
2019 ICAA-INGER Aging in the Americas, Framing Challenges of Ageing Cognitive and Mental Health Care in Mexican-origin Older Adults in Mexico and the U.S., Mexico City, Mexico. September 2019, sponsors: Mexican National Institute of Geriatrics (INGER), AARP, and Hogg Foundation for Mental Health.
2013 Workshop Linking Administrative Records to Survey Data of the Longitudinal Social Protection Survey (ELPS) in Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Paraguay, and Uruguay, Mexico City, May 2013, sponsor:
Inter-American Development Bank (IADB).
Student Committee Service
Dissertation Chair, Ph.D. in Public Policy and Management, USC Sol Price School of Public Policy, Hankyung Jun (current) and Zeewan Lee (2020); Ph.D. in Policy Analysis, RAND Graduate School, Nelly Mejia (2016) and Gabriela Armenta (current).
Dissertation Committee Member, Ph.D. in Public Policy and Management, USC Sol Price School of Public Policy, John Zhao (current), Soledad De Gregorio (2020), and Yolanda Zh u (2020); Ph.D. in Economics, Economics Department, USC, Ashish Sachdeva (2015); Ph.D. in Policy Analysis, RAND Graduate School, Sarah Kups (2014), Jeffery C. Tanner (2012), Claudia Diaz (2012), and Ricardo Basurto (2009). 48 Referee Service
American Economic Review Demography
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics Journal of the Economics of Ageing American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics Journal of Population Economics Journal of Development Economics The Journals of Gerontology: Series b Journal of Public Economics Journal Ageing and Society Journal of Policy Analysis and Management Journal Aging and Health Economic Letters Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology Economic Development and Cultural Change Latin American Research Review Review of Income and Wealth Estudios Económicos, Colmex Journal of Economic Inequality Journal of Economic Surveys Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics Salud Pública de México Journal of Pension Economics and Finance El Trimestre Económico Social Science and Medicine
University and External Service
Member PhD, MHA, MPP, DPPD, Latin American Task Force, and Research Committees, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC.
Advisor of the Mexican Health and Aging Study (MHAS), and the Latin American Social Protection Survey (ELPS).
Committee Member of Understanding the Aging Workforce and Employment at Older Ages, National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS).
Committee Member of The Network for Data -Intensive Research on Aging (NDIRA), Life Course Center, University of Minnesota.
Professional Affiliations
American Economic Association (AEA), The Econometric Society, Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM), Gerontological Society of America (GSA), Population Association of America (PAA), Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association (LACEA).
49 ITALO LOPEZ GARCIA
Senior Economist, CESR-USC
DATE November
2021 CONTACT
DETAILS 737 N Edinburgh Ave E-mail:
[email protected] Los Angeles, CA 90046 Citizenship: Chilean Mobile: +1 (310)9574873 Visa Status: US Permanent
Resident https://sites.google.com/site/italolopezg
RESEARCH INTERESTS Human Capital Investments over the life-cycle; Early Childhood Development; Retirement Behavior and Health Outcomes; Life-Cycle Structural Models EDUCATION Ph.D., Economics, University College of London 2008-2014 M.Sc., Economics, University Pompeu Fabra (with honors) 2006-2008 B.Sc. Civil Industrial Engineering (cum-laude) 2001
EMPLOYMENT
Research Scientist, CESR, University of Southern California Oct 2021- present Adjunct Economist, RAND Corporation Oct 2021 - present Full Economist, RAND Corporation Jun 2018 - Sep 2021 Associate Economist, RAND Corporation Sep 2014 - May 2018 Professor, RAND Pardee School of Public Policy Mar 2015 - Jun 2017 World Bank Consultant, DECRG, London, UK Jul 2010 - Dec 2013 Research/Teaching Assistant, University College London, UK Oct 2009 - Ago 2014 Financial Engineer, Andina S.A., Santiago de Chile Mar 2003 - Ago 2006
PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Lopez Garcia, Italo, Uzaib Saya, Jill Luoto (2021). “Cost-effectiveness and economic re- turns of group-based parenting interventions to promote early childhood development: Re- sults from a randomized controlled trial in rural Kenya.” PLOS Medicine. doi:10.1371/1003746
Carneiro, Pedro, Italo Lopez Garcia, Kjell Salvanes, Emma Tominey (2021). "Intergenerational Mobility and the Timing of Parental Income" , Journal of Political Economy, doi: 10.1086/712443
Knapp, David, Italo Lopez Garcia, Krishna Kumar, Jinkook Lee, Jonghoon Wong (2021). “A Life-cycle model of Korean Labor Supply, Savings and Benefit Claiming Decisions,” Journal of Economics of Aging.
Luoto, Jill, Italo Lopez Garcia, Frances Aboud, Daisy Singla, Lia Fernald, Helen Pitchik, Uzaib Saya, Ronald Otieno, Edith Alu (2020). “Group-based parenting interventions to promote child development in rural Kenya: a cluster-randomized effectiveness trial.” Lancet Global Health. doi: 10.1016/S2214- 109X(20)30469-1.
50 Luoto, Jill, Italo Lopez Garcia, Frances Aboud, Daisy Singla, Rebecca Zhu, Ronald Otieno, Edith Alu (2021). “An implementation evaluation of a group -based parenting intervention to promote early childhood development in rural Kenya.” Frontiers in Public Health.
Luoto, Jill, Italo Lopez Garcia, Frances Aboud, Daisy Singla, Lia Fernald (2019). "Testing means to scale early childhood development interventions in rural Kenya: the Msingi Bora cluster randomized controlled trial study design and protocol", BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):259. PMID 30832624
Lopez Garcia, Italo, Michael Pollard (2021). "Exploring the Social Security Benefit Implications of Same- Sex Marriage". Available at SocArXiv papers. doi:10.31235/osf.io/2qyba
REVISE AND RESUBMIT ARTICLES
Carneiro, Pedro, Emanuela Galasso, Italo Lopez Garcia, Miguel Cordero, Paula Bedregal (2021). "Impacts of a Large-Scale Parenting Program: Experimental Evidence from Chile." Revise and Resubmit 2nd round Journal of Political Economy.
Lopez Garcia, Italo (2021). "Human Capital and Labor Informality in Developing Countries: A Structural Dynamic Approach", Revise and Resubmit 2nd round Journal of Human Cap- ital.
WORKING PAPERS
Lopez Garcia, Italo, Nicole Maestas, Kathleen Mullen (2021). “The Changing Nature of Work.” Under Review in American Economic Review: Insights. Working Paper available at MRDRC WP 2020-415.
Lopez Garcia, Italo, Nicole Maestas, Kathleen Mullen (2021). “Latent Work Capacity and Retirement Expectations.” Under Review in Journal of Health Economics . Working Paper available at MRDRC WP 2019-400.
Lopez Garcia, Italo, Frances Aboud, Lia Fernald, Jill Luoto (2021). “Medium-term impacts of Msingi Bora, a group-based parenting intervention to promote child development in rural Kenya” To be submitted to Lancet Global Health.
Lopez Garcia, Italo, Kathleen Mullen, Jeffrey Wenger (2021). “Heterogeneous Effects of Retirement and Cognition: Estimating a Life-cycle Model of Retirement, Job Demands, Cognitive Health Investments and Cognitive Capital”. To be submitted to Journal of Public Economics.
Lopez Garcia, Italo, Helen Pitchik, Jill Luoto (2022). “Estimating the Production Function of Children’s Cognitive and Socioemotional Development: Evidence from Early and Medium- term Impacts of the Msingi Bora Trial”.
Jill Luoto, Frances Aboud, Lia Fernald, Italo Lopez Garcia (2022). “Spillover effects into younger siblings of an effective group -based parenting intervention: Evidence from the medium-term impacts of the Msingi Bora trial”.
Lopez Garcia, Italo, Kathleen Mullen, Jeffrey Wenger (2022). “The Role of Physical and Cognitive Job Demands on Disability and Retirement”.
51 Hurd, Michael, Italo Lopez Garcia, Susann Rohwedder (2021). "Willingness to Pay for Long-term Care Insurance in the United States: Evidence from the RAND American Life Panel Survey".
GRANTS
Principal Investigator, Michigan Retirement Research Center. "The Role of Physical and Cognitive Job Demands and Environmental Conditions on Disability and Retirement". Oct 2021 - Sep 2022. Budget:
$125,000
Principal Investigator, Michigan Retirement Research Center. "The Role of Physical and Cognitive Job Demands on Work and Retirement". Oct 2020 - Sep 2021. Budget: $125,000
Principal Investigator, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), Grant R21 HD099488. "Pathways and Mediators of Change in Early Childhood Development" July 2020 - June 2022.
Budget: $448,000
Co-Investigator, NICHD, Grant R21 HD098508-01. "Testing Means to Sustain Short -term Early Childhood Development Impacts Long-term". PI: Jill Luoto (RAND). Feb 2020 - Jan 2022. Budget: $393,000
Principal Investigator, National Institute of Aging, Grant R21 AG058114-01A1. "Heterogeneous Effects of Retirement on Cognition in the United States: The Role of Job Demands.
July 2018 - June 2021. Budget: $544,000
Co-Investigator, NICHD, Grant R01 HD090045 -01A1. "Testing Means to Scale of Early Childhood Development Interventions in Rural Kenya". PI: Jill Luoto (RAND). Apr 2017 - Mar 2022. Budget:
$3,924,000
Principal Investigator, Korean Institute of Health and Social Affairs. "Marriage and Fertility in Korea: A Life-cycle Model of Women’s Education, Work, and Family Decision". Sep 2016 - Dec 2018. Budget:
$400,000
Co-Principal Investigator, Michigan Retirement Research Center. "The Changing Nature of Work". PI:
Kathleen Mullen (RAND). Oct 2019 - Sep 2020. Budget: $125,000
Co-Investigator, Michigan Retirement Research Center. "Latent Work Capacity and Retirement Expectations". PI: Kathleen Mullen. Oct 2018 - Sep 2019. Budget: $100,000
Co-Investigator, Michigan Retirement Research Center. "Exploring the Social Security Benefit Implication
of Same-Sex Marriage in the United States". PI: Michael Pollard (RAND). Oct 2016 - Sep 2017. Budget: $100,000
Co-Principal Investigator, Korean Institute of Health and Social Affairs. "A Dynamic Micro- simulation Model of Korean Saving, Work, and Retirement Decisions". Mar 2015 - Dec 2017. Budget: $350,000
Principal Investigator, Michigan Retirement Research Center. "Means-tested Minimum Old-age Benefits, Poverty Rates and Well -being: Studying the 2008 Chilean Pension Re- forms". Oct 2015 - Sep 2016.
Budget: $100,000
52 Co-Investigator, World Bank Research Scholarship Bursary. "The Role of Parental Beliefs in Parental Investments in Children and Child Development: Evidence from a Large-scale Parenting Intervention in Chile". PI: Emanuela Galasso (World Bank). Mar 2014-Dec 2015. Budget: $442,000
GRANTS UNDER REVISION
Co-Principal Investigator, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), R01 HD104940. "Gender Equity, Parental Well-Being and Child Development in Rural Kenya: The Role of Father Involvement" April 2022 - March 2027. Budget: $3,679,023
Co-Principal Investigator, National Institute of Aging (NIA), R01 AG069944. "Work, Leisure, Cognitive Decline and Dementia: A life-cycle model" April 2022 - March 2027. $3,493,190
Co-Investigator, National Institute of Aging (NIA), R01 AG046290. "Assessment of Health- Related Work Capacity to Improve Independence of Older Adults". PI: Nicole Maestas (Harvard). December 2021 - November 2026. $3,906,267
PRESENTER AT CONFERENCES
Mar 2021 Society of Research in Child Development (SRCD) 2021, "An economic evaluation of effective group-based parenting interventions to promote early child development in rural Kenya".
Mar 2021 Michigan Retirement Research Center Workshop, Ann Harbor, "The Role of Physical and Cognitive Job Demands on Work and Retirement".
Jun 2019 CESPAR Workshop - The economics of aging 2019 - Sydney, Australia, "Adequacy and Sustainability of the Korean Defined-Benefit Pension System: Evidence from a Life-cycle Model of Labor Supply, Consumption, Wealth and Pensions".
Mar 2019 Michigan Retirement Research Center Workshop, Ann Harbor, "Latent Work Capacity and Retirement Expectations".Mar 2019 Society of Research in Child Development (SRCD) 2019 - Baltimore, "Parental Beliefs, Investments and Child Development: Evidence from a large-scale Randomized Control Trial".
Jan 2017 13th International Conference - - Western Economic Association International, Santiago, Chile. "The Role of Beliefs in Parental Investments in Children and Child Development: Evidence from a Large- scale Parenting Intervention in Chile".
Apr 2017 Michigan Retirement Research Center Workshop, Ann Harbor, "Willingness to Pay for Long- Term Care Insurance in the United States: How much Individuals Value High Quality Nursing Homes?".
Oct 2016 LACEA -LAMES 2016, Medellin, Colombia, "The Role of Beliefs in Parental In- vestments in Children and Child Development: Evidence from a large-scale parenting intervention in Chile".
May 2016 21st Society of Labor Economists meetings (SOLE), Seattle, "Intergenerational Mobility and the Timing of Parental Income".
53 Apr 2016 Michigan Retirement Research Center Workshop, Ann Harbor, "Willingness to Pay for Nursing Home Quality in the United States".
Ago 2015 Banff/Calgary Empirical Micro Workshop, Banff, Canada, "Intergenerational Mobility and the Timing of Parental Income".
Jul 2015 NBER Summer Institute, Boston, "Willingness to Pay for Long-Term Care Insurance in the United States".
Apr 2015 Michigan Retirement Research Center Workshop, Ann Harbor, "The Effects of the 2008 Chilean Pension Reform in Labor Supply and Income Inequality".
TEACHING
2021- : Introduction to Statistics, Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC.
2015-2017: Empirical Analysis III, RAND Pardee School of Public Policy
2012: Public Microeconomics, M.Sc. Economics, University College of London 2010-2014:
Econometrics, 2d year undergraduate, University College of London
AFFILIATIONS
Research Affiliate Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, Germany Society of Labor Economists (SOLE) Latin American Economic Association (LACEA)
REFERRING
PLOS One, European Economic Review, Journal of Human Capital, LABOUR: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial Relations, Economics and Human Biology, RAND Peer- Reviewed Reports
54 APPENDIX B
ABOUT RAND’s Survey Research Group
55 RAND
Survey Research Group
The Survey Research Group (SRG) was established in 1972 to provide RAND with an in-house capability for conducting primary data collection. SRG is composed of survey methodologists, behavioral scientists, and specialists in the operational and technical aspects of survey research. These professionals share a common interest and expertise in applying state -of-the-art survey methods to the special challenges of public policy research.
One major challenge is the application of such nontraditional survey methods as interviewing specialized populations, mixing data collection methods, and implementing experimental designs. SRG staff have developed and tested a variety of approaches to such problems. They have designed and conducted mail, telephone and in- person surveys with physicians, corporate officials, attorneys, government officials, administrators of institutions, teachers and other elite professional groups, as well as with households and special populations like AIDS patients, the homeless, military perso nnel, school children, criminal offenders, sex industry workers, and substance abusers. SRG has also designed and managed data abstraction from public and private institutional records and conducted observational surveys of social processes and physical phenomena. In addition, SRG has successfully implemented experimental designs in such policy areas as health care cost containment and drug prevention.
SRG has developed a special expertise in carrying out studies that vary greatly in scale, budget, resear ch design, and management. Though some studies have been modest in size and cost, others have required multiple waves of data collection over several years at a considerable expenditure of personnel and financial resources. Similarly, they have conducted projects using a straightforward application of standard survey procedures as well as others that required innovative design and management. For some projects SRG staff have carried out all aspects of research design and implementation; for others they have worked with a consortium of research institutions and one or more subcontractors.
In meeting these challenges, SRG has evolved a flexible approach that emphasizes custom -tailored survey design and state-of -the-art survey methodology. Within this framework, SRG provides a wide range of services, among which are:
• Data collection design, including evaluation of alternative methods, scheduling, budgeting and technical planning
• Design of survey instruments, including the substance and wording of items, te chnical formatting and layout, planning for cost-effective data entry, cognitive testing, pretesting, and pilot testing • Preparation of documents, like project descriptions, OMB clearance packages and codebooks • Design and operations for sample selection and control, including locating and evaluating sources for sample frames, and tracking and maintaining longitudinal panels • Management and staffing for data collection, featuring scheduling, costing and technical planning as well as recruiting, hiring, and training interviewers, data abstractors, and coders • Conducting data collection, including focus groups, personal interviews, telephone surveys, mailed surveys, observational research, and abstraction and coding of data from public and private records • Obtaining cooperation with data collection from local communities, businesses, professional organizations, government officials, and other elite groups as well as enrolling participants in longitudinal studies
• Selecting and monitoring survey subcontractors, including writing RFPs, evaluating potential contractors, negotiating contracts, and maintaining the quality of ongoing work. 56 Additionally, SRG has capabilities for web usability testing; facilities for computer -assisted telephone interviewing (CATI); web surveys; an infrastructure for computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI); direct data entry; data scanning and production of scannable data collection forms; interactive data cleaning; management and reporting of sample status; internal and external tra cking of documents using bar code technology; and high -quality support for preparing questionnaires, personalized letters, and other survey materials.
SRG staff may become involved in a project in several ways. On many projects, SRG staff act as internal contractors, providing advice and technical assistance at various stages of project design and operation or serving as part -time project staff with specific responsibility for survey activities. For other projects, staff carry out all aspects of research design and implementation including complex data collection efforts taking place over a period of years.
SURVEY OPERATIONS AND TECHNICAL UNIT
The Survey Operations and Technical Unit is located at Santa Monica headquarters. The unit houses SRG staff and infrastructure devoted to survey operations, survey programming and survey support. The unit includes a centralized telephone interviewing center, a data reduction department responsible for conducting mail surveys and performing coding, editing and other computer data preparation tasks, a field data collection department to support computerized and non -computerized field interviewing, a unit of technical staff experienced in the design, programming and support of computer -assisted data collection (web, laptop, tablet, smartphone or other handheld device), and a core team of staff experienced in handling of files for record abstraction. These core capabilities are described below.
Telephone Surveys
The Survey Research Group (SRG) has operated a centralized telephone interviewing facility in Santa Monica since 1976. The telephone survey center provides RAND research investigators with an in -house capability for conducting computer-assisted telephone surveys. The unit has 25 individual interviewing stations. SRG maintains a core group of experienced interviewers and hires additional staff as needed. The work of all interviewers is systematically monitored for quality control and interviewer guidance. The central monitoring system enables both audio and visual “real time” monitoring of interviews in progress.
The Telephone Survey Center (TSC) uses the Berkeley CASES for CATI (computer -assisted-telephone interview) data collection. RAND was the first off -campus user of CASES system an d is running a current version of the software. The CATI system displays interview questions on a computer monitor for interviewers to read, and allows direct entry of responses into the computer data base at the time of the interview, while employing rea l-time edit and logic checks. It facilitates implementation of complex survey designs because it can quickly determine sample eligibility, provide appropriate skipping and branching routines, and tailor question wording to respondent and site characterist ics. The system includes sample management as well as automatic call scheduling and case delivery. This allows SRG to maintain the status of each case in the sample and to work the sample efficiently according to survey priorities and scheduled appointments. The telephone center is also used for respondent tracking, mail survey follow -up, and data retrieval.
Since the establishment of the telephone facility, SRG interviewers conducted local and national surveys with sample sizes from a few dozen to 60,0 00 using a range of sampling methods. Interviewers conducted interviews in multiple languages including English, Spanish, Russian, and Chinese. Interviewers conducted interviews with physicians and medical office staff, patients, household respondents, a ctive and retired 57 military, youth, substance users, institutional representatives, corporate executives, state court administrators, judges, hospital and nursing home administrators, and school district officials.
Data Reduction Department and Mail Surveys
The Data Reduction department (DR) conducts mail surveys and contributes to sample management by updating names and addresses, produces personalized contact materials (including payments to respondents), documents sample outcomes, generates lists for follow-up, and compiles reports. Clerks edit, code and prepare paper -and-pencil instruments for data entry. Specialists generate scannable forms and surveys, and oversee the data scanning of Opscan and non -opscan forms or surveys (using Teleforms software). A computerized record management system tracks cases and generates the next step in the survey process, such as a form to trigger a telephone follow-up call, a reminder letter to non-respondents or a new mailing of materials. Clerks can produce bar code tracking labels and use optical scanning equipment to record receipt of a document and track it throughout the system for individual cases and calculating response rates and summaries to monitor survey progress. Privacy safeguards in the system ensure that links cannot be made between an individual’s name and address information and responses to survey questions.
Field Survey Operations
SRG has extensive experience carrying out surveys with difficult -to-access and interview populations in the field ( for example, school children, immigrants, homeless youth, mentally ill and HIV positive adults, sex industry workers and low -income newly married couples). SRG maintains a core team of field specialists, team leads and interviewers who are able to conduct interviews nationwide. Field questionnaires can be paper-based or computer-assisted including laptops, tablets and handheld devices.
SRG works closely with community leaders and organizations to establish cooperation in individual communities between the providers of information and the data collection staff. SRG project management staff can develop and implement strategies for sampling, including mapping and listing households, and can assist with instrument development and testing. In conjunction with the field staff, SRG project management staff participate in pretesting, piloting and fielding the main study, as well as using previous survey experience to increase response rate and choose appropriate and motivating respondent incentives.
Web-based Surveys
SRG hosts web -based surveys using a variety of applications tailored to specific data collection tasks. SRG uses Confirmit Horizon software hosted in the Confirmit cloud to provide highly scalable and available surveys that allow for the full range of computer-assisted interview features (e.g. skips, calculations, error checking, testing for logical consistency, response rotations, text fills, pre -loaded data etc.). For projects that employ multiple modes of computer -assisted data collection the s uite of UC Berkeley CASES programs are used to provide a combination of web, CATI and/or CAPI interviewing from a single programmed instrument with a common backend database. SRG is also the administrative home for web -based Delphi studies using the “Expert Lens” application developed at RAND. Expert Lens provides multiple rounds of surveys, typically of area specialists, providing feedback with each round in an effort to achieve consensus amongst the expert of experts. All surveys are conducted using a Secure Socket Layer (SSL) and the server is monitored continuously to detect unauthorized access. In sum, RAND SRG provides secure and sophisticated web surveys.
Record Abstraction
58 SRG also has expertise in the abstraction of medical, legal, and other t ypes of records. This includes the review and coding of information contained in patient files, treatment program protocols, legal decisions, and financial data. SRG staff have experience in the development of paper -based and computerized abstraction forms or instruments, training and quality control procedures, coding schemes appropriate to the project task, and experience in record review and abstraction, and data entry and cleaning. SRG staffs each project with abstractors who have the appropriate ski ll and background for the project. When appropriate, SRG trains program or medical office or health plan staff to conduct on -site abstraction. For some projects, SRG project management staff have directed and coordinated the efforts of a vendor to review and abstract records.
Qualitative Data Collection
In addition to quantitative data collection, SRG houses experts in qualitative methods (focus groups, semi - structured interviews, cognitive interviews). SRG can conduct recruitment for such research via a network of recruitment vendors or using in -house staff, depending on the needs of the project and target population.
SRG has over 14 staff with expertise in focus group moderation, semi -structured interviews, and cognitive testing methods and can conduct groups in English, Spanish, and Chinese. Past stu dies have included children, adolescents, specialist physicians, hospital quality leaders, and Medicare beneficiaries. SRG codes qualitative data using a range of tools including Excel, Dedoose, NVivo, and Atlas.
59 APPENDIX C
City of El Monte Descriptive Characteristics
60 Table 1: City El Monte Descriptive Characteristics in 2019
Total households 31,535
Population (civilian noninstitutionalized) 115,477
Households with Income Below Poverty Level in Last Year All families
With related children of the householder under 18 years 20.4% With related children of the householder under 5 years only 16.8% Families with female householder, no spouse present
With related children of the householder under 18 years 28.8%
Population Characteristics
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 60.0%
White 27.9%
Asian 32.4%
Some other race 32.1%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 4.1%
Public Health Insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, VA) 52.6%
No health insurance coverage 11.4%
Population by age under 5 years 5.9%
Population by age 5 to 9 years 4.5%
Population by age 10 to 14 years 6.8%
Population by age 15 to 17 years
Population Under 18 years
3.3%
20.5%
Population by age 18 to 64 years 63.8%
Population by age 65 years and over 15.8%
Population 3 years and over enrolled in school (N = 27,183) Nursery school, preschool 5.8%
Kindergarten 4.6%
Elementary school (grades 1-8) 36.6%
Population 16 and over (N = 95,090)
In labor force, employed 57.8%
In labor force, unemployed 3.3%
Not in labor force 38.9%
Unemployment rate 5.4%
Mean travel time to work 31.8 min
Notes: Data from 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates
61 APPENDIX D
City of El Monte Block Maps
62 City of El Monte: Blocks with Households Below Poverty Level
63 City of El Monte: Blocks with Households with Children Under 18 and a Female Head of Household with No Husband Present
64 APPENDIX E
References
65 Aguila, E., Kapteyn, A., & Perez-Arce, F. (2017). Consumption Smoothing and Frequency of Benefit Payments of Cash Transfer Programs. American Economic Review , 107(5), 430– 435. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171147
Aguila, E., & Smith, J. P. (2020). Supplemental Income Program Design: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial to Examine the Health and Wellbeing Effects on Older Adults by Gender, Duration, and Payment.
Social Science and Medicine, 259, 113139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113139 Angelucci, M., & De Giorgi, G. (2009). Indirect Effects of an Aid Program: How Do Cash Transfers Affect Ineligibles’ Consumption? American Economic Review , 99(1), 486– 508. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.1.486
Angrist, J., King, E., Kremer, M., Bettinger, E., & Bloom, E. (2002). Vouchers for Private Schooling in Colombia:
Evidence from a Randomized Natural Experiment. American Economic Review, 92, 1535– 1558. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802762024629
Attanasio, O., & Lechene, V. (2010). Conditional cash transfers, women and the demand for food. In IFS Working Papers (W10/17; IFS Working Papers). Institute for Fiscal Studies. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ifs/ifsewp/10-17.html
Attanasio, O. P., Meghir, C., & Santiago, A. (2012). Education Choices in Mexico: Using a Structural Model and a Randomized Experiment to Evaluate PROGRESA. The Review of Economic Studies , 79(1), 37– 66. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdr015
Banerjee, A., Cole, S., Duflo, E., & Linden, L. (2003). Improving the Quality of Education in India: Evidence from Three Randomized Experiments. https://users.nber.org/~confer/2003/chs03/duflo.pdf Behrman, J., & Sengupta, P. (2005). Progressing through PROGRESA: An Impact Assessment of a School Subsidy Experiment in Rural Mexico. Economic Development and Cultural Change , 54, 237– 275. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.286295
Berkman, L. F. (2009). Social Epidemiology: Social Determinants of Health in the United States: Are We Losing Ground? Annual Review of Public Health, 30, 27– 41.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100310 Berkman, L. F., Ertel, K. A., & Glymour, M. M. (2011). Aging and Social Intervention: Life Course Perspectives.
Elsevier Academic Press, The handbooks of aging consisting of three Vols. Handbook of aging and the social sciences, 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-380880-6.00024-1 Bitran, R., & Giedion, U. (2003). W aivers and exemptions for health services in developing countries (No. 33359; pp. 1– 2). The World Bank.
http://documentos.bancomundial.org/curated/es/2003/01/6246381/waivers-exemptions-health- services-developing-countries
Bobonis, G., Miguel, E., & Sharma, C. (2004). Iron deficiency anemia and school participation. In Natural Field Experiments (No. 00219; Natural Field Experiments). The Field Experiments Website. https://ideas.repec.org/p/feb/natura/00219.html
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2019). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 cohort, 1979-2016 (rounds 1-27) [Produced and distributed by the Center for Human Resource Research (CHRR)Produced and distributed by the Center for Human Resource Research (CHRR), The Ohio State University. Columbus, OH]. https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy79 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2020). American Time Use Survey [Interview]. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/atus.html
Coady, D., Grosh, M., & Hoddinott, J. (2004). Targeting of transfers in developing countries: Review of lessons and experience (No. 30230; pp. 1– 320). The World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/464231468779449856/Targeting-of-transfers-in- developing-countries-review-of-lessons-and-experience
Collin, D. F., Shields-Zeeman, L. S., Batra, A., White, J. S., Tong, M., & Hamad, R. (2021). The effects of state earned income tax credits on mental health and health behaviors: A quasi-experimental study. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 276, 113274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113274 66 Cronbach, L. J., & Shapiro, K. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social program s. Jossey-Bass. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Designing+evaluations+of+educational+and+socia l+programs&author=Cronbach%2C+Lee+J.+%28Lee+Joseph%29&publication_year=1982 Diez-Roux, A., Phelan, J. C., Link, B. G., Kawachi, I., & Levin, B. (2 004). “Fundamental causes” of social inequalities in mortality: A test of the theory. Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 45(3), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650404500303
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G . (2011). Individual risk attitudes:
Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3), 522–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x Duncan, G. J., Morris, P. A., & Rodrigues, C. (2011). Does money really matter? Estimating impacts of family income on young children’s achievement with data from random-assignment experiments.
Developmental Psychology, 47(5), 1263–1279. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023875 Finkelstein, A., Taubman, S., Wright, B., Bernstein, M., Gruber, J., Newhouse, J. P., Allen, H., Baicker, K., & Group, O. H. S. (2012). The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: Evidence from the First Year. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3), 1057–1106. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjs020 Garcia, M. A., Homan, P. A., Garcia, C., & Brown, T. H. (2020). The Color of COVID -19: Structural Racism and the Disproportionate Impact of the Pandemic on Older Black and Latinx Adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Pshychological Sciences and Social Sciences , gbaa114. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa114
Haushofer, J., & Shapiro, J. (2016). The Short -term Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers to the Poor:
ExperimentalEvidence from Kenya. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 131(4), 1973– 2042. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw025
Health and Retirement Study. (2021). Public use dataset . Produced and Distributed by the University of Michigan with Funding from the National Institute on Aging (Grant Number NIA U01AG009740). Ann Arbor, MI. https://hrs.isr.umich.edu/about
Heckman, J. J., & Karapakula, G. (2019). The Perry Preschoolers at Late Midlife: A Study in Design-Specific Inference (Working Paper No. 25888; Working Paper Series). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w25888
Hevia de la Jara, F. (2009). De Progresa a Oportunidades: Efectos y límites de la corriente cívica en el gobierno de Vicente Fox. Sociológica (México) , 24(70), 43– 81.
http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/soc/v24n70/v24n70a3.pdf
Jones, D., & Marinescu, I. (2018). The Labor Market Impacts of Universal and Permanent Cash Transfers:
Evidence from the Alaska Permanent Fund. In NBER Working Papers (No. 24312; NBER Working Papers). Na tional Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/24312.html
Lee, J. S., & Frongillo, E. A. (2001). Understanding needs is important for assessing the impact of food assistance program participation on nutritional and health status in U.S. elderly persons. The Journal of Nutrition, 131(3), 765–773. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/131.3.765 Levy, D., & Ohls, J. (2010). Evaluation of Jamaica’s PATH conditional cash transfer programme. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 2(4), 421–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2010.519783 Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. (1995). Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Spec No((Extra Issue)), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/2626958 Linver, M., Martin, A. , & Brooks -Gunn, J. (2004). Measuring Infants’ Home Environment: The IT-HOME for Infants Between Birth and 12 Months in Four National Data Sets. Parenting-Science and Practice - PARENT-SCI PRACT, 4, 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0402&3_2 Ludwig, J., Duncan, G. J., Gennetian, L. A., Katz, L. F., Kessler, R. C., Kling, J. R., & Sanbonmatsu, L. (2012).
Neighborhood effects on the long -term well-being of low -income adults. Science (New York, N.Y.) , 337(6101), 1505–1510. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1224648 67 Marmot, M. (2002). The influence of income on health: Views of an epidemiologist. Health Affairs (Project Hope), 21(2), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.21.2.31 Martin-West, S., Castro Baker, A., Balakrishnan, S., Rao, K., & Tan, G. Y. (2019). Pre-Analysis Plan Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration . https://www.jainfamilyinstitute.org/assets/seed -pre- analysis-plan-july-2019.pdf
Miguel, E., & Kremer, M. (2003). Worms: Identifying Impacts on Education and Health in the Presence of Treatment Externalities. Econometrica, 72(1), 159– 217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 0262.2004.00481.x
Misra, S. (2012). Randomized double blind placebo control studies, the “Gold Standard” in intervention based studies. Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitt ed Diseases and AIDS , 33(2), 131– 134. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7184.102130
Newson, L., & Bourne, A. W. (2011). Financing social pensions in low- and middle-income countries. HelpAge International. www.pension-watch.net
Shapiro, J. M. (2005). Is there a daily discount rate? Evidence from the food stamp nutrition cycle. Journal of Public Economics, 89(2–3), 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.05.003 Singh, A., Kaushik, A., Kumar, R., Nair, M., & Bhansali, S. (2014). Electrochemical Sensing of Cortisol: A Recent Update. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology , 174(3), 1115– 1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-014-0894-2
Vermeersch, C., & Kremer, M. (2005). Schools meals, educational achievement and school competition:
Evidence from a randomized evaluation. In Policy Research Working Paper Series (No. 3523; Policy Research Working Paper Series). The World Bank. https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/3523.html Willmore, L. (2007). Universal Pensions for Developing Countries. World Development , 35(1), 24– 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.09.008
68 APPENDIX F
Attachments
DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95 SECTION 00470
FALSE CLAIMS
Bidders/Proposers shall provide either the certification requested below or the information requested on the next page. Failure to certify or provide the requested information may result in a determination that the Bidder/Proposer is non-responsive. Failure to fully and accurately provide the requested certification or information may result in a determination that the Bidder/Proposer is not responsible. "False Claims Act", as used herein, is defined as either or both the Federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Sections 3729 et seq., and the California False Claims Act, Government Code Sections 12650 et seq.
FALSE CLAIMS ACT CERTIFICATION
If the Bidder/Proposer has no False Claims Act violations as described above, complete the following:
I, __ .,--__ -=-- _ __,,.,..------------,,--' hereby certify that neither (print name of owner, officer, manager, or licensee responsible for submission of Bid/Proposal) (Bidder/Proposer name as shown on Bid/Proposal)
nor -------------------------------
(name of responsible managing person licensed by Contractors' State License Board) has been determined by a court or tribunal of competentjurisdiction to have violated the False Claims Act as defined above.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this day at --- --------- -------------
(month and year) (city and state)
by _ ____,-------,..,,------------,----------,----,-_____,------,--....,...,.,...,--,----,----- (signature of owner, officer, manager, or licensee responsible for submission of Bid/Proposal)
FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
With regard to any determinations by a tribunal or court of competent jurisdiction that the False Claims Act, as defined above, has been violated by (1) the Bidder/Proposer submitting this Bid/Proposal, including any person who is an officer of, or in a management position with, or has an ownership interest in the contracting entity which is submitting this Bid/Proposal, or (2) the qualifying person licensed by the State Contractors' License Board to perform the work described in the Bid/Proposal, including any such person when they were an officer, manager, owner, or responsible managing employee of a construction contractor other than the Bidder/Proposer submitting this Bid/Proposal, Bidder/Proposer shall provide on the following page labeled "False Claim Act Violations Information:" (1) the date of the determination of the violation, (2) the identity of tribunal or court and the case name or number, if any, (3) the identity of government contract or project involved, (4) the identity of government agency involved, 5) the amount of fine imposed, and (6) any exculpatory information of which the City should be aware.
False Claims
00470-1
21 February 2022 Pittsburgh, PA
Linda F. Duffy
The RAND Corporation
DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95
DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95 DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95 Linda F. Duffy
The RAND Corporation
22 February 2022 Pittsburgh, PA
DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95
DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95 DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95 Linda F. Duffy
The RAND Corporation
DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95
CIVIL LITIGATION HISTORY INFORMATION
(1) Name of Case: __________________________ _
Court case identification number: ______________________ _ (2) Jurisdiction in which case was filed: _____________________ _ (3) Outcome of the case: _ _________________________ _
(1) Name of Case: ___________________________ _
Court case identification number: ______________________ _ (2} Jurisdiction in which case was filed: ______________________ _ (3) Outcome of the case: __________________________ _
(month and year) (city and state)
Declaration: I declare under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct.
Executed this ___ day of ________ at _______
___ _
by _____________________________ _
(signature of owner, officer, manager, or licensee responsible for submission of Bid/Proposal) Civil Litigation History
00471-2
*RAND is not engaged in any civil litigation what would prevent RAND from performing work under this contract. 21 February 2022 Pittsburgh, PA
DocuSign Envelope ID: A39A7195-A7DC-4275-A2B3-5E957089EE95
DocuSign Envelope ID: 71473AF9-E6DF-4A3F-9C3F-1B919D3BA214 The RAND Corporation
Not applicable
DocuSign Envelope ID: 71473AF9-E6DF-4A3F-9C3F-1B919D3BA214 Not applicable
DocuSign Envelope ID: 71473AF9-E6DF-4A3F-9C3F-1B919D3BA214 Linda F. Duffy
Director Contracts, Grants, and Procurement
The RAND Corporation
22February 22
DocuSign Envelope ID: 71473AF9-E6DF-4A3F-9C3F-1B919D3BA214
14.5 17.1